Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. Hey, like most of you,
Speaker 1: I had not have had trouble sleeping, but I sleep
Speaker 1: better than ever. And you know what, It's all because
Speaker 1: of a pillow. Mike Lindell's My Pillow has changed my
Speaker 1: life for the better and it works. What makes my
Speaker 1: Pillow so different is their patented adjustable phil Now you
Speaker 1: can adjust a patent and filter your exact individual comfort
Speaker 1: need and get the support you absolutely must have, and
Speaker 1: that means you fall asleep faster, you stay asleep longer.
Speaker 1: It just works. Millions of people have already discovered that
Speaker 1: my Pillow works for them, and now it's time for
Speaker 1: you to experience my Pillow for yourself. Just go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com, use the promo code Sean, and
Speaker 1: when you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best
Speaker 1: offer ever. By one my pillow, get another one absolutely free. Now.
Speaker 1: My pillows, made in the USA has a ten year
Speaker 1: warranty and a sixty day unconditional money back guarantee, so
Speaker 1: you have nothing to lose. So get started and get
Speaker 1: the sleep you crave and deserve. My Pillow dot com
Speaker 1: promo code, Hannah and get Mike Lindell's special two for
Speaker 1: one offer. That's my pillow dot com promo code, Sean.
Speaker 1: All Right, more massive developments today. This is getting more
Speaker 1: interesting by the minute. Glad you are with us right
Speaker 1: down our toll free telephone number. You know what we're
Speaker 1: calling this deep state gate, state sponsored sabotage. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this,
Speaker 1: but those that have been wrong in lying to their
Speaker 1: audiences for over a year, this is outrageous. People like Hannity,
Speaker 1: they're attacking the FBI and our intelligence community with abandoned
Speaker 1: and they're and they're getting the support of Russian trolls
Speaker 1: and bots. This is this is what I'm reading and
Speaker 1: hearing about myself today. Let me be very clear to
Speaker 1: you idiots that missed the biggest story in your career.
Speaker 1: That's say you work in this business of journalism. You
Speaker 1: know those of you that you know have this inner
Speaker 1: circle amongst yourself and this little bubble you've created for yourself,
Speaker 1: and this little echo chamber that you've created for yourself.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you right now, there's nobody on the
Speaker 1: air that I know of today that has throughout his
Speaker 1: entire career supported and praised rightly. So law enforcement, which
Speaker 1: includes police officers, and that would mean fireman and our
Speaker 1: military will add them to the list. Paramedics, uh, the FBI,
Speaker 1: the CIA, and yeah, the intelligence community, of which I
Speaker 1: have many friends in the FBI, have many friends in
Speaker 1: the intel community. They all thank me for what I
Speaker 1: am doing. They're more disgusted than I am about the
Speaker 1: latest developments. I've always gone out of my way to
Speaker 1: say that this is not the rank and file. This
Speaker 1: is not the special agent in a field office working
Speaker 1: for the FBI. This is not the person that does
Speaker 1: the deep intelligence dive using the the weaponry of intelligence
Speaker 1: that is more sophisticated than it's ever been. I'm act,
Speaker 1: I absolutely positively have been making a distinction. But that
Speaker 1: doesn't stop those on the left. You know, do you
Speaker 1: realize at the end of this, we're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: see how wrong these people have been, how of course
Speaker 1: they have been. I see that they're all obsessed with
Speaker 1: ah Mueller set to question Bannon and Trump on Flynn
Speaker 1: and Gonkomi obstruction of justice. Okay, so you couldn't get
Speaker 1: anybody on the Trump Russia thing. Now we're onto that. Okay,
Speaker 1: why not, We'll try We'll try anything that sticks at
Speaker 1: this point. Um. But what we're what has happened is
Speaker 1: the media's missed the biggest story of their careers, and
Speaker 1: they've missed it because of really blind partisan viciousness on
Speaker 1: their part. They never remember. They laughed at the idea
Speaker 1: that Trump was gonna run, They laughed at the idea
Speaker 1: that he could win. On election night, it was like
Speaker 1: a funeral watching these people on television and Election night
Speaker 1: November eight, every network, same thing. Funeral. It was like
Speaker 1: they lost their best friend. They couldn't believe and they
Speaker 1: have since that time not accepted the verdict of the
Speaker 1: American people. Now, the problem is, and I've been very
Speaker 1: specific as those people at the highest levels of the FBI,
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department, and of the Intel community have
Speaker 1: been they have done things that are extraordinarily dangerous to
Speaker 1: the rule of law and to our constitution, our Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. And what we're
Speaker 1: doing is slowly and now pretty surely exposing all of this.
Speaker 1: And it's all beginning to come together, and we're just
Speaker 1: gonna keep going until we get to the absolute truth
Speaker 1: about what happened, with the hope that something like this
Speaker 1: could never happen again in the United States of America.
Speaker 1: And the fact that we're doing their job for them
Speaker 1: is I guess frustrating to them, and so they want
Speaker 1: to lash out against me. I think the funniest thing
Speaker 1: I've ever seen is, uh, you know, Mother Jones is
Speaker 1: like this radical, radical left wing you know publication. I
Speaker 1: don't even think they published. I think they're just an
Speaker 1: online thing that nobody reads anymore. And the headline is
Speaker 1: and they put a nice ugly picture up of me
Speaker 1: with like the Twitter birds, except they're not blue and white,
Speaker 1: it's red and white. And Sean Hannity is now a
Speaker 1: favorite weapon of Russian trolls attacking America. I guess the
Speaker 1: next thing they're gonna accuse me of of colluding with
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin. Remember they went after poor Michael Cohen, the
Speaker 1: attorne for Donald Trump, and and and they tried, they
Speaker 1: tried to say, I he went to Russia and he
Speaker 1: shows his passport. No, never been to Russia. Whoopsie daisy. Anyway,
Speaker 1: what's funny about this? It goes soon after Trump sah
Speaker 1: blah blah, Michael Flynn plea deal special counsel. Kremlin link
Speaker 1: trolls began wrapped me up their social media attacks on
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation, tweeting out dozens of articles from Fox
Speaker 1: News far right outlets aimed at undermining the credibility of
Speaker 1: the FBI, the Department of Justice so called deep state.
Speaker 1: When we have a problem with the deep state, which
Speaker 1: I've been outlining for you, that's why I'm calling this
Speaker 1: deep state gate, state sponsored sabotage. Yeah, I am calling it.
Speaker 1: That does that mean I'm talking about everybody in the
Speaker 1: sea I know everybody. No, not everybody in the FBI.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just like saying, if you have one
Speaker 1: bad pastor, it does something wrong. Well, not every pastors,
Speaker 1: you know, acts that way. They are good people. And
Speaker 1: just because you have one bad cop doesn't meet every
Speaker 1: cop is bad. But you do have some people that
Speaker 1: have abused their power, and we now have the evidence
Speaker 1: to prove it, and we're proving it every single day,
Speaker 1: and we've it's taken a long time. But they laughed
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump tweeted out that he had been spied upon. Well,
Speaker 1: we broke that story almost a year ago. It's taken
Speaker 1: a year to get to this point, and what have
Speaker 1: we learned all of a sudden. Donna Brazil, she was
Speaker 1: the chair of the d n C and when she
Speaker 1: took over after Debby, Wasson and Schultz got into her
Speaker 1: problems and she did a deep dive into the d
Speaker 1: n C. And what did she finds? She found that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and the d n C had rigged the
Speaker 1: election in Hillary's favor. Okay, I'll accept that is truth.
Speaker 1: I've never in my entire life heard of an FBI
Speaker 1: director in the case of James Comey. And now we
Speaker 1: have the text messages with Peter Struck. Peter Struck was
Speaker 1: involved in everything, and he had a background in an
Speaker 1: expertise in all things Russia. And he's the one that
Speaker 1: was saying there's no there there by the way, let
Speaker 1: me let me go back to that for just remember.
Speaker 1: So this is the guy that is calling Trump all
Speaker 1: sorts of names, f Trump, Blah, blaze, lowthesome, and on
Speaker 1: and on and on from there with his mistress girlfriend.
Speaker 1: That's the girl lawyer, the woman lawyer that was advising
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe. Andrew McCabe and Struck and Page were the
Speaker 1: ones talking about an insurance policy of God forbid. Trump wins,
Speaker 1: and then of course they're talking about Loretta Lynch and
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch it's a it's a profile encourage because Loretta
Speaker 1: Lynch knows that they're not gonna tight Hillary. We know
Speaker 1: it's a sham. And Struck and call Me, You're writing
Speaker 1: an exhoneration in early May of Hillary Clinton. They don't
Speaker 1: interview Hillary Clinton till the fourth of July weekend, and
Speaker 1: seventeen other key players in the investigation they had an interviewed.
Speaker 1: So you're writing an exoneration of somebody that you didn't investigate.
Speaker 1: That sounds like the fixes in. That sounds to me
Speaker 1: like call me and Struck And and Loretta Lynch at
Speaker 1: some level and Page at some level, like they knew
Speaker 1: the fix was in so that they're chosen candidate wouldn't
Speaker 1: get indicted, and they would, you know, subvert the rule
Speaker 1: of law to allow her to continue to run for president.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it would have been chaotic if they indicted her.
Speaker 1: We know she committed multiple felonies. We've been over the
Speaker 1: numerous times on radio and TV. So they made the decision.
Speaker 1: So the fix was in on the primary then the
Speaker 1: fixes in that they're not gonna do a real investigation,
Speaker 1: They're gonna exonerate before investigate. And then we know that,
Speaker 1: you know, up to a year now, we have no
Speaker 1: evidence of Trump Russia collusion, because there is no evidence
Speaker 1: of Trump Russia collusion, and the fact that Muller and
Speaker 1: his corrupt merry band of Obama, Clinton and d n
Speaker 1: C donors and his you know, corrupt Andrew Weissman, who
Speaker 1: loses in the Supreme Court nine zero, tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of people lose their jobs, and then of course for
Speaker 1: innocent people go to jail Meryl executives only to be
Speaker 1: found uh an overturn in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's hire that guy with his great track record, and
Speaker 1: then let's hire only people that donate to Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: Obama and the DNC. No Republican. We can't find a
Speaker 1: Republican investigator anywhere. The same guy that hired Peter Struck
Speaker 1: and Lisa Page. They both worked on this thing too.
Speaker 1: What's fascinating is we got a new bit of information.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter is going to break it in the next
Speaker 1: Arrow'll give you a little bit of a headline here
Speaker 1: after Peter Struck and and sends Page Lisa page of
Speaker 1: text on March there's no they're they're regarding the Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion allegation. I don't think I want to go
Speaker 1: work on that. There's no there there. This was his
Speaker 1: area of expertise. He's talking about joining Mulla a special counsel.
Speaker 1: And then a few minutes later we're now finding out
Speaker 1: that he sent a text saying, all an investigation that
Speaker 1: leads to an impeachment. Maybe I should. We already know
Speaker 1: he thinks the president is loathesome. We already know that
Speaker 1: he's saying f Trump. We already know he wanted Hillary
Speaker 1: to win. We already know that he was the one
Speaker 1: that eventually ended up interviewing Hillary Clinton and giving her
Speaker 1: a pass. Lauretta Lynch, you know they're writing each other
Speaker 1: Page and Struck on July one, three days before Hillary
Speaker 1: is even interviewed on that particular case. Ah, she's showing
Speaker 1: such a profile and courage. She knows that we're not
Speaker 1: doing anything to Hillary. She's doing it anyway. Oh, such
Speaker 1: bad timing that she got caught with Bill Clinton on
Speaker 1: the tarmac and Phoenix. They're talking about their grandkids. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we believe that you know this is this is now
Speaker 1: come down to whether or not you've got a rigged primary.
Speaker 1: I would think that would be caused for an investigation,
Speaker 1: a rigged Hillary Clinton email server investigation. Nobody writes an
Speaker 1: exoneration before investigation. Anyone tells you that. Give me another example.
Speaker 1: Then you've got Hillary. We didn't know for a long
Speaker 1: time she her campaign funneled through a lawyer up to
Speaker 1: twelve million dollars and also through the same lawyer with
Speaker 1: the d n C that Donna Brazil says she was
Speaker 1: controlling the money to pay for a fusion gps M
Speaker 1: I six agent hired, you know, Christopher Steele dossier with
Speaker 1: known lies, propaganda, misinformation. I guess if you rigged the primary,
Speaker 1: it is not a bad idea to try and ring
Speaker 1: the general election. Why not? And the worst part of
Speaker 1: all of this is that information, those lies were used
Speaker 1: as a as a predicate to get a FISA warrant
Speaker 1: under the pretext of going after Carter Page, but in
Speaker 1: reality it was to spy on an opposition candidate in
Speaker 1: an election year. I know some of you in the
Speaker 1: media are having a hard time keeping up. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm saying it is. I'm trying to explain this in
Speaker 1: the simplest terms possible. And not only was that fies
Speaker 1: of warrant issued, but then it continued after Donald Trump
Speaker 1: won and now we're hearing about, Oh, let's see a
Speaker 1: secret society meeting among these top people, not ranking file
Speaker 1: top people. Wow. By the way, I wonder if the Russians,
Speaker 1: how ironic would it be at the Russians had hacked
Speaker 1: Peter Struck in Lisa pages text messages. Maybe they have
Speaker 1: copies of them anyway? Eight nine Poll one, Shawn is
Speaker 1: a toll free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. Got a lot coming up in
Speaker 1: the course of the show today. Uh, Cheryl Atkinson, Byron
Speaker 1: York will stop by today and Chairman good Luck. Chairman
Speaker 1: good Luck is doing a lot of good work along
Speaker 1: with it. Looks like Trey Goudy is woken up from
Speaker 1: his slumber recently. And Devin Newness, we'll get to that
Speaker 1: deep state gate, state sponsored sabotage. Isn't that what it
Speaker 1: really is all about? A deep state, A group of
Speaker 1: people that think they know better than the American people,
Speaker 1: that ignore crimes, that don't investigate that I mean, if
Speaker 1: we're going to allow fourth Amendent constitutional protection is to
Speaker 1: be destroyed like this, we will lose our country, and
Speaker 1: just for political partisan purposes because they didn't like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And a watergate on steroids, the deep state betrayal of
Speaker 1: a duly elected president, call of what at the ultimate
Speaker 1: deep state betrayal of the American people and the president.
Speaker 1: A coordinated deep state effort to destroy the president, deep
Speaker 1: state subversion of American democracy, federally funded betrayal of a president,
Speaker 1: government against the people, the deep state war and the president.
Speaker 1: Now this is these are things that all of you,
Speaker 1: regardless of where your politics X are, need to understand
Speaker 1: is fundamentally corrupt. You've got to understand this should not happen.
Speaker 1: You should not have people as abusively biased as Peter
Speaker 1: Struck and Lisa Page involved an investigation. You can't allow
Speaker 1: a guy to be like Robert Mueller to run a
Speaker 1: special counsel and Robert Mueller hire democratic donors. You can't
Speaker 1: hire somebody like Andrew Weissman, with his atrocious track record
Speaker 1: of abuse and failure. In one case, he held back
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence. Tens of thousands of people lost their jobs.
Speaker 1: Out of the end run Anderson accounting investigation that he
Speaker 1: headed up. And then it was a nine oh decision
Speaker 1: obstruction reversal in the U. S. Supreme Court. You never
Speaker 1: get a nine zero, Never get a nine zero in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, Well you hardly do. Then you put
Speaker 1: you know, Merrill executives in jail for a year, and
Speaker 1: that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And
Speaker 1: then you've got reports of I was listening to Ron
Speaker 1: Johnson talking about, you know, high level FBI officials said
Speaker 1: to be involved in anti Trump's secret society meeting off campus.
Speaker 1: What the hell is going on here? You know? Now
Speaker 1: we we have Peter Struck in Lisa Page. You know
Speaker 1: they knew that it was never gonna happen against Hillary Clinton. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a sham of an investigation. Do you believe in
Speaker 1: equal justice under the law? Do you believe in the constitution?
Speaker 1: Do you believe that we should apply laws equally? James
Speaker 1: Comey writing the exoneration before ever investigating Loretta Lynch knowing
Speaker 1: about it, Struck knowing about it, Macabe knowing about it,
Speaker 1: talk of an insurance policy, and just like Watergate. Now
Speaker 1: we got eighteen and a half minutes of missing tape,
Speaker 1: five months of missing text. Oh that happened to ten
Speaker 1: percent of agents at the time. We're now learning. Okay, alright,
Speaker 1: to the top of the hour. I'm gonna get to
Speaker 1: your calls here. No, um, I'm trying not to be repetitive.
Speaker 1: But every time you get new information like we have
Speaker 1: today and we'll have tonight, Um, it's you gotta set
Speaker 1: the foundation. I mean this, this is a very I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I understand most people's lives are busy. This is what
Speaker 1: my job is is to try and bring you up
Speaker 1: to speed with the latest information. But if you missed
Speaker 1: yesterday's show the day before, I've just got to assume
Speaker 1: you gotta be brought up to speed. So a little
Speaker 1: bit of this becomes repetitive as I wrap it around
Speaker 1: all the new information, and the new information is as
Speaker 1: I was telling you earlier, I mean, this is pretty spectile.
Speaker 1: I mean struck in page regarding well, there's no there there.
Speaker 1: I mean that that speaks volumes of how none of
Speaker 1: this should ever happen. And then of course a text
Speaker 1: Lisa page later, you know, investigation at least to an impeachment.
Speaker 1: Maybe I should and struck his up to his eyeballs
Speaker 1: and all of this. I don't know what to make
Speaker 1: of Ron Johnson's comments. And he was on Fox News
Speaker 1: last night. I think he was on Brett Pairs program.
Speaker 1: I've heard from someone who has talked to our committee
Speaker 1: that there's a group of individuals in the FBI who
Speaker 1: are holding secret off site meetings. He said, I think
Speaker 1: there are indications there were a number of high level
Speaker 1: FBI officials, again not rank and file, that we're holding
Speaker 1: secret meetings off site. And he revealed that the committee
Speaker 1: had an informant when he said that he is still
Speaker 1: connecting the dots between the sources information and the text
Speaker 1: messages that he and other lawmakers have reviewed. And he said,
Speaker 1: understand that struck in page were very high level in
Speaker 1: the FBI, not rank and file. Hello, conspiracy TV, MSNBC.
Speaker 1: I am not talking about rank and file fbilaw enforcement
Speaker 1: or intelligence. I am talking about the highest levels abusing
Speaker 1: power anyway. And then he said that these are not
Speaker 1: low level underlings. He said, these are individuals that add
Speaker 1: access to the highest level to the Director of the FBI.
Speaker 1: So all beginning to make sense, anyway, listen to what
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson said on Brett Pair Show. What this is
Speaker 1: all about is further evidence of corruption more than bias,
Speaker 1: but corruption at the highest levels of the FBI. And
Speaker 1: that secret society we have. We have an informant that's
Speaker 1: talking about a group that we're holding secret meetings off site.
Speaker 1: There's there's so much smoke here, There's so much specious
Speaker 1: Let's let's stop. There a secret society that a secret
Speaker 1: meetings offside of the Justice Department correction and you have
Speaker 1: an informant saying that, yes, has anything more about that, No,
Speaker 1: we have to dig into it. That's that's this is
Speaker 1: not a distraction again, this is this is biased potentially
Speaker 1: corruption at the highest levels of the FBI that is
Speaker 1: now invested gaining. And now, just by the way, Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller he used to run the FBI, uh, he is
Speaker 1: in no position to do an investigation over this kind
Speaker 1: of misconduct. So I think at this point in time
Speaker 1: we probably should be looking at a special council to
Speaker 1: undertake this investigation. But Congress is gonna have to continue
Speaker 1: to dig. That is bizarre to me anyway, secret meetings
Speaker 1: off site. Um, now the FBI is saying that as
Speaker 1: much as ten percent and I'm reading from the this
Speaker 1: is this was broke on Fox News earlier today. Up
Speaker 1: to nearly ten percent of the FBI's thirty thirty five
Speaker 1: thousand employee phones may have had the same glitch, if
Speaker 1: you will, as Struck and Pages phones. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that means. Um, all right, I want to I'll
Speaker 1: get to the phones here. We'll take a lot of
Speaker 1: your calls, comments, your questions, anything you want to talk about.
Speaker 1: But I am assuming this is um something that's on
Speaker 1: everybody's mind. Or Lando, Florida News Radio w d B OH.
Speaker 1: We have Sally next. Hi, Sally, how are you hey? Sean?
Speaker 1: My question is, is Peter Struck the mastermind behind all
Speaker 1: of the things that he's doing against Trump? And who
Speaker 1: is getting paid for all that? Well, they're all getting paid.
Speaker 1: The fact that Struck and Page aren't fired is beyond
Speaker 1: any comprehension I have. Can stay since we know they
Speaker 1: abused their power, had a huge bias, they didn't reveal
Speaker 1: the bias. The bias was eventually picked up by Robert Mueller.
Speaker 1: But remember it was Struck that was writing the exoneration
Speaker 1: with Comey before they ever investigated Hillary. It was Struck
Speaker 1: that interviewed Hillary. It was struck that interviewed General Flynn,
Speaker 1: struck his up to his eyeballs, and pretty much all
Speaker 1: of this stuff, and the fact that he I think
Speaker 1: he should be fired, paid should be fired, McCabe should
Speaker 1: be fired, Homey is fired. I'd like to know Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein's position and all this, but not only that, all
Speaker 1: of them need to be investigated. And I actually think
Speaker 1: we need a special counsel now to investigate this mess completely.
Speaker 1: And Robert Mueller should be investigated as well. I agree.
Speaker 1: Thank you, all right, Sally, thank you. You know way
Speaker 1: people friends of mine is saying you're done, Hannity, that's it.
Speaker 1: You've taken on the deep state. They'll get you six
Speaker 1: ways and sideways. To quote Chuck Schumer, what a sad commentary,
Speaker 1: What a sad commentary that the people that have the
Speaker 1: most powerful tools that we entrust, the most powerful tools
Speaker 1: of intelligence. I think that they would know better that
Speaker 1: they would turn it on their own people. President elects
Speaker 1: latest latest unsolicited pronouncement on the intelligence community, this was
Speaker 1: history just a little while ago tonight. And you see
Speaker 1: the scare quotes there. The intelligence briefing on so called
Speaker 1: Russian hacking was delate until Friday, perhaps more time needed
Speaker 1: to build a case. Very strange because he's taking these shot.
Speaker 1: This antagonism is taunting to the intelligence. You take on
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
Speaker 1: getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly
Speaker 1: hard nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this.
Speaker 1: What do you think the intelligence community would do if
Speaker 1: they were But I from what I am told, they
Speaker 1: are very upset with how he has treated them and
Speaker 1: talked about them. The only thing that could suggest is
Speaker 1: they would use the weaponry, the things, the tools, the
Speaker 1: power that we give them and abuse it. Sick ways
Speaker 1: to Sunday to screw you because they don't like you,
Speaker 1: because they disagree with you, kind of speaks volumes about
Speaker 1: about corruption. I'd like to believe that our intelligence community
Speaker 1: would not do that. I would like to believe there
Speaker 1: are people with integrity that honor what we entrust them
Speaker 1: with and not turn those tools of intelligence against their
Speaker 1: own people, because that sounds like a police state what
Speaker 1: they're describing, what Schumer's describing. Jim and Idaho next on
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show, What's Up? How are you Hey?
Speaker 1: I'm great. How about you, I'm good, sir. What's happening. Hey,
Speaker 1: I've been following this really closely, and and I the
Speaker 1: only way I can describe it is, I think that
Speaker 1: what these handful of people have done is the biggest
Speaker 1: civil rights violation this country has ever seen. I think
Speaker 1: it's the biggest voting rights violation a country has ever seen.
Speaker 1: And I think it falls under the law of sedition.
Speaker 1: And frankly, I'm taking a really personally. I have a vote,
Speaker 1: and they're not going to take it. They're not gonna
Speaker 1: sit in the back room and office somewhere and take
Speaker 1: my vote. It's just not going to happen. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any way to put this nicely, you know,
Speaker 1: other than the ways that we have been rightly characterizing this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a you know, deep state I'm
Speaker 1: calling a deep state gate. It's state sponsored samotash, and
Speaker 1: they wanted to use, they were willing to use unsubstantiated
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton bought and paid four lies after they helped
Speaker 1: exonerate her when we know she committed felonies. We know it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's it's so obvious. It's it's like
Speaker 1: there's never been an open and shut case like Hillary
Speaker 1: and the email server. Miss Handling classified top secret Special
Speaker 1: Access Program information is a crime. Destroying such is a crime.
Speaker 1: James Comey's July press conference, he described crimes committed, but
Speaker 1: he had already put the fix in. Yeah, you should
Speaker 1: take it personally because it impacts the rule of law,
Speaker 1: equal justice under the law, you know, protections, constitutional protections
Speaker 1: against unreasonable search and seizure. I mean, this is an
Speaker 1: abusive power and a conspiracy at that to abuse power.
Speaker 1: It's frightening, actually, and we've got to get ahold of
Speaker 1: this or we lose our country. It's that simple. Let's
Speaker 1: go to Keith in Claremont in Florida. Next, Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: How are you hey, Sean great? Thanks, first time caller. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm still upset that we haven't started investigating uranium one,
Speaker 1: and I think that our Russian collusion investigation is covering
Speaker 1: that up. I really think the Mueller is a big
Speaker 1: part of that investigation. He will be investigated once they
Speaker 1: get I'll tell you questions we had and we will hear.
Speaker 1: I mean, look everything, it's only so many enemies you
Speaker 1: can have and and fight at one time. Similarly, there's
Speaker 1: how many stories you can dig deep like this into.
Speaker 1: But the Iranian one story hasn't gone anywhere. There was
Speaker 1: two weeks ago an eleven count indictment on it, and
Speaker 1: we have learned that, in fact, there is an ongoing
Speaker 1: investigation by the Department of Justice into it. We just
Speaker 1: didn't know about it til a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: We have an eleven account indictment. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller was the f BEHIND director. They had an
Speaker 1: FBI spy informant inside of this network that Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: a bad actor. He is from this hostile nation, Russia,
Speaker 1: and they wanted a foothold in the uranium market. We
Speaker 1: don't even have enough uranium for ourselves, never mind allowing
Speaker 1: someone else to have control over it. And Putin's thugs
Speaker 1: in America were involved in bribery and extortion and kickbacks
Speaker 1: and money laundering and racketeering. And we had a guy
Speaker 1: on the inside telling him, hey, this is happening. That's
Speaker 1: eighteen months before Siphius ever bothered to approve. The nine
Speaker 1: different cabinet positions approved this uranium one sale, which resulted
Speaker 1: in Putin taking control of of our uranium. Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: knew that eighteen months in advance. Eric Holder knew that
Speaker 1: eighteen months in advance. And we're gonna hear from this
Speaker 1: guy that had infiltrated this network for six years. Victoria
Speaker 1: Tunsing is representing him. You there, go ahead, Sean Mullergic.
Speaker 1: Moller escorted tent of our uranium to the Russians. Although
Speaker 1: I know the story you're talking, I know what you're
Speaker 1: talking about. But all of this is gonna come to.
Speaker 1: All of this is next. There's a lot of cleaning
Speaker 1: up we've got to get done here. Let's go to
Speaker 1: Mike in Arizona. Mike High, how are you? Uh Hey, Sean,
Speaker 1: I've got a friend in Los Andrews who does forensic
Speaker 1: computer work, and again and again he's told me that
Speaker 1: when there is de spoliation of evidence, especially when they've
Speaker 1: been ordered to h keep it u the the presumption
Speaker 1: is that there is guilt. Horse, it's gone. This is listen.
Speaker 1: The only thing is is how good a job did
Speaker 1: they do? Because in the case of Hillary, we were
Speaker 1: able to retrieve some of these emails back the one
Speaker 1: she deleted and acid washed and use bleach bit on
Speaker 1: and and s bashed up devices. It's really insane. I
Speaker 1: mean the fact that people say, oh, you gotta move on,
Speaker 1: move on. Well, if we move on, then you let
Speaker 1: people get away with crimes that the rest of us
Speaker 1: would go to jail for. Ye, that's a probably probably
Speaker 1: nothing surprised me at all, because the real issue here
Speaker 1: is it could be Hillary Clinton going to jail, Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton going to jail, and maybe even Obama. I think
Speaker 1: the fact that Obama emailed Hillary and then they changed
Speaker 1: it to a high ranking American official, that's pretty damning
Speaker 1: on the part of Obama, who said he never never
Speaker 1: knew a thing. If I was saying I'd get a lawyer,
Speaker 1: he probably already has one. By the way, I guess
Speaker 1: you can see why a lot of these people hate
Speaker 1: me now. They don't like they don't like that we're
Speaker 1: talking about this every day, trust me. Yeah, and Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter too, I love her all. Listen, We've got a
Speaker 1: team of deputies here that are rock stars, John Sarah,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, Victoria Tunsing, Tom Fitt and j Secular rock
Speaker 1: stars all of them. Yeah, Truck, and you tell me,
Speaker 1: is it true? I heard that Obama took a two
Speaker 1: billion dollars that was UH earmarked for healthcare and he
Speaker 1: appropriated a million and a billion and a half of it.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, and UH for neighborhood improvement. And that's your
Speaker 1: smacks of I would bet that they if you. I
Speaker 1: honestly don't know. Off the top of my head. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I wish I did. I wish I had
Speaker 1: an answer for you. I will look into it, doesn't
Speaker 1: matter of fact. Athan's looking it up. Now back to
Speaker 1: our phones as we say hi to Malcolm St. John's Florida.
Speaker 1: A lot of Florida calls today. What's going on? Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you doing? Sean? Thank you for everything that
Speaker 1: you're doing. Thank you. I just want to know if
Speaker 1: this Russian Trump collusion thing turns out to be a
Speaker 1: big hope. I want to know if the taxpayers can
Speaker 1: get reimbursed by h crony. I've got I got something
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call for on tonight's TV show. I don't
Speaker 1: want to do it down today because I'm I'm building
Speaker 1: a case. But the answer is, you're never gonna see
Speaker 1: a dime back. And Uh, I think Mueller. I think
Speaker 1: Mueller's office is leaking. You know, it's an old story.
Speaker 1: What they're saying, Oh, you want to interview Trump. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've heard that a million times. I wouldn't let the
Speaker 1: president if it was if I was his attorney. You
Speaker 1: don't go near Robert Mueller because this is a corrupt
Speaker 1: investigation and I think it's been predicated on you know,
Speaker 1: so many and it just look look at what they
Speaker 1: did here. It's something. And if I'm the attorney for
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort, I'm the attorney for General Flynn. Oh, there'd
Speaker 1: be a million motions I'd be delivering. All Right, we
Speaker 1: got a lot coming up in the course of the
Speaker 1: program Byron York Sheryl Atkinson chairman. Good lad is up
Speaker 1: next at the top of the hour. All right, when
Speaker 1: we come back, the latest on deep state Gate. Yes,
Speaker 1: state sponsored sabotage trying to steal and influence a presidential
Speaker 1: election and un seat a duly elected president. The news
Speaker 1: and information you will not get from the all network
Speaker 1: fake news CNN or conspiracy TV, MSNBC or CBS, NBC
Speaker 1: or ABC, or the New York Times or Washington Post. No,
Speaker 1: this is your show will continue. Hi, glad you with
Speaker 1: us our to Sean Hannity shaw A toll free numbers
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine for one. Shawn, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: things going on within Congress that I I want to
Speaker 1: report to you. And uh, it's an honor to have
Speaker 1: back on the program. Chairman. Good lady is at the
Speaker 1: House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sarah Carter, a Fox News contributor
Speaker 1: investigative journalist. Welcome both of you, Sarah, I know you
Speaker 1: have news. I want to first get the Chairman good lad. Um.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of a lot of questions Chairman,
Speaker 1: about what should happen, as it were, lates to everything
Speaker 1: that we have all been talking about now for some time,
Speaker 1: and and especially you know, as it relates to the
Speaker 1: investigation and the Special Council and James Comey's actions and
Speaker 1: Peter Struck and Lisa Page and and Andrew McCabe and
Speaker 1: and Rod Rosenstein and others. Um, what do you think
Speaker 1: should happen? Well, a lot of things need to happen.
Speaker 1: First of all, this investigation by the Judiciary Committee and
Speaker 1: the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Trey Goudy Chairman needs
Speaker 1: to commit continue to work. We have worked for a
Speaker 1: few months now We have looked at thousands of documents,
Speaker 1: We have interviewed some witnesses. We have plenty more to
Speaker 1: talk to, both in terms of private interviews, but also
Speaker 1: some will need to come back and test by publicly eventually,
Speaker 1: and that goes right to the top of the Department
Speaker 1: and the FBI. So it's UH, it's very concerning. We
Speaker 1: need to find those five months worth of texts UH
Speaker 1: and keep the pressure on to do that. And we
Speaker 1: shouldn't just accept that, UH they can produce them, they
Speaker 1: may be able to be located by some other means.
Speaker 1: And also we need to look at the other means
Speaker 1: by which people have communicated with each other about these
Speaker 1: very disturbing UH events. So all of that will continue forward, UH,
Speaker 1: and we're going to continue to press for more documents.
Speaker 1: I know that UH Devin Noon is chairman of the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, is working with his committee UH to have
Speaker 1: a vote I think soon to release a memo, which
Speaker 1: is really the only way you can let the American
Speaker 1: people know what's going on here. You can't release thousands
Speaker 1: of classified documents. You've got to protect sources and methods
Speaker 1: of gathering information live will be endangered. But they're working
Speaker 1: hard to release a memo that takes out all the
Speaker 1: the classified source information. You've read this memo, right, sir,
Speaker 1: You've read the memo, you went over and looked at
Speaker 1: how what are the adjectives, the words you'd use to
Speaker 1: describe it? Well, I want to be careful here because
Speaker 1: there's much more to come. But this is very concerning,
Speaker 1: and this is something very important for the American people
Speaker 1: to know. We're talking about UH an issue that goes
Speaker 1: to power, related to the election of the highest office
Speaker 1: in the land and involving both of the candidates for
Speaker 1: that office, and quite frankly, Republicans and Democrats should be
Speaker 1: disturbed about what was going on and when I I
Speaker 1: don't know if you how how often you've got a
Speaker 1: chance to watch my TV show, but I have talked
Speaker 1: at length about for example, I bothers me that the
Speaker 1: fix was in and Donna Brazil says that Democratic primary
Speaker 1: was rigged. I could only imagine how the media would
Speaker 1: react if it was Donald Trump. Um. But then it
Speaker 1: goes as to further and then you've got an exoneration
Speaker 1: being written by Peter Struck and James Comey and apparently
Speaker 1: Loretto Lynch was in on it. Long before they ever
Speaker 1: interviewed Hillary Clinton. We learned this from this, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that. How people in the federal
Speaker 1: period of investigation and the America's premier law enforcement organization,
Speaker 1: by the way, it still is because there's tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of people. They're protecting US, fighting crime, preventing terrorist text.
Speaker 1: But this premier organization at the at the top in
Speaker 1: some of the key positions, is striking the contrast between
Speaker 1: how they handled the Clinton email investigation and how they're
Speaker 1: handling the Trump Russia investigation. Well, and that's what I
Speaker 1: want to ask you. So the fix was in obviously,
Speaker 1: in my opinion this I've never heard of an exoneration
Speaker 1: being written months before you interview the key witnesses in
Speaker 1: a case. And and and then we've got a dossier
Speaker 1: that was bought and paid for full of Russian lies
Speaker 1: and misinformation. And I would argue that that was that
Speaker 1: was to propagandize and light of the American people to
Speaker 1: influence a general election. But maybe some would call that
Speaker 1: op research. Uh, I don't. And then the scary thing
Speaker 1: is that it was used as a basis for a
Speaker 1: FISA warrant against an opposition party candidate in the lead
Speaker 1: up to an election and then used to spy on
Speaker 1: a president elect and his team. Am I missing anything here? Well?
Speaker 1: This is something that is why the American people need
Speaker 1: to hear more about this so they can look at it,
Speaker 1: and why this this investigation needs to proceed on, and
Speaker 1: why the Justice Department and the FBI need to clean house. Well,
Speaker 1: I I agree with you, and I'm it's just very
Speaker 1: scary to me on a whole variety of levels. Uh,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, let me bring you into this now. You
Speaker 1: are kind enough and nice enough to bring me into
Speaker 1: your loop on a story that you're actually working on
Speaker 1: for tonight. And uh, as apparently we've something as it
Speaker 1: relates to the Struck and Lisa Page emails when they
Speaker 1: were both talking I guess, amongst each other and and
Speaker 1: texting each other back and forth. I'd still like the
Speaker 1: five months. I'd like to see the missing five months,
Speaker 1: but very specifically, when Peter Struck sends Page a memo
Speaker 1: on March nineteen saying there's no there there, he follows
Speaker 1: it up with something that you found? What is it? Well?
Speaker 1: And I think this is fascinating because it was one
Speaker 1: of the pieces of text messages that were discussed, of
Speaker 1: the newly released text messages, but everyone kind of seemed
Speaker 1: to walk right over it. But at you know, at
Speaker 1: twelve thirty am on March nineteen, this is just two
Speaker 1: days after the Special Counsels convened, you know, Struck sends
Speaker 1: Lisa Page a text message. He talks about the know
Speaker 1: they're there, He says for me, and in this case,
Speaker 1: I personally have a sense of unfinished business, unleashed it
Speaker 1: with m y E. Which he's talking about the midear Exam,
Speaker 1: and we're in reference to the Clinton investigation. Now I
Speaker 1: need to fix it and finish it. And then ten
Speaker 1: minutes later they're back and forth, back and forth on
Speaker 1: this Special Council and whether or not he's going to
Speaker 1: join it or not. He says to her at twelve
Speaker 1: four am, an investigation leading to impeachment And he asked
Speaker 1: it as a question. Yeah, So in other words, all, wait,
Speaker 1: wait a minute. If I can investigate, there's all there there,
Speaker 1: But if it leads to impeachment, that's what it sounds
Speaker 1: like to me. That's how it reads to me. That's
Speaker 1: how it's reading to other members of Congress who really
Speaker 1: want to understand what was going on between these two
Speaker 1: and really want to question. I'm sure Chairman good lot
Speaker 1: Um is from from what he's been saying, is just
Speaker 1: as concerned think about this. A person with such a
Speaker 1: central rule in the Special Council, as we know Peter
Speaker 1: Struck had, I mean, we know his background. He was
Speaker 1: deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division. He had access,
Speaker 1: he was involved in the Russia investigation, he was involved
Speaker 1: in the Clinton server investigation. Here he's talking about joining
Speaker 1: this Special Council and seeing it appear ly as a
Speaker 1: way to impeach the President of the United States, a
Speaker 1: duly elected president of the United States. And I'm in
Speaker 1: agreement with Chairman good Luck on this. I think not
Speaker 1: only do they need to try to retrieve which I
Speaker 1: have been told, uh Mr Chairman and Sean, that those
Speaker 1: text messages, if they have those Samsung five cell phones,
Speaker 1: they will be able to retrieve those text messages because
Speaker 1: even if they were wiped off the cell phones, they
Speaker 1: can they leave ghost markers. And that's what I was
Speaker 1: told by a number of sources, even sources within the
Speaker 1: FBI that have done this in the past, and they
Speaker 1: can go in and get those text messages. So if
Speaker 1: they have those samsone five, there should be no problem
Speaker 1: in getting those text messages. Do we know where those
Speaker 1: phones are? Mr? Chairman, We do not. And one would
Speaker 1: presume that if uh, you became concerned about this, these
Speaker 1: thousands of text messages UH and took the step of
Speaker 1: removing Mr Struck from the Mueller investigation and sending him
Speaker 1: to the personnel department, Which is an interesting thing in
Speaker 1: and of itself that you would want to have in
Speaker 1: your possession those devices, would you not? You would? Do you?
Speaker 1: Do you have any doubt that Lisa Struck in and uh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Peter Struck and Lisa Paige should be fired.
Speaker 1: Do you have any doubt that Andrew McCabe should be
Speaker 1: fired considering he was involved? We believe in the insurance
Speaker 1: policy comments text messages between them. I think more facts
Speaker 1: need to come out about some of the people, but
Speaker 1: the the but the the the absolute bias, and the
Speaker 1: talk about a secret society and uh that harks back
Speaker 1: to the earlier to talk about an insurance policy, all
Speaker 1: of this racist shoes questions that if I were the
Speaker 1: personnel director, I'd go to the director of the FBI
Speaker 1: and say you know what, we got a problem here
Speaker 1: with these employees. What are we gonna do? And I
Speaker 1: would haul him in there and I'd ask all kinds
Speaker 1: of questions, which maybe they've done that maybe we'll find out.
Speaker 1: But unless there's really at explanations for all these things, Uh,
Speaker 1: there are a number of people in the department who
Speaker 1: should not still be there. Well, I mean not only
Speaker 1: not be there, but shouldn't they be investigating? I mean,
Speaker 1: in other words, do you feel that the absolutely agreed Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think there's got to should this investigation. I'm
Speaker 1: beginning to believe that the only way it's gonna be
Speaker 1: fair is to have the appointment of another special counsel.
Speaker 1: And then it raises a question for me, do you
Speaker 1: support that? And what does this mean about Mueller's investigation?
Speaker 1: From the get call that it was doesn't mean it
Speaker 1: was predicated on phony information that was bought and paid for.
Speaker 1: I don't want to draw any inclusion conclusions about the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation until we see the facts, but let me
Speaker 1: just say I think it's important that that investigation continue,
Speaker 1: but it's got to be uh, in a manner that
Speaker 1: the American people trust, and it's impartial and obviously, UH,
Speaker 1: the information coming out is concerning there. But I but
Speaker 1: I would not call for ending Mueller's investigation. What I
Speaker 1: would call for, however, and it happened for months, is
Speaker 1: the appointment of a second special Council to look at
Speaker 1: all the improprieties that took place with regard to how
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's investigation was handled, and the the meeting on
Speaker 1: the tarmac, and the UH decision by Comey to make
Speaker 1: this announcement himself, and the changing of his statement to
Speaker 1: take out words that were critical to whether or not
Speaker 1: she met the language of the law in terms of
Speaker 1: violing the law in terms of gross negligence, and a
Speaker 1: whole host of other issues like that. Now, whether this
Speaker 1: follows on that, I think you know your question is
Speaker 1: a very good one. We should continue our investigation, and
Speaker 1: we should continue to press for UH an independent accounting
Speaker 1: of this, and we should also continue to press for
Speaker 1: at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the
Speaker 1: FBI UH and accounting for this as well. Do you
Speaker 1: see any evidence of Trump Prussia collusion after a year
Speaker 1: of investigation? Uh? Well, first of all, I'm not involved
Speaker 1: in the investigations, so I don't want to just conclusions there,
Speaker 1: but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Okay, understand Sarah,
Speaker 1: what else could you tell me that's it? I think,
Speaker 1: I think yeah. And I think the important thing too
Speaker 1: is to remember that it's not just Peter Struck and
Speaker 1: Lisa Page. This keeps coming back. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: what we have as far as the bulk of evidence
Speaker 1: that we're seeing from these text messages that were released
Speaker 1: by the Inspector General in the d o J. But
Speaker 1: there were other people involved, and Chairman good Luck brought
Speaker 1: this up, you know, former FBI Director Comy. There should
Speaker 1: be a re questioning of Comy because Comy testified that
Speaker 1: he didn't make a decision until after he interviewed Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: But it appears that he was not being forthright and
Speaker 1: maybe even apparently lying. I mean, they would have to
Speaker 1: question him again because he made that decision way before.
Speaker 1: If we look at the documents, they were making changes
Speaker 1: way before they even interviewed Hillary Clinton, so it appeared
Speaker 1: his decision was already made. I would like to see
Speaker 1: him requestioned. I also think, and I know Andrew McCabe
Speaker 1: has been interviewed both behind closed doors and and in
Speaker 1: front of Congress, but I would like to know what
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe's deputy director, Andrew McCabe's role was in this,
Speaker 1: because I mean, the buck stops there, the buck stops
Speaker 1: at Comy and Andrew McCabe's office, So what were they
Speaker 1: involved in? What did they know? I'm hearing all kinds
Speaker 1: of rumblings that they know a lot more than what's
Speaker 1: been out there in public. So we need to have
Speaker 1: these answers because this is about an election, This is
Speaker 1: about the American people, This is about our our scales
Speaker 1: of justice, and this is about the FBI, whose main
Speaker 1: role is to be objective and seek the facts. And
Speaker 1: what we're seeing here appears to be a concerted effort
Speaker 1: by members within the FBI to to basically change the
Speaker 1: results of of of an election. Um also uh possibly
Speaker 1: even uh release you know of criminality and behavior within
Speaker 1: the Clinton server investigation. I mean, there is a lot here,
Speaker 1: and I think the American people really shine deserve some answers.
Speaker 1: I think the biggest fear I have, Chairman good Luck.
Speaker 1: My last question to you is that, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that this was all designed and and a phony dossier
Speaker 1: bought and paid for by one candidate, was designed to
Speaker 1: influence an election, and that same dossier was then used
Speaker 1: as a foundation to get a FISA warrant, and that
Speaker 1: was to hurt the other candidate under false pretenses, and
Speaker 1: then also an incoming president. It seems like that in
Speaker 1: that sense, it's a conspiracy. Would you agree with that? Well,
Speaker 1: we've got to get the facts. We've got to get
Speaker 1: the facts out, uh, and we've got to continue this investigation.
Speaker 1: Uh and uh. Then I think we draw the conclusions
Speaker 1: about what exactly happened and what crimes may have been committed.
Speaker 1: But there certainly is plenty for us to be worried
Speaker 1: about and plenty of work for us to do. All right, sir,
Speaker 1: thank you, and we'll see you Sarah tonight on Hannity
Speaker 1: nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. We'll break this
Speaker 1: news in full. She'll have an article up by then
Speaker 1: Sarah Carta dot com. How so, now the House intel Democrats.
Speaker 1: By the way, Adam Schiff, I know what he wants
Speaker 1: to do in his next life. I do. He wants
Speaker 1: to work at MSNBC. He's on he's on TV, lying
Speaker 1: just as much as the anchors are. It's like a
Speaker 1: fixture there. Anyway, they're releasing their own memo response to
Speaker 1: the one put out other Republicans. According to Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: and he said, they're selectively and misleadingly characterizing classified information
Speaker 1: to protect the president. I doubt it. I doubt it.
Speaker 1: It's too and they have the corroborating evidence. Let's release
Speaker 1: it all and let the American people decide. How's that
Speaker 1: when we ask Adam Schiff if he's gonna do that?
Speaker 1: All right? We got a lot more coming up today.
Speaker 1: Rylkin send at the bottom of the hour, and you
Speaker 1: may remember she wrote the book Smear How shady political
Speaker 1: operatives and fake news control what you see, what you think,
Speaker 1: and how you vote. Also Byron York has been doing
Speaker 1: some great work over at the Washington Examiner. Will check
Speaker 1: in with him. We got an amazing breaking news edition
Speaker 1: of Hannity tonight where literally working on things as we speak.
Speaker 1: We'll have it already for you by nine pm Eastern
Speaker 1: on the Fox News channel. Will continue. A whole bunch
Speaker 1: of documents, pages, memos, emails are missing. How do you
Speaker 1: explain that this has nothing to do with documents? Will zero?
Speaker 1: We have a president United States who runs the executive branch,
Speaker 1: that is, he runs the FBI, the CIA, the State
Speaker 1: Department every time they disagree with him. Instead of saying,
Speaker 1: I represent the American people by running the government, he says,
Speaker 1: let me persuade you Americans not to trust your government.
Speaker 1: Don't trust the CIA in Russia, don't trust federal judges
Speaker 1: when they disagree with me. Don't trust Rex Stillers. And
Speaker 1: he shouldn't be negotiating with the North Koreans until he should.
Speaker 1: And now we're saying one side of the House representing
Speaker 1: President Trump saying I want to further denigratee the U.
Speaker 1: S Government, persuade the American people that their taxes are
Speaker 1: going for wrong for purposes, instead of saying, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have a hearing with Democrats and Republicans and get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of this. This is not about documents. It's
Speaker 1: about persuading people that the investigations inappropriate and feel the
Speaker 1: fact that the Chairman of the House Intelligence and Committee,
Speaker 1: Devin Donas, won't share a four page memo he wrote
Speaker 1: with the FBI, well, it's not just sharing the moment.
Speaker 1: How How do you think he understands the details of
Speaker 1: how you conduct surveillance? Do you think he knows what
Speaker 1: the laws? Do you think he knows what FBI regulations are.
Speaker 1: Do you think he's he's read through the telephone book
Speaker 1: of FBI regulations. This is about a hatchet job, and
Speaker 1: the hatchet job is on the effort to say what
Speaker 1: happened during the election with the Russian involvement with with
Speaker 1: the Trump people. Maybe nothing, but we won't know from
Speaker 1: the Congress because Devin Unions won't allow a nonpartisan investigation
Speaker 1: take place. It's unprecedented that he that he would be
Speaker 1: accusing the FBI of something and not allow them to
Speaker 1: see what he's accusing them of. I mean, it's ridiculous
Speaker 1: on its face, and the FBI has a right to
Speaker 1: complain about it. You know, these people on the Hall
Speaker 1: network fake nusse in and and are they really That's stupid
Speaker 1: because it's an investigation of the Justice Department and of
Speaker 1: the FBI and then not gonna cue them into the
Speaker 1: very things they're looking into. And there should be an
Speaker 1: investigation into all of this, and frankly, there ought to
Speaker 1: be a special counsel appointed because it's gotten that bad.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't even know where to start in
Speaker 1: terms of I mean this, these people, you know what
Speaker 1: it is. Everybody in the mainstream media has bought into
Speaker 1: a phony, false, fraudulent narrative. They bought into a lie.
Speaker 1: And here we are a year later, and not only
Speaker 1: is there no evidence of Trump Russia collusion, we do
Speaker 1: have evidence of a lot of collusion, the collusion to
Speaker 1: fix a primary election with Hillary Clinton. Just asked on
Speaker 1: a Brazil the collusion between Struck and James called me
Speaker 1: to write an exam neration before any investigation. And now
Speaker 1: we know that Loretta Lynch knew about this way before
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was even interviewed. Well, that sounds like allusion
Speaker 1: to me. Then a Hillary Clinton bought and paid for
Speaker 1: phony Russian dacier with salacious details that even Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: didn't even try to verify. They tried to use that
Speaker 1: so they could influence and rig the general election against
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. But even worse, they went and used this phony,
Speaker 1: unsubstantiated information, false information, Russia propaganda bought and paid for
Speaker 1: by one party to sabotage another party. And you're wondering
Speaker 1: why I am calling this deep state gate state sponsored sabotage,
Speaker 1: because that's exactly what it was from the get go.
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable. Joining us now is Cheryl Atkinson. She's the
Speaker 1: host of Sinclair Media's Full Measure, author of the brand
Speaker 1: new books Smere How shady political operatives and fake news
Speaker 1: control what you see, what you think, and how you vote.
Speaker 1: He had a very cryptic tweet the other day, the
Speaker 1: truth eventually finds a way to get told. TikTok. You
Speaker 1: stole my TikTok thing. Well, you know, I've been covering
Speaker 1: for quite some time, things issues and things that are
Speaker 1: I think all related in the end in ways we're
Speaker 1: maybe not looking at a big picture. And I think
Speaker 1: my end of my first book stone walled or perhaps
Speaker 1: began it with a little quote that said, the truth
Speaker 1: finds a way to be told eventually. And I believe that.
Speaker 1: But I think in some respects we're looking at maybe
Speaker 1: some of the media looking at little pieces of this
Speaker 1: puzzle and not the big picture. Because there is a
Speaker 1: lot of focus on what allegedly happened to Trump, the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and Trump officials at the hand of intelligence
Speaker 1: officials after he was elected or right before he was elected.
Speaker 1: I think the more important question, Sean, is why why
Speaker 1: they didn't want Trump and his people in there? And
Speaker 1: I believe the evidence is showing and sources I have
Speaker 1: indicate it's because they didn't want that wild card, meaning
Speaker 1: don Trump and his team looking at exposing and examining
Speaker 1: some things that bad actors in the intel community have
Speaker 1: been doing the past fifteen twenty years plus, and a
Speaker 1: whole system that they've established that has been doing things
Speaker 1: that are at the very least questionable and perhaps possibly illegal.
Speaker 1: And they were desperate once he was elected to make
Speaker 1: sure that he and his people were marginalized or somehow
Speaker 1: discredited so that they could not look at um the
Speaker 1: things that in some of the talents the community have
Speaker 1: been doing. I don't think they ever thought Trump would win,
Speaker 1: which is why they stuck their necks out here. And
Speaker 1: I think that they're look, here's the bottom line. I
Speaker 1: would think that all of the people in the news
Speaker 1: media in this country would look at this as the
Speaker 1: biggest story potentially that they'll ever have in their entire life.
Speaker 1: You know, if one presidential candidate rigs the primary and
Speaker 1: then you got an FBI director coordinating with other high
Speaker 1: ranking FBI officials and the Attorney General is in on it,
Speaker 1: and if we know crimes were committed, we know felonies
Speaker 1: were committed mishandling a classified information that in and of
Speaker 1: itself as a crime a felony. Destroying such classified, special access,
Speaker 1: top secret information, that's a crime. Obstructing justice? Well, that
Speaker 1: might be not turning over thirty three thousand subpoenaed emails,
Speaker 1: uh and then using acid wash or bleach bit to
Speaker 1: destroy all the evidence, and then using hammers to destroy
Speaker 1: mobile devices. That sounds like obstruction of justice in any
Speaker 1: world I would live in. You know, you think you'd
Speaker 1: want to cover that. Or so the fixes in on
Speaker 1: the primary, the fixes in so she can continue to
Speaker 1: run against Trump because they think she's the better choice,
Speaker 1: they think she's gonna win. And then of course she
Speaker 1: pays for a phony dossier, denies it for an entire year.
Speaker 1: Only recently we found out that yeah, the Clintons paid
Speaker 1: for it because Fusion GPS wouldn't give it up, and
Speaker 1: they pay for the whole thing. And then we find
Speaker 1: out that is the basis of a FISA warrant to
Speaker 1: spy on an opposition party candidate in a presidential election year,
Speaker 1: and then an incoming president of president elected his entire team.
Speaker 1: Now I don't I don't know if there's ever been
Speaker 1: corruption on this level in our lifetime, to be honest,
Speaker 1: and if you want to compare it to Watergate, the
Speaker 1: so called standard, you know, Watergate is like stealing a
Speaker 1: candy bar out of a candy store. Compared to this,
Speaker 1: I would agree that the allegations that have put forth
Speaker 1: and the things sources have told me, including some who
Speaker 1: have worked under both Democrat and Republican administration, makes Watergate
Speaker 1: pale in comparison. I think a lot of people today
Speaker 1: don't even really know what Watergate was about. We refer
Speaker 1: to that as a phrase as if everybody knows it
Speaker 1: sounds like the worst thing ever. But in terms of
Speaker 1: what we're talking about today, if big actors in the
Speaker 1: Intel community have been compromised for years in ways that
Speaker 1: we don't know about, this impact. Sean, I think you're
Speaker 1: getting at this not just what happened during campaign two
Speaker 1: thousand sixteen, but virtually every big case that was handled
Speaker 1: by our intel community. I think would have to be
Speaker 1: re examined in a new light if it turns out
Speaker 1: that corruption has proven at high levels in our intel
Speaker 1: You have been any doubt, Let's go through it slowly.
Speaker 1: Do you have any doubt that Donno Brazil is wrong,
Speaker 1: that the that in fact, that the primary of Hillary
Speaker 1: with Bernie Sanders was rigged. I don't have any doubt. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on what you mean by rigg
Speaker 1: but it's pretty clear from people you know inside the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party that, uh, they certainly slanted everything they could
Speaker 1: to favor Okay, isn't that? Isn't that rigging? I don't know.
Speaker 1: You know, you can say I wouldn't argue with you.
Speaker 1: Do you have any disagreement that that what James Comey
Speaker 1: and Peter Struck did, knowing especially how Peter Struck in
Speaker 1: Lisa pages is mistress girlfriend over the FBI, what they
Speaker 1: think and their talk about insurance policies and and don't
Speaker 1: you think that they were exonerating Hillary by writing that
Speaker 1: exoneration draft way before, months before they ever interviewed the
Speaker 1: key principles and that investigation. That's how normal is Yeah? No,
Speaker 1: I think that that is highly highly suspect when you
Speaker 1: put that, especially being but aren't you being kind? Have
Speaker 1: you ever heard of an honoration before investigation before? I haven't.
Speaker 1: I haven't, but I'm trying to be not kind so
Speaker 1: much as I've never into other And yes, careful and judicials.
Speaker 1: I got that stuff. Yes, I wouldn't argue with some
Speaker 1: of your characterizations, but I don't know that this isn't
Speaker 1: done all the time. I don't know that, Sean, they
Speaker 1: haven't done that improperly with other investigations. But we okay,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't take away that this is not normal procedure,
Speaker 1: you know, taking it out of the the FBI field
Speaker 1: agent's hands and putting it in a special category. Well,
Speaker 1: that only happens, I guess to special people. I doubt
Speaker 1: it would happen for Cheryl atkinsoner, Sean Hannity. I believe
Speaker 1: that there is a lot of improper stuff going on,
Speaker 1: including some of what you've discussed, things involving my own
Speaker 1: federal case against the intelligence agencies that actors involved in that,
Speaker 1: and many other cases besides just campaign two thousands sixteen,
Speaker 1: but yes, including campaign two and isn't it. Do you
Speaker 1: Have you seen any evidence of all at all of
Speaker 1: Trump Russia collusion in the twenties sixteen election? Any at all? No?
Speaker 1: I mean not only have I not, but I've compiled
Speaker 1: in the past and continue to update it virtually every
Speaker 1: if not every Democrat and Republican who has looked at
Speaker 1: the best evidence there is that we don't even know about.
Speaker 1: Classified evidence has said the same, So I think that
Speaker 1: has that narrative has certainly dissolved. But you have to
Speaker 1: let me let me say, I think that narrative was
Speaker 1: built in part as the shiny ball to look at
Speaker 1: because those bad actors inside the Intel Agency were fearful
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration would come in and find what
Speaker 1: they had done, so they had to marginalize and controversialize
Speaker 1: them and try to undercut them before they could speak out.
Speaker 1: And I'd argue, I'd argue they did it fairly successfully.
Speaker 1: And then you know, we didn't know for a long
Speaker 1: time who paid for the fusion GPS Stasier. They can
Speaker 1: argue all they want, well, the initial payments came from
Speaker 1: the Washington Free Beacon, but that was predated anything involving
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, who used questionable Russians horses, and Glenn Simpson
Speaker 1: admitting he never even tried to verify what was in
Speaker 1: the dossier, and then his admission under you know, when
Speaker 1: he was questioned by the House Intel Committee, has admissioned
Speaker 1: that he was coordinating, you know, dropping this information to
Speaker 1: the news media with the Clinton campaign. Now to me,
Speaker 1: that's Isn't that bought and paid for Russian lies and propaganda?
Speaker 1: It could be. And let me take you back to
Speaker 1: the picture. Can I take it. Can I say that
Speaker 1: they were trying to use that to rig an election?
Speaker 1: I think you can say that. I think it's I
Speaker 1: think the evidence I would say that that is an
Speaker 1: allegation that appears to be to have merit, and you know,
Speaker 1: deserves sorting through, and you're free to conclude that that
Speaker 1: that indeed happens. Is that a logical conclusion? Is it
Speaker 1: sound reasonable to you? I think I think you're you're
Speaker 1: using your common sense. I absolutely do. By the way,
Speaker 1: don't let me just don't you wish you weren't a
Speaker 1: journalist for a minute and you could just let it
Speaker 1: rip like this, Well, I do, but I think that's
Speaker 1: your job. You know, I'm happy doing what I do.
Speaker 1: And I would just say, let me add to your
Speaker 1: theory season your common sense mind when you're discussing these
Speaker 1: things by saying, before Trump was even running for president,
Speaker 1: I had been told by a very very well placed,
Speaker 1: intelligent source in a very careful way. And this is
Speaker 1: someone who worked under President Obama. By the way, that
Speaker 1: the intel community, some bad actors have been manufacturing allegedly
Speaker 1: bad or false information and presenting it to the face
Speaker 1: a court to get things like this done. This is
Speaker 1: before it allegedly happened to Trump. So it makes sense
Speaker 1: that when when that was uncovered and the fight of court,
Speaker 1: since this stuff was never going to go to criminal
Speaker 1: court and no one would ever know that it was
Speaker 1: bad evidence, unlike in a normal case, because this was
Speaker 1: just to gather intel on somebody or political information or
Speaker 1: black and it was first denied by the FISA court
Speaker 1: and the pretext was under looking into Carter page, but
Speaker 1: it was really the Trump campaign. Al right, stay right there,
Speaker 1: Cheryl Atkinson, she is the host of Sinclair's Full Measure.
Speaker 1: We'll get more of her thoughts on this right as
Speaker 1: we continue. Cheryl Atkinson is with us, she hosts Sinclair's
Speaker 1: Full Measure, and we appreciate you taking the time to
Speaker 1: be with us. I want to go through one other
Speaker 1: thing here, and this is what Sarah Carter is reporting today.
Speaker 1: After Peter Struck sends Lisa Paige the text on March
Speaker 1: nineteen saying, oh, there's no there there and with his position,
Speaker 1: he would know considering that Russia was a specialty. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then he's talking about joining the Special Counsel of
Speaker 1: Robert Muller. He sends another text right after it, uh,
Speaker 1: an investigation that leads to impeachment. Maybe I should have
Speaker 1: So he's saying, there's no there there, but it may
Speaker 1: lead to impeachment. And you add that to all the
Speaker 1: other texts that he sent that are anti Trump, and
Speaker 1: you begin to get a different picture, right, I think. So,
Speaker 1: I think that on its space appears wholly inappropriate. And
Speaker 1: you know, the idea that this independent investigation really was
Speaker 1: supposed to go above and beyond to make sure that
Speaker 1: despite how people feel personally, and that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: okay as long as they don't act on it. But
Speaker 1: in this special independent investigation, I think they needed to
Speaker 1: be very very careful about who they invited on and
Speaker 1: who they recruited. Maybe they weren't um nearly as careful
Speaker 1: as they should have been, or it's kind of hard
Speaker 1: for me to believe they didn't know about the feeling
Speaker 1: of some of these people they invited on that on
Speaker 1: that team at the time. Okay, so you're more of
Speaker 1: a journalist than I am, and you know where I'm
Speaker 1: coming from in this, and I think I'm right over
Speaker 1: the target, and I think that I have we pretty
Speaker 1: much appealed the onion away, and I feel very competent
Speaker 1: in the things that I'm saying about a rigg primary
Speaker 1: or rigged investigation into Hillary, an attempt at rigging a
Speaker 1: general election, and using you know, phony propaganda from Russia
Speaker 1: to UH to start spying on a president presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: the president elect. You think I'm wrong in any way?
Speaker 1: Any evidence in your mind that I'm wrong. I don't
Speaker 1: see any evidence that you're wrong about the conclusions you're forming.
Speaker 1: And it may be a bit early, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't have all the firm proof and interviews and so
Speaker 1: on to say that with authority, but I certainly don't
Speaker 1: think you're barking up the wrong tree. All right, We
Speaker 1: really appreciate it, Cheryl Atkins, And don't forget you can
Speaker 1: get a brand new book, The Smere how to how
Speaker 1: shady political operatives fake news controls what you see, what
Speaker 1: you think, and how you vote really topical at this point.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Sheryl Lekins, and all the best
Speaker 1: one shown. We're gonna hit the phone straight up when
Speaker 1: we get back. What this is all about is further
Speaker 1: evidence of corruption more than bias, but corruption at the
Speaker 1: highest levels of the FBI and that secret society we have.
Speaker 1: We have an informant that's talking about a group that
Speaker 1: we're holding secret meetings off site. There's there's so much
Speaker 1: smoke here, there's so much special let's let's stop. There
Speaker 1: a secret society that a secret meetings offside of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department correction and you have an informant saying that, yes,
Speaker 1: has anything more about that, No, we have to dig
Speaker 1: into it. That's that's this is not a distraction again,
Speaker 1: this is this is biased potentially corruption at the highest
Speaker 1: levels of the FBI that is now investigating. And now
Speaker 1: this has been by the way, Robert Mueller used to
Speaker 1: run the FBI. Uh, he is in no position to
Speaker 1: do an investigation over this kind of misconduct. So I
Speaker 1: think at this point in time, we probably should be
Speaker 1: looking at a special council to undertake this investigation. But
Speaker 1: Congress is gonna have to continue to dig I have
Speaker 1: heard from somebody has talked to our committee that there
Speaker 1: is a group of individuals in the FBI there was
Speaker 1: holding they were holding secret off site meetings and again
Speaker 1: a strack and Page calling it a certain term. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying off site meetings important stuff here. How many
Speaker 1: agents were involved in these alleged meetings. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to start pointing fingers from that standpoint. Again, I'm just
Speaker 1: connecting the dots. Bill I've been My committee has jurisdiction
Speaker 1: or federal records. We have been investigating the Clinton email
Speaker 1: scandal since two thousand and fifteen. We pretty well dropped
Speaker 1: it after the election, pretty much at the direction of
Speaker 1: President Trump. He said, you know, we don't prosecute people
Speaker 1: that we beat in elections. But then once the Office
Speaker 1: Inspector General began its inspection and we found out about
Speaker 1: these texts, these texts pretty well laid in my app
Speaker 1: as well, and they they really do raise very serious
Speaker 1: concerns about what is happening to the FBI. All right,
Speaker 1: that was earlier. That was Ron Johnson being on Fox
Speaker 1: News talking about things that we've been talking about, and
Speaker 1: that is a secret society meeting off campus from the FBI.
Speaker 1: As we continue our coverage of deep state Gate, if
Speaker 1: you will, and I don't know what else to really
Speaker 1: call this, the subversion or the sabotage of a presidential election,
Speaker 1: and joining us now is Byron York and he writes
Speaker 1: for the Washington Examiner. Has been doing really good work
Speaker 1: on this, and also doing very good work on the
Speaker 1: insanity of the anti Trump woman out there. How are you,
Speaker 1: I shan doing well? Thank you? All right, let's talk
Speaker 1: about this offsite FBI officials secret Society and what do
Speaker 1: you make out of that? Well, I don't know what
Speaker 1: to make out of it. I mean, the secret Society
Speaker 1: is a reference in the texts, and I will say
Speaker 1: from talking to people who have been going through these
Speaker 1: texts very carefully, it's it's hard to pull things together
Speaker 1: because there there's a lot of gossip. They're talking about
Speaker 1: whatever happened that day, and it's sometimes difficult to see
Speaker 1: exactly what they're talking about. As far as what the
Speaker 1: Senator Johnson said about his informant who said there's this
Speaker 1: group that met off site, I mean, that's extremely intriguing,
Speaker 1: and but we know no more than that. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, I was going to bring something up. Um.
Speaker 1: Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just
Speaker 1: delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate and
Speaker 1: there's a couple of things going on with him. Uh.
Speaker 1: First of all, his committee is looking through the texts
Speaker 1: like everybody else. Uh. And the second thing, remember, he
Speaker 1: and Senator Graham uh sent that criminal referral to the
Speaker 1: Justice Department about Christopher Steele, the British former spy who
Speaker 1: was the author of the dossier. And they sent the
Speaker 1: letter and it got a lot of coverage, But they
Speaker 1: had an underlying memo that explained why they were doing it,
Speaker 1: and they felt that was very important for that ultimately
Speaker 1: to get out and some of its classified. So they
Speaker 1: have gone to the FBI and said, look, we want
Speaker 1: to release this memo because we think it's very important
Speaker 1: that the public understand what was going on between the
Speaker 1: FBI and Christopher Steel about this docier. Well, amazingly enough,
Speaker 1: the FBI has been dragging its feet, and on the
Speaker 1: Senate floor not too long ago, the Senator came out
Speaker 1: and accused the FBI of playing a quote bureaucratic game
Speaker 1: of hide the ball. Uh. He is clearly losing his
Speaker 1: patients with them. And I think this is something we're
Speaker 1: seeing across this whole investigation, which is this this wall
Speaker 1: of classified information that uh that investigators and Congress are
Speaker 1: trying to get through. Senator Grassley also said it's time
Speaker 1: to see the Devin noonez memo, and not just the memo,
Speaker 1: but the underlying intelligence as well. So I think we're
Speaker 1: seeing a across the idea of the dossier, or of
Speaker 1: the texts, or the criminal referral or what else, whatever
Speaker 1: else we're talking about. I think we're seeing a growing
Speaker 1: impatience on Capitol Hill, mostly among Republicans, for for this
Speaker 1: classified box that all have been all of them have
Speaker 1: been kind of trapped in. And I think in the
Speaker 1: next few weeks they really want to get a lot
Speaker 1: of information out to the American public. Well, I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna get it. I mean, I'm told any day
Speaker 1: now we're going to get a copy of that memo,
Speaker 1: and probably when they get back next week. Now, I
Speaker 1: would assume they're gonna wait till after the State of
Speaker 1: the Union on on Tuesday. Um, you know I've been
Speaker 1: explaining it this way, and you tell me anywhere you
Speaker 1: think that I'm wrong. Is Donna Brazil had to call
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and say that, yeah, the primary election was rigged.
Speaker 1: We have an exoneration being written by anti Trump pro
Speaker 1: Hillary FBI agent Peter Struck and James Comey. They begin
Speaker 1: the exoneration letter months before they interviewed the principles, including
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton herself. Now we have not only the talk
Speaker 1: of an insurance policy, but Loretta Lynch apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: deserves a profile encourage because Loretta Lynch now knew that
Speaker 1: there was no way they would ever and died. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton Again, that was July one before they interviewed her
Speaker 1: over the fourth of July weekend. Comey then exonerates her.
Speaker 1: So I would argue that fix was in there in
Speaker 1: terms of, you know, she never was going to be
Speaker 1: no matter where the evidence LEDs, she was never gonna
Speaker 1: be indicted, so they could keep her in the race.
Speaker 1: And then of course she pays for between her money
Speaker 1: is funneled through her campaign through one lawyer, the d
Speaker 1: n C that Donna Brazil says she's controlling. That money
Speaker 1: is funneled through the same lawyer. They pay for a phony, salacious,
Speaker 1: unproven Russian dossier mostly proven false at this point, and
Speaker 1: they try to basically put the fix in on the
Speaker 1: general election, and then that uncorroborated information is used to
Speaker 1: get a FISA warrant to spy on an opposition party
Speaker 1: candidate in the presidential year and then an incoming president elected.
Speaker 1: Team Am I missing anything here? Am I wrong on anything?
Speaker 1: You're you pretty much got it. And you know, one
Speaker 1: of one of the things that's that's a challenge here
Speaker 1: is I have really tried to focus on the Trump affair,
Speaker 1: the Trump Russia affair, but listening to you, and it's
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. The problem in doing that is that the
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton investigation just flows into the Trump investigation at
Speaker 1: the FBI, and the people who are doing it are
Speaker 1: the same people. So when you look at these um
Speaker 1: texts between Strock and Page, they're talking about the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton investigation all the time around, especially in that critical
Speaker 1: time of the end of June at the beginning of
Speaker 1: July when they've already decided to exonerate her before not
Speaker 1: just she was interviewed, but a number of the main
Speaker 1: people in the case were interviewed. So that's going on.
Speaker 1: And did you ever hear of an exoneration letter being
Speaker 1: written months before the investigation really took place or took
Speaker 1: hold the answers? No, And I just don't see how
Speaker 1: anybody could, really, anybody in the general public could really
Speaker 1: And where are your colleagues in the media. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a talk show host and and I wear many hats.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I do investigative words, sometimes I do reporting. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I give my opinions, sometimes I moderate debates. So I
Speaker 1: do a lot of different things. But an opinion journalist
Speaker 1: would be or an advocacy journalists would fit my role.
Speaker 1: But where are the objective journalists in this country? Well
Speaker 1: that's a good question. What can I see? What can
Speaker 1: I say? I think, Um, what you're seeing now is
Speaker 1: especially after that all the talk about the House Intel
Speaker 1: Committee memo. Uh Finally, some people say the Washington Post
Speaker 1: and the New York Times are paying attention to it
Speaker 1: if only to want to knock it down. But I
Speaker 1: think attention to it is good because I think it
Speaker 1: should be released and the underlying intelligence should be released. Uh.
Speaker 1: As you know, there's this Inspector General investigation at the
Speaker 1: Justice Department and MPI one point two million documents sent over.
Speaker 1: We haven't heard a word about them yet, specifically about
Speaker 1: the handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, because there's things
Speaker 1: in that Hillary Clinton investigation for everybody to be unhappy about,
Speaker 1: and the way it does sort of just morph into
Speaker 1: the into the Trump investigation with within within days of
Speaker 1: her being exonerated. Christopher Steel has written his the first
Speaker 1: installment of his his dossier. Um, So, what can I
Speaker 1: say the the the the Republican investigators. You're seeing in
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, don't forget
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee as well. I mean, it's taken
Speaker 1: a long time, but I do think in the next
Speaker 1: few weeks we're gonna start seeing more and more findings
Speaker 1: coming out. Well, this is what my sources are telling me.
Speaker 1: At number one, we're going to get the memo probably
Speaker 1: next week, number too, then we'll get the corroboration of
Speaker 1: the memo behind that. Number three that there's a lot
Speaker 1: more still to come even after that. Now, what's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me is, well, that would tell me that Lisa Page,
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, that would tell me that Andrew McCabe, James
Speaker 1: Comey all need to be investigated. And I'd like to
Speaker 1: know why Rod Rosenstein was in Paul Ryan's office begging
Speaker 1: that the d o J not have to turn over
Speaker 1: the information that led to the memo just hours before
Speaker 1: the deadline hit. Yeah, what you're gonna see is with
Speaker 1: the release of this stuff and I and I have
Speaker 1: to tell you, I have not seen this classified memo.
Speaker 1: Nobody's seen it. Nobody has seen I know nobody on
Speaker 1: the outne side has seen it. But I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see increased pressure on the political leadership of
Speaker 1: the of these departments after people actually know more stuff.
Speaker 1: And when you see it and it's been revealed, then
Speaker 1: you're gonna say, well, wait a minute, why were they
Speaker 1: trying to keep this secret the whole time? We needed
Speaker 1: to know this? So um, we'll see more and more
Speaker 1: right as we continue with byron Yorke. He's a writer
Speaker 1: for the Washington Examiner. One of the things Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: has put out today. Now we know after Struck sends
Speaker 1: Paige the text on on March nineteen for guarding well,
Speaker 1: there's no there there where he talks about Mueller's Special Council.
Speaker 1: We also know what he said about an insurance policy,
Speaker 1: and we also know that he suggested that, in fact,
Speaker 1: he and Paige suggested that Loretta Lynch knew there was
Speaker 1: nothing that was ever gonna happen even before they interviewed Hillary.
Speaker 1: And but when he talks about right after that Mueller's
Speaker 1: Special counsel. He sends another text right after saying an
Speaker 1: investigation that leads to an impeachment question mark. In other words,
Speaker 1: he says, there's no they're there, then an investigation that
Speaker 1: leads to impeachment question mark? Maybe I should doesn't That
Speaker 1: doesn't that tell us that thought that in his mind,
Speaker 1: he thought there was nothing thing that went wrong, nothing there,
Speaker 1: and he would know based on his position, and that
Speaker 1: the only reason he would have involved himself in any
Speaker 1: ways because he might be able to upend a duly
Speaker 1: elected president because it would be this big, historic investigation.
Speaker 1: But I think I think the note there there is
Speaker 1: really really important because some people may have missed since
Speaker 1: this was there at the beginning of the Mueller investigation,
Speaker 1: they think, well, this is the beginning of the investigation. No,
Speaker 1: Struck had been involved in the Trump Russia investigation from
Speaker 1: the very beginning, and we know the FBI started that
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigation in July of twenty sixteen. Struck is involved
Speaker 1: in it from the very beginning. So when in May
Speaker 1: of twenty seventeen he says it just looks like there's
Speaker 1: no there there, he's been investigating it for ten or
Speaker 1: eleven months. So this is not just his sort of
Speaker 1: prospective look saying maybe there's nothing there. He's actually been
Speaker 1: deeply involved in it. He he's the one who went
Speaker 1: to UH to interview Michael Flynn at the White House.
Speaker 1: He was deeply involved in all of this. So for
Speaker 1: him to say in May looks like there's no there
Speaker 1: there that is a very telling comment about the state.
Speaker 1: And that's why I'm calling it deep state Gate, state
Speaker 1: sponsored sabotage, because they wanted to sabotage at every level
Speaker 1: and prevent a They're even willing to use phony Russian
Speaker 1: paid for propaganda to get a warrant to to literally
Speaker 1: go after an opposition party candidate and then a president
Speaker 1: elect because they want to overturn an election. They wanted
Speaker 1: to first impact the election and overturn the election. And
Speaker 1: in the process they're using the powerful tools of intelligence
Speaker 1: that we give the intelligence community, and they're abusing the
Speaker 1: fiser warrants and the fiser courts in the process as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the biggest picture theme of this is exactly that, which
Speaker 1: is that use of the misuse of you of the
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies whom we were exactly right. We give these
Speaker 1: enormous powers to um two that meddled into in our
Speaker 1: political process. And and don't forget how some of this
Speaker 1: stuff got started after the election, Beginning on November nine, UM,
Speaker 1: there was this wire tap that Michael Flynn was heard
Speaker 1: on talking to the Russian ambassador, which was, by the way,
Speaker 1: a perfectly normal thing for an incoming national security advisor
Speaker 1: to do. Uh. And the Justice Department appears to be
Speaker 1: concerned about the Logan Act, which is as we all know,
Speaker 1: completely never used statute. That appeared to be just a
Speaker 1: pretense to start an investigation, but it was the pretense
Speaker 1: to go over there to the White House. Agents strunk
Speaker 1: by the way, go over to the White House and
Speaker 1: and and interview Michael Flynn, and basically his his guilty
Speaker 1: plea on one count of lyne to the FBI comes
Speaker 1: from that that interview. So yeah, look what you're saying
Speaker 1: is they have all these very powerful tools. They knew
Speaker 1: everything Mike. They knew everything Michael Flynn had said because
Speaker 1: he was illegally surveiled, not minimized, unmasked, and then raw intelligence.
Speaker 1: So it was a perjury trap from the get go.
Speaker 1: Either he misremembered or he lied, but it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't have known ahead of time. Thank you Byron York.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Eight one Sean, I promise we're gonna
Speaker 1: get too calls. Next half hour Hannity Tonight, Deep state Gate,
Speaker 1: state sponsored sabotage, well of all the latest details and more.
Speaker 1: Nine Eastern Musty TV on the Fox News Channel. You
Speaker 1: look at what Andrew McCabe has done in serving this country. Uh.
Speaker 1: He was in the New York Filled Office and the
Speaker 1: SWAT team. He investigated and had a key role investigating
Speaker 1: counter terrorism. After September eleven, he held management positions in
Speaker 1: the counter Terrorism Division and the FI National Security Branch.
Speaker 1: He was he was the first director of the High
Speaker 1: Value Detaining Interrogation Group to get information from Al Qaeda
Speaker 1: to try to stop the next attack. And he played
Speaker 1: a key role in investigating the Boston marathon bombing and
Speaker 1: bringing bringing those terrorists to justice. Look at this man's face.
Speaker 1: This man dedicated his life to you and to your family,
Speaker 1: keeping you safe from terror attacks in New York City,
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. Across the country, serving with the
Speaker 1: Federal Bureau and of of Investigation. And because Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has completely blown through every single barrier, every single constitutional protection.
Speaker 1: Now some are attacking this American hero because it just
Speaker 1: fits their political their political message of the day and
Speaker 1: Willie Geist. When you have Fox News declaring war and
Speaker 1: their words on the FBI and the Justice Department, the
Speaker 1: deep state there, when you have people talking about secret
Speaker 1: societies inside of the FBI, that's that is out of
Speaker 1: what urti Wan's playbook, with Urtiwan's play book that he
Speaker 1: used in Turkey to undermine that democracy and to go
Speaker 1: after political rivals in his government, and they're doing it
Speaker 1: here in America. You know, it's it's pretty, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna tell you what this is all about.
Speaker 1: More than it's like their scorn lovers. Well, let's hear
Speaker 1: me out here. There will be f F friends with
Speaker 1: the president and they've had a falling out and they
Speaker 1: can't handle the breakup and they're now unhinged, and it's
Speaker 1: like imag really, he's got Alzheimer's early on set Alzheimer's.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that the doctor said he go to
Speaker 1: thirty out of thirty. Um, you know, Joe, nobody is
Speaker 1: slamming the entire FBI. How many times have we made
Speaker 1: the distinction on this program about rank and file FBI people,
Speaker 1: FBION law enforcement people. And by the way, isn't his
Speaker 1: network the network that you know didn't go after and
Speaker 1: has been generally supportive of the Black Lives Matter pigging
Speaker 1: a blanket, pigs and a blanket for I am like Bacon,
Speaker 1: what do we want dead cops? Uh? When do we
Speaker 1: want them now? And Obama invited some of those people
Speaker 1: from Black Lives Matter to the White House, Hillary sought
Speaker 1: their endorsement. None of that bothers Joe, well we should
Speaker 1: call him Dr Liberal Joe and doctor Amika Razinski. So
Speaker 1: now their doctors and they're they're playing them on TV.
Speaker 1: It's not rank and file intelligence people. We need intelligence,
Speaker 1: the most powerful tools of intelligence to go after evil
Speaker 1: in our time, and those that do that job we
Speaker 1: owe a debt of gratitude too. And the same with
Speaker 1: that FBI. No one has supported I think in TV
Speaker 1: and radio on a national level, the law enforcement and
Speaker 1: our troops more than me. Absolutely, And I'm the one
Speaker 1: that's always saying give them the benefit of the doubt,
Speaker 1: and I'm the one that you know is out there
Speaker 1: every time saying they deserve that and more. But we
Speaker 1: have enough evidence now I mean, is is is Liberal
Speaker 1: Joe really gonna make the case that Peter Struck, who's
Speaker 1: involved in all of this with his mistress girlfriend. Is
Speaker 1: he really going to make the case that what they
Speaker 1: were saying to each other is appropriate, that that's not
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest? Is he not at all concerned
Speaker 1: when they talk about an insurance policy? Is he not
Speaker 1: at all concerned that they're writing exoneration letters before invest negations?
Speaker 1: Is he not at all concerned that Donna Brazil says
Speaker 1: that the primary was rigged? Is he not at all
Speaker 1: concerned that Comey and Struck and and Loretta Lynch knew
Speaker 1: ahead of time because he's talking about the d o J.
Speaker 1: These are the highest ranking members of the d o J.
Speaker 1: That they all knew that they were never gonna indict
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton ahead of time. We know crimes were committed.
Speaker 1: I know we may like Hillary Clinton, but that shouldn't
Speaker 1: you know cloud his judgment? Is that really the country
Speaker 1: we want where just a few people get to decide,
Speaker 1: you know what, We really want her to win, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna allow her to stay in the race, because
Speaker 1: if we followed the rule of law, like we would
Speaker 1: for every other American, she would have been indicted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: in the middle of a presidential election. Yeah, it would
Speaker 1: have been chaotic. Yes, it would have been difficult for
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, but it would have been the right
Speaker 1: thing to do, especially when the evidence was so overwhelming
Speaker 1: and so controvertible on what Hillary did with the email server.
Speaker 1: Do you believe in just do you believe in equal
Speaker 1: justice under the law? And then you've got this whole
Speaker 1: issue of Okay, we really appreciate our intelligence officials and
Speaker 1: what they do, but if you weaponize it and you
Speaker 1: turn it against the American people as it happened, I mean,
Speaker 1: think about this, where now turning the powerful tools of
Speaker 1: intelligence using Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for phony Russian
Speaker 1: narrative that she did the dossier to try and influence
Speaker 1: the American people with phony lies, Russian lies in an election,
Speaker 1: and then we're trying to use it and successfully use
Speaker 1: it to get a FISA warrant against your opponent and
Speaker 1: then a president elect, and then you're trying to use
Speaker 1: those powerful tools of intelligence to sabotage and incoming president.
Speaker 1: I would think that that would bother You know, this
Speaker 1: to me isn't even a left right issue. This is
Speaker 1: what is right issue and what is right here is
Speaker 1: you cannot weaponize the tools of intelligence. You can't have
Speaker 1: a few people and the upper echelons of power deciding
Speaker 1: that they think it's too important not to apply the
Speaker 1: rule of law. You know, you can't have elections of
Speaker 1: any kind in America rigged. And the fact that they're
Speaker 1: every Bernie supporter is an up and arms over that
Speaker 1: is mind numbing to me. But this is something that's
Speaker 1: civil Libertarians and liberals and conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, I would
Speaker 1: think I would all agree on. But the problem is,
Speaker 1: you know people like Joe and Mika Liberal Joe, doctor
Speaker 1: Liberal Joe and Dr Mika Brazynski, you know that actually
Speaker 1: think that they can adequately, you know, determine the medical
Speaker 1: condition of people that they don't haven't well they don't
Speaker 1: have a medical degree. I mean, it's just so idiotic
Speaker 1: on the surface, and they've gone so over the top.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the best bit I've ever seen is
Speaker 1: them on Saturday Night Live. The funniest thing I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: So we have deep state Gate and we have state
Speaker 1: sponsored sabotage. Not attacking the intelligence community, I'm attacking those
Speaker 1: that abuse the way papons of intelligence not attacking the FBI,
Speaker 1: am attacking those in the FBI that are not applying
Speaker 1: the law as they properly should. I've never heard of
Speaker 1: exhonerations before investigations. The problem is for these guys, they've
Speaker 1: all bought into a narrative that has turned out to
Speaker 1: be false for a year. That's why they're all clinging
Speaker 1: to Mother wants to investigate and talk to Trump. That's
Speaker 1: not even new news, but they're acting as though it
Speaker 1: is because they know that everything else around them, their
Speaker 1: whole narrative and their whole belief system for a year
Speaker 1: and all the lies they told their audience for a
Speaker 1: year is now caving in upon them. And the worst
Speaker 1: thing for them is their egos will not allow them
Speaker 1: to admit that they're wrong. And people like oh, Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity and Fox News was right, they can't handle that part.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with it. I just I don't give a
Speaker 1: flying rip what these people do. And I don't think
Speaker 1: you could ever trust them. I don't think anybody should
Speaker 1: ever trust them. It's so freaking corrupt. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what that is all. You know, what a lot
Speaker 1: of this is is rooted in a desire to be liked,
Speaker 1: a desire to be part of the club, a desire
Speaker 1: to be invited to the parties, the soires that these
Speaker 1: these people in the media have all the time, a
Speaker 1: desire to be respected by them, you know, the people
Speaker 1: I would want to hang out the least within life
Speaker 1: of those people or the people that go to the
Speaker 1: White House correspondence there. I'm so proud of the fact
Speaker 1: my twenty third year at Fox, I've never been a
Speaker 1: one and as Fox tried to make me go a
Speaker 1: couple of years and I got sick the day before.
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable and I and I've frustrated. I can tell
Speaker 1: you right now, I've frustrated the hell out of roder
Speaker 1: Ells because he goes, You're going this year. That's it.
Speaker 1: I'm going, You're going. You're stuck. I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear it. And I called I didn't call him. I
Speaker 1: called the guy under Nathan and I said, you gotta
Speaker 1: tell the boss. I'm really feeling bad to or Or
Speaker 1: started talking like Linda and I didn't get it easy there, Champ.
Speaker 1: She's not here to defend herself. Okay, even if she was,
Speaker 1: we couldn't hear her. It doesn't matter. She has no
Speaker 1: voice at all. I'd her here we come. The sisterhood
Speaker 1: is back. Here we are all right, Let's get to
Speaker 1: our busy phones. Nate is in Phoenix, k f Y I.
Speaker 1: What's up, Nate? How are you sure to hear your voice? Man? Look,
Speaker 1: I'm just so um impressed with you and your band
Speaker 1: of small band of patriots. What you guys have been
Speaker 1: able to discover highlight illuminate for the American public. And
Speaker 1: my reasons for column was just so frustrated with the
Speaker 1: rank and file FBI, d O, j C, I A.
Speaker 1: You know, as an American onlooker, if you will, with
Speaker 1: all the evidence system presented by you and your team,
Speaker 1: if this were like a cartel or a or a
Speaker 1: mafia group's got to say that the FBI ran can
Speaker 1: file will be all over it and there'd be people
Speaker 1: perp blocked and put in jail. But that being said,
Speaker 1: Cheryl said something that struck a chord with me because
Speaker 1: my generation Watergate doesn't necessarily resonate strongly with us. Here's
Speaker 1: the thing. We've got to have checks and balances on
Speaker 1: the people that we give this enormous power and capability
Speaker 1: to Now, we give the most powerful weapons to our military,
Speaker 1: and we trust and believe that they'll always do the
Speaker 1: right thing and maybe get zero zero zero zero zero
Speaker 1: zero zero zero point one percent of people that maybe
Speaker 1: don't do the right thing, but the rest of them do.
Speaker 1: Same with the intelligence community. I am a strong believer
Speaker 1: in this world of evil iss al Qaeda and UH
Speaker 1: and Radical Islam and all these other crazy groups that
Speaker 1: we've got to defend ourselves, and that includes Russia and
Speaker 1: Iran and China and any other North Korea, any other
Speaker 1: potential enemy nation. And we need it. But we can
Speaker 1: be using those weapons against the American people. We can't
Speaker 1: be allowing Russia, you know, influence our elections in anyway.
Speaker 1: The problem is that what they said about Trump wasn't true,
Speaker 1: but the person that did it was Hillary, and the
Speaker 1: media lost that whole story. Let's say hi to Raoul
Speaker 1: is in Fort Lauderdale. Raoul, how are you? Hey? I'm
Speaker 1: doing great, Sean, how you doing? I'm good? How are you?
Speaker 1: I'm doing great. I'm a fellow martial artist. I just
Speaker 1: haven't heard you say anything about martial arts time. I'm
Speaker 1: training five days a week. Now, what kind of arts
Speaker 1: are you being trained to I I teach Mark, I
Speaker 1: teach Brazilian capoa. Okay, I'm not familiar with that particular art,
Speaker 1: but I am minds a mixed martia ahead. Is it
Speaker 1: a brand of ju jitsu or no, it's it's the
Speaker 1: one that you do with that. It's sort of like
Speaker 1: a dance at the same time, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of gymnastics and kicks. It's uh, it's pretty popular. The
Speaker 1: national just like to get is this sort of you're
Speaker 1: doing the horse's mane and pushing the ball and a
Speaker 1: little bit of artistry involved in in the whole process
Speaker 1: to get your cheer up. No, completely opposite, all right,
Speaker 1: I will tell you what my mine is a very violent,
Speaker 1: eclectic blend of varying arts crab magaw, tempo, jiu jitsu
Speaker 1: and uh boxing and basic street fighting with a lot
Speaker 1: of training and blade in firearms as well. That's what
Speaker 1: I do. Oh, you're you're all around basically well, it's
Speaker 1: basically self defense in a way that you know, you break,
Speaker 1: you hurt, you destroy, your defend. That's it. Go on, Well,
Speaker 1: good to hear that. Anyways, I just wanted to call
Speaker 1: and thank you so much because you know, what I
Speaker 1: am one of those guys that should be the ones
Speaker 1: that you say hates uh on Trump. I'm an immigrant, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm Latino. I'm also what you consider African America. I'm black,
Speaker 1: but I'm Latino. And uh, you know what, because of
Speaker 1: everything that you've done for the last couple of years now,
Speaker 1: uh you it's like I took the red pill, like
Speaker 1: in the Matrix your Morpheus man, because I woke up.
Speaker 1: I got educated through just listening to you every day
Speaker 1: when I drive my truck, and got to come home
Speaker 1: and answer all the questions to my wife and family.
Speaker 1: And it's just been a blessed we worked out of
Speaker 1: I appreciate it so much. And the fact that you
Speaker 1: have an open mind. Listen, I'm open. If anyone wants
Speaker 1: to say that I'm wrong on something, tell me and
Speaker 1: I will tell the audience I think I got this wrong,
Speaker 1: you know, putting this together it's been more difficult than
Speaker 1: I can explain to some people. They want answers immediately.
Speaker 1: But you know, in a story like this, you're you're
Speaker 1: literally it's a mystery and you're unpeeling the layers of
Speaker 1: the onion and we're getting, you know, a bite here,
Speaker 1: and a bite here, and a bite here. Now it's
Speaker 1: coming fast and furious. But in a million years would
Speaker 1: I think that that we've gotten to the point that
Speaker 1: it's gotten with you right now, because you have brought
Speaker 1: it all to the forefront. And nowhere do you hear
Speaker 1: this story anywhere else, anywhere else, And and and I'm shocked.
Speaker 1: Finally Congress is catching up. Finally the Republicans and Congress
Speaker 1: and catching up. And uh, listen, I appreciate it, Warrior,
Speaker 1: God bless you. I appreciate you. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I send all the strength and honor your way. That's
Speaker 1: gonna wrap things up with today. All Right, we have
Speaker 1: a lot of breaking news we'll get to tonight as
Speaker 1: the media is in full force distraction mode, as we've
Speaker 1: got Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Jason Chafitz, Alan Dershowitz, Judge Piro, Tonight,
Speaker 1: GERALDO and Larry Elder. Alright, news you won't get anywhere
Speaker 1: else nine Eastern. Say your DVR, Hannity on the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel. We'll see you tonight at nine. Back here tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being Willis