A Stone Wall - 11.28

Published Nov 28, 2018, 11:00 PM

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

My friends at my Pillow. My buddy Michaelendell told me he was coming out with a brand new product. It's called the New Mattress Topper. So I got the new Mattress Topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it now for a couple of months. It's the best thing you've ever felt in your life. Now you literally have my pillow foam for support. It's a transitional foam that helps relieve pressure points. And it's Ultrasoft patented temperature regulating cover. And I gotta tell you how's a ten year warranty, a cover that's washable and driable. It's made in the USA, back by the sixty day unconditional money back guarantee. Once you try this new mattress topper, you put it right over your mattress, you will never sleep better. And right now, you my radio listeners, you're gonna save thirty percent off when you go to my pillow dot com and use the promo code topper. And by the way, Mike will also give you two standard my pillows absolutely free. All right, So try my pillow dot Com promo code topper promo code topper for this great deal and the best night's sleep you ever had. All right, glad you with us. We are loaded up today and I am absolutely fascinated by what is developing with the Muller witch hunt investigation and how that's going down. Roger Stone, who seems to be a target of Robert Muller and his merry band of Democratic donors and his pit bull Andrew Weissman, genius that he is cost tens of thousands of jobs at and Ron Accounting, and then of course genius that he is loses in the Supreme Court nine zero, and then he puts four Merrill executives in jail for a year, and of course that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. And but the tactics that they're using are now finally coming into question, and this is an amazing phenomenon. Well, by the way, we'll have Roger Stone on. We'll also I've talked to Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett both earlier today. They are they have an amazing analysis of all of this in as much as there could be no possible crime as it relates to collusion for either Stone or Jerome Corsie, none whatsoever. And of course the media's take on it is extraordinarily biased. Congressman Louie Gomert's going to check in today. He actually says we can get full funding for the wall if the Congress, Republican Congress, and Senate in this lame duck session would actually do their job, and that the plan would be to pay for a wall through the reconciliation process. And you know, and he's absolutely right. You know, over the last twenty years, budget reconciliation has been used as a very powerful weapon to bypass filibusters, where you normally need cloture and a vote of sixty in the Senate to advance legislation. In this case, you only need fifty because Mike Pence is the tiebreaker. And so when the president was elected, you know, there already was an effort to move to reconciliation as a way to repeal Obamacare. And that's when we discovered that after seven and a half years and sixty or seventy votes to repeal and replace, that there are actually some Republicans that didn't mean a single word that they uttered on the campaign trail, and they were just gonna go rogue regardless, and they didn't have the stomach for the fight. And then we found out that the Senators some what six or seven of them that voted in twenty fifteen for straight repeal of Obamacare, well they decided when it actually mattered, knowing that Obama wouldn't support it when it mattered, they weren't going to vote that way. Again, it's unbelievable. And in spite of all of that, still the losses what thirty eight or so now for Republicans in the House. But now with the big win in Mississippi by Hyde Smith yesterday, you know, now it's fifty three forty seven Mississippi came through. That was a big important vote that took place in that runoff election. There was one more left at Umber the fourth, and I think it's for secretary State Georgia, and I mind whatever, just one race is left and it's in Georgia, and it's not governor or lieutenant governor. I think it's secretary of state or whatever they call it. What's that, Linda, Yeah, I am right there, thank you. But so there is no reason for the Republicans not to use the same tactics that the White House under Obama used. The reconciliation process that was the only way they were ever gonna get Obamacare passed, and they did it. That's not how you pass major legislation anyway. When the House now is back in Washington, why doesn't the Republican leadership in the House set up the twenty nineteen Budget resolution alter the reconciliation instructions to provide twenty five billion in new mandatory spending authority for the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Committee, and instructions provided to offset the new spending with cuts to other mandatory programs. Now a reconciliation bills. Look, it's just a complicated legislative process where Congress. It allows Congress to expedite passage of certain budgetary legislation on spending revenues debt that limit a simple majority vote in vote the House two and eighteen votes Senate fifty votes. Senate rules prohibit filibustering and impose a twenty hour cap on a total time for debate motions amendments related to reconciliation bills. The procedure also exists in the House, but the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate amendments, so reconciliation has even a less significant impact in that body, and we can get all of that done. All of that can happen, and we have a lot of issues about the wall. You've got ten thousand more migrants headed for the border. This has now become the situation we warned you it was likely to become. Although some people are turned around and figured out Donald Trump means it and they're going home. We went through a long laundry list of how many times Barack Obama as president. I mean, it's pretty outrageous. You know, everyone's so upset if they're using tear gas, women and Joe chemical weapons. One person said, it's tear gas. And where did the president get this great idea for tear gas? Well, he got it from Barack Obama, because Barack Obama did it again and again and again in the media doesn't care about what the truth is, and you got the media's echo chamber in the media, they're spinning out of control over non lethal tear gas to disperse crowds, in this case, a crowd that was trying to bust down a barrier and rush the border while they were pelting our border patrol agents. We've gotten the video with rocks and bottles and other debris and even hitting a few of them. So you have thousands of migrants now more and more keep arriving just south of San Diego and Tijuana, and based on the press, you can't ignore now what is a serious situation that is ongoing there and all while assaulting border patrol with rocks and bottles, etc. And the mainstream meeting is doing anything and everything to vilify the president for doing so. However, as per usual, they have failed to tell you the truth, the whole truth, the unvarnished truth. You know. NewsBusters pointed out that networks totally ignored the use of tear gas during the Obama administration, and the Washington Times, we touched on it a bit yesterday, showed that the tear gas was used about once a month during Obama's time in office in order to stop migrants from crossing the border illegally. Isn't that pretty much all you need to know about your abusively biased destroyed Trump pat Trump mainstream media. There's no monthly outrage over the actions of the Obama administration, no grandstanding, no, you know, it's sort of like we get this all the time, selective moral outrage. If, for example, the very people that said I believe as it relates to charges against Brett Kavanaugh. In the case of doctor Ford, Republicans handled it app with the absolute sensitivity a topic like this deserves. And then she had mentioned four witnesses, one eyewitness to what had happened the alleged assault by Judge Kvanaugh. The witness said it never happened. Never, So do you believe in due process or Democrats didn't because they kept saying I believe, I believe, And then it gets worse, then ending with Julie Sweatnick and nearly every weekend there was a punch that was spiked, and young teenage girls drugged, and girls put in bedrooms, and boys line the hall and waiting their turn to gang rape these drug girls. Even though sweatnext story changed dramatically. Well, I never saw him do anything to the punch, meaning Kavanaugh, and never saw him, you know, spike the punch. But one song him with a red solo cup at a party. There's a shocker, and well he wasn't really standing in line, he was just in the hall. And then of course that fell apart. But you noticed that many of the same people that wanted to really go after Brett Kavanaugh. They're the same people that were silent. That's a thirty six, thirty seven year old charge. Silent about Keith Ellison's recent charge this year by a former girlfriend of abuse, repeated abuse, physical and other abuse, or the charges against Michael Avanati abuse in that particular case, charges unlike them. I'm consistent. I believe in due process, presumption of innocence for everybody. But if they cared about the issue, they would have taken the same strong stand that they were taken against Cavanaugh, against the fellow Democrats and the Bill Clinton that they love worship, idolizing a door. Now let me you know other things. We have all these We have more people coming. There's another new caravan forming in Central America tonight from El Salvador, and we're watching that very closely. And if you thought Sunday's border patrol victory over the migrants trying to push down the wall and quote invade if you're going to quote the mayor of Tijuana, but anyway, up to ten thousand more caravan migrants are still headed to the US border, and we have another caravan for me. Then we have the brother of the Honduran President indicted for importing tons of cocaine into the US. I've been to the drug warehouses. It's it's pretty fascinating. I gotta pull up that video and play it again on Hannity. Maybe I'll do it tonight. Republicans, you know, ignoring the Reconciliation Bill to Philly fully fund the wall, why, it's very frustrating. All right, So we have really these are fascinating times, and we have Roger Stone is going to join us later in the program, and we have Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett are going to join us in the program. Is signpost that Muller is now in full acceleration mode as it relates to wanting to wrap this up. The President has given written answers. One of the questions apparently was leaked today and the President's answer, and we'll ask Roger Stone about it, and that was whether whether or not Roger Stone and he ever talked about any possible release by Assange and wiki leaks. And I'm pretty sure that the answer is going to be no. But then we've got two people here. One is Jerome Corsi and who's a friend of Roger Stones. He's been offered a plea deal where he they would not oppose a sentencing of probation only. So, in other words, immunity plea deal, you can get off with probation. What is he? Seventy years old, seventy one years old, seventy two years old. I don't know how old Jerome Corsi is. I know he fought in the Vietnam War because he was part of the swift Boat Vets for Truth and wrote the book with James O'Neill Unfit to Serve about John Kerry. So I don't know how. Listen, he says some crazy stuff. He doesn't believe that the moon landing is reel. I got it. I understand this. For the sake of this case, that's not what matters. And so they want him, obviously to flip on Stone. Now the question is what are they going to flip him on? In other words, is it a crime that they hear that maybe Wiki leaks has information that's damning to Hillary? Okay, well, I can guarantee you if you line up four hundred and thirty five members of Congress and one hundred senators and somebody tells them that they might be up research on your opponent that's going to help you win the election. I bet you all five hundred and thirty five of them are gonna ask what do you got? And they will remember. This is now post the the DNC email dumped by Wiki leaks that led to the firing of Debbie Wasserman, Schultz, etc. Etc. And tons of speculation Who's going to do? What went? And there is there more you know, smoking guns that are been coming out. Who knows? But the question is, well, we don't know, but where is the crime? If you think that there's information available. I'm going to get into this through the historical judicial precedent of the Pentagon papers because it really I think fits in this particular case, and honestly, I think it's the best thing that could happen. And why they never asked Wiki leaks to provide where they got the information from is beyond any comprehension. I have also only because I interviewed Asana went out to the Ecuadorian embassy in London and I was there and I interviewed him and he's very clear. I'll play his answers later about this not being from Russia or a third party. Now I have intel sources that say well, maybe it was a third party Russian cutout, but it still came from Russia or whatever. Well does that mean? You know, the Pentagon papers were stolen too, and they were published by the New York Times, and they were published by the Washington Post. And by the way, so was the Wiki leaks emails as well, published by most of these publications. So why would anyone be in trouble if they were looking or to try to ascertain whether or not this information about an opponent. And if it's stolen and you didn't encourage the stealing, which would be a conspiracy, And if it's stolen and you know, like it was in the Pentagon paper case, it apparently doesn't make a difference if you're publishing it for informational purposes as some type of vote journalism. He let me tell you something about smoking. Guess what. It's not about politics, it's about people. Now they're about thirty eight million America? Is that smoke? And I want to tell you about my experience switching to jewel. I used to smoke cigars. I smoked them regularly. I even inhaled them at times. Not good. Everyone in my family growing up, they all smoked and Now that I've made the switch to Jewel, guess what I have found the best alternative ever. Now Jewel is designed with smokers in mind in terms of its form technology. It's simple to use, no buttons, no switches. It is the satisfying alternative now for one in eight American adults who like nicotine like me. Now to discover the smoking alternative that's nothing like any e sig or vape you've ever tried. Just go to Jewel dot com, slash switch America. That's Juul dot com slash switch America and learn more information at ju uel dot com slash switch America. All right, as we roll along Sean Hannity Show. All right, Roger Stone is gonna check in, also Andy McCarthy, Greg Jared. Neither one of them think that there's any underlying crime. And what's fascinating is, you know, if Corsie is saying, I'm not going to sign a plead deal that would prevent him from otherwise likely going to jail, because that's what the threat is. Either. You know Michael Flynn when he agreed to the plead deal, which was that he lied to the FBI. Remember, none of the FBI agents nor James Comey nor Peter Struck, who was one of the agents that interviewed him, thought he lied. But here's a guy he's facing, you know, literally bankruptcy, having to sell his house. By the way, thanks for serving your country over three decades. This is how we pay you back, and probably the threat of well, your sons in business with you. We're gonna have to be bringing him into this as well. And any loving father's going to take the sword and fall on it fast, whether it's the truth or not the truth. And Corsie is saying, no, I'm not going to do it, and that means that probably if he if he would willingly take the deal, the plea deal offered by Mueller, that would mean he doesn't have to worry for the rest of his life, which also included partial immunity. According to what he's saying. Paul Manafort cooperating witness of Muller. Now we find out both Corsi and Manafort have cooperation deals with the President's attorney with the White House. And the point is Manafort now being accused by Robert Muller in this particular case, of violating the plea deal that they had and also sharing the information. What's Mueller looking for? So Muller's now turning and tightening the screws on Corsi and on Manafort. Looks like, you know, Ecuador may turnover Julian Osange. By the way, he would be the one guy that knows where all this information originated from, wouldn't he? All right? Twenty five un till the top of the hour eight hundred nine f one, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, just stick with me here. I know this gets a little complicated, little bit in the weeds, but it is worth the deep dive, especially knowing that the Special Counsel never had real interest in Russia collusion, because if they did, they would have been very involved. And let's see the exoneration of Hillary before the investigation, and then the same people that said, oh, Hillary should win one hundred million to nothing, you know, go on this entire which hunt about Trump Russia collusion and there's been no evidence. And then of course the Clinton campaign funneling money to a law firm legal costs that it's not fed to a research group Fusion GPS, hiring a foreign national Christopher Steele, Christopher Steele. Then of course putting together a series of papers that then become known as the dossier. The dossier's full of Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies, none of it verified, none of it corroborated. Even Christopher Steele in an interrogatory he doesn't and by his own writing in his own allegations under the threat of perjury, Oh no, this is just raw intelligence, maybe fifty fifty. None of it is true that I know of. I can't say for sure. Well, then how did that then get used by in that particular case, used by the used to obtain FISA warrants by the FBI and the Department of Justice. The bulk of information coming from the Clinton bought and paid for Russian lying dossier, and they present it to a FISA court, unverified, uncorroborated, and now debunked by even its own author, never telling the court, meaning the FISA Court judges as they're committing fraud on the court Grassley Graham memo, Nunez memo. Bulk of information is what was in the FISA applications. So they commit a fraud on the court. They get it to spy on a former Trump campaign chairman or advisor, a non paid by the name of Carter Page. Then it's disseminated as outright truth to the American people for the twenty sixteen election. That's called propagandizing. That's called lying. That's Russian lies, paid for by Hillary to misinform purposely the American people that Donald Trump, you had two hookers in the Moscow rits urinating on his bed. This is where this has all gone to. And if we cared about Russian influence, if we cared about Russian chaos, if we cared about Russian collusion, they would also to have been investigating all of this, which they never have and probably never will. Lindsey Graham says he is going to get to the bottom of it in the next congressional session, especially if House Democrats do what I predict they're gonna do, and it's gonna be destroy Trump every second, every minute, every hour of every day. But that's where the double standard, a dual system of justice, no equal justice under the law, no equal application of our laws. And then even further, this information is used by top officials fbideal J. Bruce Or at the Department of Justice, demoted twice his wife Nelly, working for Fusion GPS putting all those crap together. But anyway, he's still in contact with Christopher Steele. We have three O two's that have yet to be released. Then we learned through struck page messages that they had a media leak strategy, and it was a circular leak strategy, which means that they take the same phony Russian dossier that's not verified, and they start feeding portions of it to the media, and then you then can make the case. Look, it's reported here, and it's reported there, and it's reported over here, and people see it. Look at all the different sourcing on this, but it's all one source, and the one sources Christopher Steele's dossier. And then, of course the insurance policy comes in because this then becomes well, if five chance of forty year old drops oat of a heart attack, you want life insurance. Well, the insurance plan in this case is well, Trump's never gonna win, but if he does, we've got Plan B the insurance. They didn't care about any of that, So it's like they don't care. They cared about the issues that they so passionately cared about when it's to take down a Republican justice. Kavanaugh boy they're all over. I believe, I believe. Do they believe Keith Ellison's accuser? How come they never believed any of the accusers of Bill Clinton, the many of them, including the charge of rape and groping and fondling and touching and kissing against a woman's will in the Oval Office, Kathleen Willie or exposing himself as then Arkansas Attorney General to Paula Jones and saying kiss it whatever else that he ended up losing that case and his law license, and he was impeached over it. So you know there's gonna be a lot happening, So stick with me here. So what you've got is you've gotten now two and one more on the record. Roger Stone is quoted in the American Spectator and say, I'm innocent. I'm not taking a deal. If Muller offers me one now, Roger Stone will join us at the top of the next hour. But what you've not here is, obviously, remember, Judge Ellis, you're gonna put the screws to Manafort in the hopes that he sings or he composes, so then you can either impeach or hurt Donald Trump. Whole purpose of going after somebody's lone application forms from years ago, or a tax violation that had already been put to rest in the Department of Justice. All right, he found guilty, he works on a cooperation deal that blows up, and now Corsi and in the case of Manaphort, two guys that are basically saying I'm not gonna lie. We call it testa lying. In other words, that you sit there and it's obvious if you tell us this, we'll get We'll go easy on you for cooperating with us. If you say these things, you'll spend less time in jail, maybe no time in jail, but you gotta give us what we want to hear. And then people say, you know what, in the case of both of those men, they're older men. That's the rest of their life in jail. So often prosecutors, in their zealousness, they lose any sense of proportionality, perspective, or prosecutorial discretion. They don't think they're lived. They don't really seem to remember that these are real people, real lives that they're destroying. Forget that General Flynn served his country with honor and distinction for over three decades of his life and Nobody in the FBI thought he lied when he was questioned. Nobody, So how did he come to the plea deal admitting that he lied? Well, they basically said, well, first of all, he's getting bankrupt. You don't make a lot of money when you're in the armed services, serving your country your whole life. So now he has to sell his house. And then I'm pretty certain good educated guests knowing how some of these prosecutors work, having read License to Live by Sydney Powell, especially how Weissman and company work. Oh, we're just going to have to go after your son. I know he was in business with its sad. Well, you know what's he gonna do? What would you do if it's your kid, You're gonna dive on the sword and die for your kid. That's what you're gonna do. And that's what I think happened in his case. Or Papadopoulos, who's been more than angry leading up to his two weeks in jail. Will be interesting to see what he says when he gets out. So you got Muellers now tightening the screws on both corsi, you know, saying that Manaport violated the cooperation deal, Corsi is a friend of Roger Stone who joins us at the top of the hour. So charges apparently appear imminent. We're not sure. Actually, I think why if they ever wanted to know. I flew to the Ecuadorian embassy in Great Britain. I flew there in one day and I flew back the same day, and I interviewed asan Jin January is seventeen. We asked him on radio, We've asked them on TV did he get this from Russia or Russian sources or people connected to Russia as the Multiple times he said, well, we'll play it later, So now he might be out, but he would be And I've known this has been a puzzling question in my mind. If you want to know where did he get the information from? And I know some intel people say absolutely it was Russia, absolutely? Or was it Russia or was it a third party representative or cut out for Russia that maybe he knew or didn't know, was a third party cut out or was it something altogether different? Who knows? But I would assume that there's some type of evidence, considering it had to be electronically transferred uploaded to the wiki League Sosange computer at some point, so we'll see what happens in that particular case. Now we have reports that the Russian spy and this this Maria Boutina woman is reportedly in talks for a plea deal. He got a number of Mueller's prosecutors even working on Veterans Day, and that's when Michael Cohen had taken the train to Washington to talk to Mueller's team. ABC reporting that an unusually high number, maybe three dozen sealed indictments have been filed over the course of the last year in DC. Fourteen of those have been added just since August, and that's when Mueller's investigation was publicly quiet. One thing they did do is they didn't get involved in the election. But we'll see. The President did turn in his long awaited written answers to Mueller's investigations, or at least a version of it that's locked in. And Trump, you know what the media will tell you well that he's tacitly acknowledging Mueller's at thirty President said repeatedly he's not going to stop Muller. And my prediction is is that Mueller is going to be exactly the person we thought he was, He's going to go in and try and damage, destroy, delegitimize, hurt Donald Trump as much as he can. So that I've never had any doubt based on the team that he's put together. How do you hire Hillary Clinton's former attorney? How do you never hire a single Republican as part of this group? How do you hire Andrew Weissman who was at Hillary's big victory party and writing what was the woman's name that was fired by the press? Ally Yates, you know, saying great job, great job. The guy with Enron losing tens of thousands of job NINEO in the Supreme Court, losing putting innocent people in jail. Merrill executives four years only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit. There wasn't a year of his life in jail that he can never get back. So as you look at the timeline and the silence, I don't think anybody fully completely knows, but it's obvious that they're asking questions of again about the Trump Tower meeting, and based on the court filing earlier in the week, Muller apparently hopes this you know, issue to issue in a report on mat Affords activities. To the court, so we'll find out what violation he might be involved in. It's just a lawyer for Paul Manafort, you know. Apparently they were had a cooperation agreement with the White Houses lawyers, and so I guess in that particular case, Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani acknowledging the arrangement yesterday, defending it, saying it gave Trump's legal team insights into what Mueller's investigations about what are they looking for, and two other people familiar with the conversations confirmed the arrangement to The New York Times, it appears course he had the same arrangement, and the Times noted that some legal experts believed that this could have been a bid by Manafort for a pardon. That speculation, and there was one report yesterday that said that that wouldn't even be, you know, completely possible as it relates to state charges where it wouldn't be applicable a pardon. And Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, met with Trump's legal team. But you don't break any laws if you have a joint defense agreement. That's allowed anyway, So you know, julianni has said Mueller's zealed to get Trump is prompting him to push witnesses to lie. That's what's happening here. Now, you think about it. If you're facing you're seventy years old, you're facing, however, many years in prison. How appealing it must be. Is you sit at a table and they say, come on, you know, you know what we want you to say. If you say it, we're gonna go real easy. You're gonna your life's gonna be golden. You'll be maybe a year max, maybe six months max. Yeah, we'll even fight for probation for you, or you might die in prison. The fact that neither one of these guys was willing to take that, that is amazing to me. And you know, as you have Stone campaign advisor Roger Stone releasing documents showing that as the presidential campaign heated up in twenty sixteen in the summer, this is after the DNC convention, when I guess the first batch of wiki leaks information came out. Stone tried to dispatch, in this particular case, his friend Jerome Corsi into finding what does wiki leaks even know? Because that might be damaging that Hillary. I was talking to Andy McCarthy today, said, well, guess one thing, it's not It's not a crime. So that's why, Well, now we got to go after a perjury charge because Corsi said in an interview that he might be indicted on the charge of ligne to federal investigators because he told them he refused Stone's request, when in fact he passed it on to an intermediary. This is going back to twenty sixteen. Does anybody know what you did in twenty sixteen. I can't even tell you what I did last week or what I even talked about yesterday on this program. I'm just going at the speed of light every day. And it's how do you remember what you did or set in twenty sea You forget something that's perjury? No, it's not. It's called having a normal memory. Anyway. So the draft statement against Corsi, which apparently they were informed about and people familiar with it or reporting about it. The New York Times had it, The Wall Street Journal had it, in other places have it. Spectator had a good article today and they're saying that in it, prosecutors are claiming that Corsi understood that Stone was in regular contact with senior members of the Trump campaign, including with then Donald candidate Donald Trump. Now I think he got off the campaign or advisement in twenty fifteen. Whether or not he talked to Trump, I have no idea, but we'll ask him because one of the questions leaked is that, well, did you have any contact with Roger Stone about Julian Assange and to get that information. I don't even think Trump knew about Julian Osange and the information or had any understanding of what it was. To be honest, he wasn't in this political world, deep weed world we live in sometimes and that there might be events that, you know, at the end of this then we're finding out all these you know, secret criminal complaints are out there and indictments are out there. Who knows. I've never trusted this honor. About July twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, person one send an email to Corsi. That would be Roger Stone, who's going to join us? Get the founder of organization one. Get to the founder of the organization one at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Gee, I wonder who that is? And get pending organization one emails. They deal with the foundation allegedly Okay, how's that different from the Pentagon papers published by both the New York Times and the Washington Post that were illegally obtained. They did it, and by the way, most of these newspapers published the same thing. Wiki Leaks published, Where's the crime? Where's the collusion? Unbelievable? Right, gladuate us our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred nine for one Sean. You want to be a part of the program. So as now we know that the president has submitted written answers what nearly six hundred days into this Mueller witch hunt, and the fact that, of course they're not really looking for collusion, they're just looking for Trump Russia collusion. So far no evidence, but in the final waning hours, days, months, clearly some form of desperation has set in. What's been most fascinating is that Jerome Corsi has himself said that he was offered a plea deal that even could result in probation no time in jail, and he has rejected it. Similarly, we now heard from Robert Muller that the plea deal that they had, the arrangement that they had with Paul Manafort all the same thing. There he has well, and in both cases, by the way, they have joint defense agreements with the counsel of the White House, which has a pretty fascinating development and makes a lot of sense if you're looking at it from the presid in point of view, the White House's point of view. But now it seems to be coming down to two people, and that would be Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi. And you know, supposedly, if you believe NBC News, Muller says he has emails from Corsi about the Wiki leaks, Democratic email dump. Now, I don't know many other people in the media besides myself who's actually taken the time to get in an airplane, fly across the pond and sit down and talk to Julian Assange himself. I was very specific. I wanted to know where this information came from. Did it come from Russia? Now, to be fair, I've had people in the intel community say that they're convinced, they know it's a certainty you that at least was Russia or Russian cutout. But that's not what Asan said, And let's listen to part of that interview. Russia give you this information or anybody associated with Russia. Our source is not a state party. So the answer for our interactions is no, you did not get this information about the DNC John Podesta's emails. Can you tell the American people a thousand percent you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia. We can say, we have said repeatedly over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not the state party. Our source is not the Russian government. So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC. Correct. All right? Joining us now is Rogers Stone. By the way, Stone's Rules a best seller, and Roger also quoted as saying in the American Spectator today, I'm innocent. I wouldn't take a deal of Muller offered me one. Roger, welcome back to the program. Thanks for being with us, Thanks Sean for having me. I've got to imagine that there's a lot of pressure in your life right now. We keep hearing that obviously Robert Muller is after you and after Jerome Corsi. Why don't I just generally give it to you and tell our audience what you think is actually going on here. Well, soan, first of all, I think I've been targeted because I supported Donald Trump for president. I helped defeat Hillary Clinton. But I violated no law regarding the twenty sixteen election or anything else. And the idea that I knew about the source or the content of the wiki least disclosures, whether they were allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails of John Podesta, is simply false. I had a tipster who told me that after Assange went on CNN in June and Fox in August and said that he had a trove of documents on Hillary Clinton, I had a tipster to tell me that they were devastating, a bombshell incredible would end Hillary's campaign, and that they would be published in October. And I provided text messages only last week that proved that that source was Randy Kretico, a New York based progressive radio talk show host, and that his source was not Julie Assange, but a woman attorney who works for Wiki Lakes. So now suddenly the media doesn't want to talk about Randy Cretico anymore. Now suddenly they have a new narrative, which is the idea that I must have received these documents, either Podesta's emails or the DNC emails from Jerry Corsi. That is also false. The emails that the Wall Street Journal and others refer to are not a smoking gun. There's no smoking gun there at all, unless political gossip has now been criminalized. Corsi predict that there are disclosures coming from WikiLeaks, and he makes an oblique reference to the American people learning more about the podestas. No where does it refer to Podesta's emails being stolen. So I thought this was about rushing collusion. I thought it was about WikiLeaks collaboration. I think we learned a long time ago. I think to be about a country trap for a seventy two year old man. You know. Let me refer to the Wall Street Journal. They talk about your tweet on August the twenty first, that said, trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel. That's how I read it. Verbade him from their piece, not my words. And then weeks later, emails from Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were dumped online by wiki leaks, And I think we got to also put in a context a little bit of the timeline, because it was on the eve of the Democratic Convention when we got the DNC emails, correct the first ones. I think that's correct. But the significance here is that doctor Corsi appears to have been pressured to say that my claim that that tweet was based on his briefing of me about the Podesta brothers lucrative Russian business dealings in gas, in aluminum and uranium and banking that I asked him to write a memo about so that I could retail it two reporters, was somehow a cover story. Well, let's let's examine that my tweet was not controversial for six weeks later, when the Podesta emails were finally published. There was no congressional investigation, There was no Muther investigation, there was no subpoenas, there was no media attention, there was no media controversy. So cover up for what? Why did they quote Corsi here? Jerome Corsi is saying that, as a long time acquaintance of yours, that he's contradicting your version of events, saying in an interview Tuesday that you called him on August thirty a, twenty sixteen, nine days after the tweet and asked Corsi for help in creating an alternative explanation for it. What does that mean? That means that you had a seventy two year old man who was hot boxed by mother's investigators for forty hours? Is what had that happened by that time? By the time, he only said that recently at that time. First of all, he told me about the Podestas and their extensive Russian disiness dealings prior to the twenty first. It took him until the thirty first to get me the memo. Then he subsequently asked me several times in text messages and emails whether I had been successful in selling it to any reporters, which was the purpose of it. So there is no need for a cover up story. Nothing we've done is illegal number one. And he says that he told me that he had deduced that John Podesta's emails had been stolen, but he does not do so in email or text message. He says it was a phone call which he now remembers, which I don't remember because frankly I never knew that until it was published. Well, it's what's weird about that article, though, is when he says what I construct, what I testified too before the grand jury, was that I believed I was creating a cover story for Roger because Roger wanted to explain this tweet. And then he went on to say something quite chilling to me and anybody that believes in the constitution and civil liberties, that he believed that the Special counsel knew this because they could virtually tell my keystrokes on the computer. That's a little that's a little scary, big brother scenario to me. Well, look, five days before the famous Podesta tweet, and which, by the way, the mainstream media always drops the word v V. Podesta's shown refers to two people, John and Tony, but by dropping the word Z you can imply that it's a reference to John Podesta's emails being published. Shows you the dishonesty of the Wall Street Journal, for example. You know what's amazing knowing this and on this as well. But five days prior, I put out a tweet that says, Paul Manafort makes John Podesta no part of me. John Podesta makes Paul Manafort look like Saint Thomas Aquinas. Why hasn't he been investigated Because apparently the same type of business and business dealings and lack of I guess the requirement as it relates to, you know, foreign if you're doing any work politically for foreign countries. Did he did he register as such an agent with the federal government. I'm not sure I understand your question. In other words, we have the far laws which they were making a big deal with Manafort. Is Tony Podesta up to speed on that? Did he do it all those years? Is violated the same law that Manafort has been convicted of violating. He didn't file under a FIRO registration either, but he hasn't been prosecuted. Isn't that strange? Yeah, you know, I find it interesting that Jerome Corsi and I really got to know him when he did he was part of the I think it was James O'Neill, and they did Unfit for Command, a book about John Kerry and all the things that Kerry had said about as fellow Vietnam vets. I know he takes some kind of bizarre positions on the moon landing and so on and so forth. Putting that aside for a minute, but when you have two people that know as and they're both older people, Paul Manafort who I got to know during the campaign, and Jerome Corsi that they're both offered. In the case of Corsi and reports, maybe he just gets probation if he says what Weissman and Mueller's team want him to say, and he said, no deal, I'm not gonna lie, and then Manafort seemingly did the same thing. That means that they both might face the rest of their lives in jail. And they could have easily, you know, extricated themselves from that and given them what they wanted, and they would have benefited a lot personally by doing so. Absolutely accurate. Look, I feel badly for doctor Corcy, who I liked very much, but I think he has been squeezed into giving them something. And the two things he has said about me are incorrect, the other ones even more incredible. He claims that I had advanced notice of the so called Billie Bush NBC grabbed them by the you Know What tape, and that I asked him, for whatever reason, to contact Julian Assange to tell Wiki Leaks to speed up the release of their documents to distract from that story. Sean, that is whole cloth. I knew nothing about this at advance. I was stunned when I heard about it. I was on the street in Manhattan. I heard about it around four o'clock in the afternoon. I rushed to a computer to read the Washington Post story on it because I heard they had broken the story. So again, he has no evidence of this other than the fact that we evidently spoke on the phone that day. But that proves nothing. How do we reconcile though, how do we reconcile the julian Is Sans who published these things? Weren't they also published in the New York Times exactly? In fact, as Sane was asked about Roger Stone, he said, while he is a cunning spinmaster, we've had no communication with him whatsoever. So I think mister Muller in trying to find somebody in the Trump orbit who received emails either stolen or hacked and passed them on to the candidate, and that just never happened. Here's what I never understood in all of this Wikileakssans, Corsi, Goosfer, you name it. It just never happened. Here's something that I have been very puzzled. If they really wanted to get to the bottom of was there any connection to Wiki leaks and the releases that they've had in the lead up to the twenty sixteen election. I've got to imagine, and I've always felt that the person that could give them the most honest answer, probably with some real hardcore evidence, would be Julian Asange. Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don't know, but all they're interested in doing with him is extraditing him and convicting him for doing exactly what the New York Times and the Washington Post in the Wall Street Journal do, which is getting information from whistleblowers and publishing it. That's what journalists do. Not long ago, we were all celebrating the Washington Post in this movie, the Post celebrating their publication of the classified documents, the Pentagon Papers, about the origins of the Vietnam War. So the left holds that out as a heroic act. But they would now want to send a Signe to prison for doing the exact same thing. Seems to me to be a great deal of hypocrisy there. I guess the question is what would the crime be if you did know that something was going to be published. We do have a case called the Pentagon Papers. If you recall, well, I'd have to be in the receipt of stolen material to have any kind of case made against me, and of course I wasn't. I was trafficking in political information. And yeah, there's no question, Sean. I took a tip from Randy Kretico that the Asge held material was significant, and I hyped it relentlessly on tweet, not to aggrandize myself, not to suck up to the Trump campaign, but to try to drive voter and media attention to the disclosures when they came, because I was assured by somebody I thought nobody was talking about that they would be devastating. You have you ever done this and been wrong? No? No, But I'll tell you what it is more amazing to me. Hold that thought, because I'll pick it up there. And we got a longer segment on the other side, Roger Stone, his Bookston's Rules, will get to that his relationship of the President much more. On the other side eight hundred nine four one, Sean told free telephone number, quick break right back, We'll continue straight ahead, and they wanted I had nothing to hide. I gave them to him immediately, and for having forgotten on day one, because I hadn't reviewed the emails, this particular email about Ted Malick. I'm now being charged with willfully and knowingly giving false information, which is nonsense. Do you think that your political views are playing a role in the decision of the Special Council to charge you with a felony? Yes? I think. And also, by the way, they accused me of deleting emails and I told them to restore. They restored the emails I supposedly deleted through the time machine. This is a political winch hunt, all right. That was Jerome Corsi on Tucker Carlson Show the other night. Eight hundred nine for one, Shawn is our number. You want to be a part of the program. And we now see that Jerome Corsi is rejected, according to his home words, a plead deal with Robert Muller, saying that he will not testify or admit to something he didn't do and lie, even though the prosecution apparently in their offers said they wouldn't oppose just a probation type of punishment in that deal, which means that if Muller really goes forward indicts Jerome Corsi, that he could face potentially the rest of his life in jail clearly a of the centers around Roger Stone, who's on our Newsmaker line, author of Stone's Rules. What do you make What did you think of what he said there that the chargers a nonsense? And do you think both Paul Manaford and Jerome Corsi are both pretty much doing the same thing? And that is refusing And I think I don't think Michael Flynn the FBI didn't even think he lied Roger They they thought he was telling the truth. But he had no money, he had to sell his house, and at that point they were probably squeezing his own family and threatening his own son who worked with him. So I imagine he finally, just like every father, said I'll fall on the sword instead and signed onto something that the FBI didn't even believe he had done. That's lied to the FBI. Well, only ten days ago, Vanity Fair had a headline that says Paul Manafort is dishing on Roger Stone. Well, obviously that's not true because and I have to assume that they probably did question him vigorously, but there's nothing to dish. I never got anything from Wiki leaks. I don't think Manaphort and I ever discussed. Wiki leaks is what's amazing Sean. At the same time, Democrats are demanding that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker stepped down because of his previous political activities. The prosecutor leading the inquisition into Roger Stone is Jeanie Ree, formerly the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, specifically in the matter of the Clinton emails, one of the matters in which I am being falsely investigated. I know nothing about Hillary Clinton's missing emails. Miss Rie is also a fifty four hundred dollar donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Now, I wrote the book The Clinton's War on Women, using a lot of the seminal research you did about the victims of Bill Clinton who were intimidated by Hillary. The point is my position on the Clintons is well known. Having someone who worked for the Clintons as a legal attack dog heading the potential prosecution of Roger Stone is a far more egregious conflict than anything Matthew Whittaker has. Let me go back to what's happening with Jerome Corsi because it does impact you and where where I think they're headed. In this and the draft court documents shared by Jerome Corsi, written by Mueller's office to be filed in case of a plea. They quote emails from twenty sixteen. The Corsi says that he exchanged with you and that is identified in the documents person one and in emails the two men discussed Wiki leaks and Julian Osange and their plans to release emails damaging and Missus Clinton. The quote is word is friend in embassy plans. Two more dumps Corsi writing August second, referring to Julian Assange living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. What now for almost seven years? One shortly after I back the second in October impact plan to be very damaging, and the documents and the Special Council's office alleging Corsi knowingly and intentionally made materially all statements related to the emails. You know, it reminds me so many of so much of what has happened here. Go back to Martha Stewart and many other people. It's they never get you for the underlying crime. And as horrible as the charges were against Denny Haster, he didn't get that. He never got charged with the underlying crime. It's you get charged with lying, and I don't know the impact. What is your reaction to those emails that they say they have and that refer to you. Well, my lawyers, of course have reviewed the emails and their characterization of them. I'd say they're miss characterized. I'd also point out that Jerry Corsey then subsequently on October third, both in the text message to me and in a tweet, says Osange has nothing. He was bluffing, he was full of bs. So if he knew this was coming, why then when Osange had his public event on October two, it would be October third US time did he say that Ossange had nothing. I also have text messages from Jerry when the actual Wiki leagues data dumps are done in October, in which he's clearly reading the material for the first time. So those emails don't prove anything. They certainly don't prove criminality on But I remember at the time after the pre DNC emails released that there was all sorts of speculation all over the place that oh, there might be more, there might be more, what's gonna come here, what's gonna come there? Remember, absolutely every politico and every political reporter in the country was following this story and wanted to know unless legitimate political inquiry has been criminalized. There's nothing in the emails between Jerry Corsi and I that is improper. The only thing that appears to be improper here is that they accused Jerry of erasing them, and then they accused him of lying them. But nor does it say John Podesta's emails have been stolen and would be published. It doesn't say that. It says the American people will soon learn more about Podesta. That's not the same thing. That's an inference, and that's quite a leap by the government. Now, how often I know you've known Donald Trump for forty years, you're also viewed and I think you know this is a very controversial figure you have your whole career. I'd know that you weren't a part of the campaign, at least that I knew of at any point were you? Did you talk to the then candidate at the time. I worked for the campaign until August of twenty fifteen. I left the campaign to publish the Clinton's War on Women right, And I think after that I worked as hard as humanly possible to elect Donald Trump president. Not only did I produce the documentary we talked about produced, the Clinton's War on Women book. I did an enormous amount of surget speaking on behalf of the president. He was someone I've known intimately for forty years. He was at my wedding. I went to his parents wake and their funerals. I knew them both. They were wonderful people. I have a real affection for Donald Trump and his family. So while I had no official role, I really do think I've been targeted because of my loyalty to the president and because of my role in helping defeat Hillary Clinton. Now, in the course of when you left the campaign, you sound like you were very busy. Did you stay in touch with then candidate Trump. I spoke to him more in twenty fifteen and in the early part of twenty sixteen than I did at the end of the campaign, because, frankly, once his platform was determined, and by the way, determined by Donald Trump himself, not by Roger Stone, not by Steve Bannon, not by some polster. Donald Trump decides what he's going to say, by the way, I can confirm all of that is true. True, He listens, but then he makes up his own mind. Yeah, he'll listen to good advice. He'll ask tough questions. But nobody puts words in this guy's mouth, nobody puts ideas in his head. He Donald Trump is responsible for Donald Trump's election more so than any other individual on the face of the earth. He's not. There is no Carl Rove in Trump Land. It just doesn't exist. So we kept in touch. We would talk sporadically. When the President calls you, he does most of the talking. You do most of the listening. But we never spoke about wiki leagues, not once, which I said on Meet the Press. They asked me three times, Chuck Todd asked me. The answer was the same three times. CNN has just reported that in the written questions from mister Muller to the President, he was asked specifically, did you discuss wiki leagues with Rogerstone? And the President correctly said no. And by the way, the President doesn't text, and the president does an email that I know of, and I don't think he ever has. That's my take on it. Where do you think this is gonna end? Do you believe, like Paul Manafort, one morning there's gonna be a knock on your door and then they come I haven't committed any crime. I mean, even the emails that they cite in the QUERSI matter are not evidence of any crime on my part. So no, I really don't think so. If the decision is made on the basis of facts and evidence and the law, then no charges will be brought against you. But look at the team that Mueller's put together. Look at Andrew Weissman's track record. You mentioned Jeannie Ray earlier, who worked as the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation. Andrew Weissman. The New York Times dubbed him Mueller's pit bull. Let's see, he costs tens of thousands of Americans their jobs at Enron Accounting back in the day. He was overturned by the Supreme Court nine zero. He put four Merrill executives in jail for a year that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. And his tactics are you know, if you look at license to Lie Sidney Powell, you realize you've got somebody who's been pretty rogue their entire lives, and that these tactics are are pretty common. And you can indict a ham sandwich. You know it, and I know it well. They can certainly get an indictment. I think there's more public focus on their activities in their partisanship now than there was even at the time that Paul Manifort went to trial. Sean, look, I have no choice but to fight. I set up a legal defense fund at Stone Defense Fund dot com because this is this ravens to destroy me financially. I mean, it literally can bankrupt my family. I don't know how I'm gonna pay for Christmas because every dollar I have is going to the lawyers. But I've defeated a defamation lawsuit. I had a lawsuit by an Obama backed group that accused me of Russian collusion dismissed. I'm being sued along with Jerry Kushner and Donald Trump Junior and the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee by that DNC. I've asked to see their servers in discovery, and I'm very happy about that. I still have they How did the FBI and not take those servers? How did they get to bring in their own company? So I have the US Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees inquiries to deal with. I have a newly energized Adam Schiff at the House Intelligence Committee, who says he's reopening the investigation, and I have the on rushing troops of Robert Muller. This threatens to bankrupt me, so I had to set up Stone Defense fund dot Com to fight for my life. Let me ask you in light of what we have been able to uncover, and I'm pretty sure you're as aware as I am about all of these issues. You know, It's like, if it's if it's Kavanaugh, Bret Democrats, Liberals, they are dead set again. They're all for we believe without any due process, any presumption of innocence, and that's why. But yet if it's a Democrat Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton more recently charges against Michael Abanati, they have no interest in ever talking about it, which tells me their interest was only political against Kavanaugh. And similarly, if they really cared about collusion with Russia, how do you ignore the Clinton bought and paid for dossier that with funneled money through a law firm, to an op research group, to a foreign national Russian lies that he wouldn't even the author, Christopher Steele, wouldn't even acknowledge to be true in an inner sugatory in Great Britain under oath and threat of perjury. How do you not get into those Russian lines disseminated to the American people in the lead up to the twenty sixteen election. I think you and I both understand the entire Russian collusion delusion is meant as a distraction from the largest political scandal in our country's history. And that's an abuse of a power in which the surveillance capability and authority of the state was used to spy on Donald Trump's campaign. And there are more than one fis A warrant. It's not just Carter Page. The New York Times reported on January twenties, twenty seventeen, that Paul Manifort and Roger Stone were also subjected to fis A warrants. And when I file a Foyer request of thirty different agencies of government, I get back nothing. Yeah, you'll get that thirty years from now, when we're both get it. Never. Yeah. You mentioned the FBI efforts to infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign. Well that's all true too. And look at what we've got here, no evidence of collusion, but we do have a bought and paid for phony dossier that was used to propagandize in line of the American people. We have that, we do have Faiza Court fraud committed four separate times. We do have an exoneration of Hillary with clear obstruction, clear violation of the Espionage Act. That exoneration put in written in May early May of twenty sixteen, and she wasn't even interviewed nor with sixteen other main witnesses. And I never heard of an exoneration written before investigation. And I don't think if I did what Hillary did to subpoen at emails, delete them, acid washed the hard drive and everything else, that I would survive. But we'll continue more on the other side. Roger Stones, our guest, Stones rules as his book, as we continue his journey now as he awaits the actions of Robert Muller, quick break right back, we'll continue. Well, So, and first of all, I think I've been targeted because I supported Donald Trump for president. I helped defeat Hillary Clinton. But I violated no law regarding the twenty sixteen election or anything else. And the idea that I knew about the source or the content of the wiki, least disclosures whether they were allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails of John Podesta is simply false. I had a tipster who told me that after Assange went on CNN in June and Fox in August and said that he had a trove of documents on Hillary Clinton, I had a tipster to tell me that they were devastating, a bombshell, incredible, would end Hillary's campaign, and that they would be published in October. And I provided text messages only last week that proved that that source was Randy Cretico, a New York based progressive radio talk show host, and that his source was not Julian Assange, but a woman attorney who works for Wiki Lakes. So now suddenly the media doesn't want to talk about critical anymore. Now suddenly they have a new narrative, which is the idea that I must have received these documents, either Podesta's emails or the DNC emails from Jerry Corsi. That is also false. All right, that was just in the last hour, Roger Stone. As now the mystery of what is going on. Paul Manafort Julian Assange both denying the Guardian report that they had met on three separate occasions, Jerome Corsi saying He will not sign something that is not true in some plea deal offered to him, he claims by Robert Muller in connection with what he knew and what he and Roger Stone were communicating about in the lead up to the twenty sixteen presidential election. And on top of all of that, we just have you know what's going to happen next the President and put out answers to specific questions, one of them apparently having to do with whether or not the President had any conversation with roger Stone about the issue of white what might be released by Julian Assans. Roger Stone just telling us moments ago that there was no such conversation, and the President answered correctly. Anyway here to get to the bottom of this are what are the legal aspects that are in play here? Because when Robert Muller, if he's offering Jerome Corsi, is Corsi claims some type of plea deal, then that's interesting to one count of perjury or lying in even the possibility of only probation. But he's not going to sign something that's not true. Remember back, Lieutenant General Flynn said, the FBI agents and James Comey himself Peter Struck amongst them all did not believe he lied to the FBI, but he was going bankrupt, had to sell his house. I believe the screws would be interned on him, probably pressuring him with some time for threat against his son who he was in business with. This happens all too often, and we call it, as my friend Greg Jared, who joins us now calls it testa lying say what they want. You get off with no sentence, You get off with a light sentence. But both mana Fort and Coursi are saying no, we're not going to play that game. Also with us. Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, columnist National Review, former, by the way, assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Welcome both of you. You know, Andy, we've gone back and forth about this, and you know, it reminds me of like Sammy the boll Gravano, who you know, he kills what eighteen nineteen people and they make a deal and he doesn't go to jail if he testifies against Gotti. How do you trust the guy when you're bribing him with a get out of jail free card. In that particular case, maybe more dramatic, but do you see that happening here? Sean. The vital difference between what you just described in terms of Gravano and what we're dealing with here is that Gravano actually played guilty to a crime, that is to say, to a scheme, to a conspiracy. What a prosecutor does in a real criminal case when the prosecutor has an actual conspiracy that he's investigating, is he brings the cooperator in and the cooperator testify or allocutes in his guilty plea to the existence of the conspiracy. He says, here's the crime that we agree to commit. I was a member of the Gambino family at Costa No No Street. Here was the boss, here was the under boss. This is the crew I ran. These are the crimes I committed. And that way you have the structure of the criminal enterprise. You've got it all described, you have everybody's role in it right here. What we're dealing with is an investigation of no crime, so they don't have What they're doing is they're investigating the scene underbelly of a k In politics, the kind of stuff that goes on in campaigns and even if Muller had his dream version of events. Here. Let's say Wiki Leaks was in contact with Jerry Corsey, who was in contact with Stone, who told the President that they had Hillary Clinton or John Potesta's emails. What's the crime because I don't think anybody knew it was there. So this is important because I'm watching all of this and I'm asking myself, what is okay somebody says that they have something that is damning OP research, It's going to hurt the other party. Now, I think if four hundred thirty five members of Congress one hundred US senators get a phone call and the phone call says, no, we got information that is damaging to your opponent, do you agree with me? Probably all five hundred and thirty five would say what do you got and go and meet such a person. Of course they would, because that's the way politics goes in America. But my point is that they are criminalizing something that is not criminal activity. That's the reason that they have to plead them guilty to false statement counts. I agree with you that Sammy Gravano got a disgraceful sentence, but at least he pled guilty to racketeering at least he pled guilty to the crime that they were investigating. Here, they're not investigating a crime, so they have to plead everybody guilty to false statements counts and sean. If you were a prosecutor building a case that you intend to have a big bang at the end, do you think the way you go about that is to plead all your important witnesses to lying to the FBI. You want to put people on the stand that the first thing that the jury's going to hear, and the most enduring thing they're going to hear, is that the guy's a liar and can't be trusted. Nobody builds a case that way. Greg Jarrett Well Durham, Course, he sent me the plea offer that he received from Robert Muller, and count number one false statement. It begins by saying, Jerome, course, he did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, fraudulent statement to wit and then identifies three things. He said, those three things are different than emails that he have and a half, and the lawyer responded, of course. He's lawyer responded by saying, my client did not have the benefit of reviewing his emails and once he did that, he amended his statements to your office. And now you're asking him to admit that he lied, when in fact, he simply didn't recall a couple of the emails. He's seventy old. Look, I'm much younger. If you asked me who was on my show next week, I honestly don't think I could recall. I don't think I would an example. So I went back because I had some vague recollection that I wrote about wiki leaks in two thousand and sixteen during this summer, and I research it. I go back through my emails, I go through my column. I wrote a column which I don't remember writing. And by the way, and do you know that's true? Right? How does anyone remember what the hell you did in twenty sixteen. I don't even know where I was. It was having on emails and information that I sent out trying to get the same information from wiki leaks. Now I don't remember sending them. So if I had testified yesterday, I'd be in the same position as Jerome Corsi. I want to and do you want to jump in on that? I just was going to say that, uh, you know, I remember every word of every column, and I expect everyone else to remember every word. That's ridiculous. You do not anyway. But let's go back to this document describing Corsis activities, and I want to just as if it's a crime, it says honor about July twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, person one, we believe now to be Rogers Stone send an email to Corsi with the subject line get to the founder of organization one we believed to be Wiki leagues, meaning assange the body of the message read get to the founder of the organization Organization one at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They're not really hiding it, and get pending organization one emails They deal with foundation allegedly, so somebody gave him. It sounds like somebody gave him a tip. Hey, this guy might have information that deals with the Clinton Foundation. That's how I read it, right, Yeah, And if it was a crime, they would have asked Jerry Corsi to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage. They're describing an operation to get somebody's clause on opposition research, which people may think is icky, but is not illegal. And again, Sean, I'll come back to the same thing. The reason that they're pressuring him to plead guilty to a false statement is in order to camouflage what they're doing as if they were investigating actual crime. But what's going on here is they're investigating a non crime. They trip people up and they get them to falsely explain, or as they put it, inaccurately explain what happened. And what the media then runs out and reports is that Mulla is doing an investigation of Trump collusion with Russia and everybody's pleading guilty. Isn't this what we call a classic to that? Isn't this a classic perjury trap? In other words, you know they can't get you on the underlying crime. So what it teaches I guess everybody else's, even though you might be inclined as I normally would be. If the FBI wanted my help, I would want to help them. But if I'm risking my own life and a charge of perjury if I don't accurately remember something, I don't even know what I did on TV last night, And and Corsi's mistake is twofold. First of all, he should not have volunteered to testify. He should have said no, when he was asked. And second of all, he should have reviewed his emails before he testified. That's his mistake. But nevertheless, well, he actually deleted them, but then he was able to gain access, as you often are, through deleted emails that are nevertheless kept. But I mean the point is that if Robert Muller decides to charge Jerome Corsi with making a false statement, he'll never be able to prove it, I predict, because he'd have to show that it was willingly and knowingly made. Well in the defense of Jerome Corsi, as it is for many people, is that I didn't knowingly make a false statement. I didn't remember emails that I said. He but isn't it an act of bravery? I mean, pretty much what it seems. Mueller's team was offering you plead guilty to one count of lying, and we won't even we won't even oppose the possibility that you just get probation. So of Coursie says, I'm not gonna lie. Mantaport, he says, I'm not going to tell you what you want to say. Greg, you coined the term, well, I've heard it before, test to lie. In other words, they're sitting there across the table from you, basically telling you what they want to hear, and all you have to do to save your own ass is say what they want to hear. And if you do, you're going to benefit instead of the rest of your life in jail. Maybe it's going to be, you know, two weeks like Papadopoulos, But to both of them to both say no because they can't go along with something that's false. They're both older gentlemen. It seems to me that that's a pretty principled stand, knowing that this might be the rest of their lives in jail. They're being principled. In the special counsel is being unprincipled because he doesn't care about the truth and he's using the tactics of bribery and extortion to try to get somebody to capitulate in Coursie and I think man Afford now are refusing to do so. The quick answer on that, Andy, and we'll take a break to capitulate on what that's the I mean, what Greg outlines, sure, but the thing is, what if they admitted what Mueller wanted, it's still not a crime. What they're doing is they're criminalizing what they do in a political campaign. It's not like, you know, somebody agrees with Muller's version of events. And finally we have the big hacking conspiracy they don't have. I want to ask you about that when we get back. I want to ask you about because the New York Times also publish this information, as did other papers, the other news sources, and there was a case in the past where it became a big deal. I'll explain that when we get back. Let's talk about other publications that did the same thing that wiki leaks did. They got the information, and they got the emails DNC Podesta. They all didn't they all print them? Are they Why are they less culpable than wiki leaks doing it? Andy, They're not. We have a pentagon. If if wiki leaks was involved, if if wiki leaks had an understanding with Russian operatives that there would be hacking and wiki leaks would take the hacked information and put it out, then Wiki leaks may have a hacking problem. You know, they may be involved in the hacking conspiracy. That doesn't mean that other people who take what they have and run with it have committed a crime. You could, you know, I remember when this came at Sean Marco Rubio, I think, came out and said nobody should rely on this stuff, that nobody should um, you know, publicize it because it's it's stolen material, and he wanted to be like the last honest man. But the way things work in America, everybody uses this stuff and the media regularizes it by publishing it. I think that's a good point. And on the other side of the guys, don't mind. I want to hold you over a few more minutes and get into historically why I think this is important and what it means for freedom of the press and those that are given information like this. Eight hundred nine one. Sean will continue more with Greg Jarrett and Andy McCarthy on the other side. All right, twenty five now till the top of the hour. It's getting more interesting by the hour, by the minute, by the day. And Robert Mueller has had two setbacks now in the last couple of days, one with Paul Manafort also apparently along with Jerome Corsia, had joint defense agreements with the White House, which means a lot of the information was going back and forth. Mueller's claiming the cooperation agreement with Manafort has been breached and in the case of course, he's saying that he refuses to take a plea deal in which he would be forced to lie about something. I want to get into the issue it maybe used the Pentagon papers as a case in point Andy to explain to people exactly why this is not a crime. Even if it did it happened as it relates to Jerome Corsi or Roger Stone, why would you say it's not a crime. Well, Sean, maybe the best example for people would be like a diary. Right, you have a diary in your house. I come in and I steal the diary out of your house and I give it to Greg and Greg runs with the information on it. Now, Greg didn't deputize me to go steal it, you know, he didn't know I was going to take it. But he finds the information interesting he publishes it. Now I've committed a crime because I stole it from you. Greg hasn't done anything wrong. Now you could say, maybe he's done something on ethical or something that you think is achy, because you've you've put personal information in your diary and he's not respecting your right to privacy as you see it, sure, fine, but he's still let me let me ask you specifically in this case, because I interviewed a sage on radio and on TV, and I asked him repeatedly, I'll play it for you if you want, whether or not he got this information from Russia. Now, one caveat people in the intel community, other sources. I have said it absolutely. Maybe it wasn't directly from Russia or a state party, as he said, but it could have been a third party cut out, if you will. In other words, somebody that is not associated with them but really is doing their bidding. But here's what, Asan said, Russia give you this information or anybody associated with Russia. Our source is not a state party. So the answer for our interactions is no, you did not get this information about the DNC John Podesta's emails. Can you tell the American people a thousand percent you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia. We can say, we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian cover and it is not the state's party. Our source is not the Russian government. So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the podested documents or anything from the DNC. All right, now, Andy, just using your example of you giving something to Greg and Gregg maybe unethically but not illegally, you know, publishes that something, and maybe you're on the hook. What if something is brought to wiki leagues by whatever source, but it happens to be truth that they're publishing. May not like it, it may be secrets, it might be you know, personally, I can't believe we as a country have not developed cyber security. We get hacked all the time. It's insane that we have not built up a better defense system for our government. Which also raises the question of Hillary's emails and how unsafe that was in a bathroom closet. But when he says that if what he is saying is true and this was offered to him, is he Greg using urine aology? Did he just receive it from somebody and he published what somebody gave him because he believed it to be true. The best example is the Pentagon papers case. The documents about the Vietnam War were stolen by Daniel Ellsberg. They were given the New York Times and the Washington Post that published them. The Post and The New York Times are insulated from prosecution. They're publishing something that's a matter of public interest, even though they were stolen, And that principle of the Pentagon Papers cases stood for a very long time. We don't prosecute people for trying to find out information, especially news organizations that are in the public interest, even though they originally might be stolen information. The same can be said here. Let's assume that the documents were stolen and given to Wiki Leaks, and then they then published. Of course, he was trying to do exactly what you did, trying to find out information. If you read the count again, stim it says he reached out to wiki leagues. All right, so did you, So did I So did hundreds of other journalists across America during the summer of two thousand and sixteen because Julians he's got some stuff and it's going to be damaging to Hillary Clinton. So everybody was trying to find out what it was. So why then, it's not why Andy then would in the sense if this is offered to Wiki leagues, and I know they view themselves as a news organization, if it's given to them, why wouldn't they be in the same position as the New York Times and the Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers case. Well, Sean, I don't know that I accept Asana's explanation that he didn't get it from Russia. If you take at face value what he said, and if it turns out as you qualified before, if what he's saying is true, then I agree with Gregg's analysis of it. He's just like a journalist. What all right, Let's say his source was a Russian cut out. Let's say it's that. Does that matter who where he got it from? I think it depends on whether he knows and whether you have an arrangement that you can that you can properly describe as a conspiracy and others. How is that different though, than the Pentagon papers? What do you mean in other words? You know they were stolen, they were stolen documents, they were printed. Yeah, but if you're encouraging people to do the theft and there's proof of that, Let's say he didn't. Let's say you didn't encourage it. Somebody came to him and offered it to him. Well, that's a different thing, right, That's like that's like somebody takes information. What I'm saying is there's a lot of there's a lot of you know, this is not a one off with Wiki leaks, right, Uh, They've had they have a lot of information that they've put out in the past. And there's a lot of people in the intelligence community long before any of this happened, that thought that they were in arm of Russian intelligence. And I don't think that that's ever been disproved. It certainly hasn't been disproved. Listen, I know people that believe that with all their heart and soul, and I don't have an so because it's it's way above my pay grade. But but then let me take it a step further and ask if in fact they got these disinformation however they got it and they published it, and if they didn't encourage it. You're saying there's no crime associated with that, and that that precedence of the Pentagon papers would hold, Yes, if there's no conspiracy, Sean, I don't understand why giving it to wiki leaks would be different from giving it to me, you know, I mean, there's either a crimer there's not underneath it all. Yeah, and Greg, to take it even maybe a step further, if they really wanted to find out where they got it from. Why didn't Muller and his Well, first of all, why didn't you know? The interesting thing is he never went after Hillary Clinton and real Russian lies, really used it to propagandize the American people, bought and paid for Russian lies. Then a fraud committed on four fives accords and four app separate applications, pertinent information withheld from those judges. And then of course she was exonerated and without an investigation. And then we've got surveillance and I'm asking and leaking raw intelligence abuse here. But you know, let's just for the sake of argument here say that you know, in the case of Wiki leaks, that they did what any other paper would do or any other Yeah, and Muller admits it. But why didn't they ask Well, here's my question, why didn't they ask Julian Assange? Well, they shouldn't. The first thing you do is you asked Julian Assange. There's no indication anyone. Wouldn't he be the one guy I'm sorry to interrupt, wouldn't he be the one guy that knows where he got it from? And wouldn't he be able wouldn't he be able to prove where he got it from. He would, But the on the Statement of Offense first page, Muller declares the theft of campaign related emails and other documents was by the Russian government's main intelligence directorate of the General Staff, the gru. So Mueller declares, this was the theft was bought. Okay, let's say that's true, but that doesn't mean that's where they got it from. And if the Russians gave it to WIKI leagues and Jerome Corsi and others, including yourself, try to find out information in details about that. You're not committing a crime. The gr you committed a crime, but nobody else did. All right, Listen, you guys are both fascinating. I mean, this really is getting interesting to me, and it seems like there is there's a certain desperation to this that I think is going to be revealed in pretty short order. We'll find out. Andy McCarthy, thank you, Greg Jarrett, thank you. We appreciate you guys spending the extra time with us. Eight hundred nine for one. Shawn told free telephone number you want to be a part of the program. Our friend Congressman Louis Gormer to Texas their first congressional district. What percentage of the vote did you get this time? It was only about seventy two, seventy three, seventy two seven. I'm never campaigning for you again. You don't need me ever. Are you kidding? If it would have been a lot worse without you? Sean? Are you kidding? Can I say one thing about Mueller mower investigation? We got senators say the more investigation we got to be protected. Look, let me go on record, the Mueller investigation has got to be protected at all costs. I've been saying Mueller needed to be investigated for years now, and if there's an investigation of Moller, it needs to be protected. This guy's dirty, he needs to be investigated. That's the mower investigation that needs Well, that's not gonna happen. But you know, we are talking about a lot of different things here. Let me ask you this, um. Now, you have a plan that's going to allow Congress to pay for the border wall through a reconciliation bill that would be in the House and Senate can do it with fifty one votes in the Senate. Yeah, or even fifty votes, because then we have a vice president that would break it for the president. And you know what, in September we were told, look, let's don't have a fight for the wall. Now, let's come back in December and do it then. And now there is no fight. And I got up today at conference and I was saying, look, guys, you said you were wanted to fight in December. Now is the time to fight. We only have a couple of months. And Sean, you had been so proud of the members that stood up and said, hey, I've been defeated, but I'm willing to stay here every day. I'd like to have Christmas Day itself, but I would stay here every day. People are willing to fight. Rank and file are willing to fight. And Paul says, well, the Senate doesn't have the votes. We can do it through reconciliation. Brad Burn has the bill is called the fifty vote for a Wall bill because you don't have to have sixty and it could be done. Paul's been chairman of Budget Committee's done it before. He knows how it's done. Well, they don't have the votes in the Senate. Look, we have got to have people right up the Senate, right up the House members saying, look, you got two months help the president. You didn't help him enough before. Now you got a chance before you go out help the president. We got a lot people up because the fight is in a lot of members, Republican members here just not why are they afraid to have this fight ever? I mean, this is it. Don't get it. I don't get it. It's if we don't have this fight, they may want Rodney for president next time. There will not be another Republican president if we don't do what we need to do to help Donald Trump protect our border, protect our country, not to stop immigration, but make sure it's legal. He's doing what he can. That's why his voters will come out in twenty twenty. But we can do this is through the Reconciliation product, and the Democrats can stop it. We have the votes. What has Mitch McConnell said about it. Well, I haven't heard from Mitch, but I've heard from Paul and Kevin. Their position as well. The Senate says they don't have the votes. Well maybe they don't have Jeff Flake, but we could get fifty votes if there's enough pressure brought to bear on what's going to happen next year if they don't help out and get this done for a while where we need it. I mean, we have slapped the president the effects figuratively speaking. It's time. We can do this now. And thank you for your fight. This is a desperate time and I don't normally get applause at conference, but when I said, guys, this little experiment in self government is very in grave danger of coming to an end. Let's fight. Let's spend these next two months helping the president. And I got a bunch of applause. People are ready to fight, but the leadership is not. They just said, I'm gonna get Kevin McCarthy on the line and see if I can talk to him about it, because he's the guy that can make this happen, and he should make it happen. In the new listeners, I think you need to add, Look, you have a good relationship with the president. Wanted you to have the President called Mitch McConnell and push him. Well, and that's the thing. If the House will do our job, then the President has incredible leverage against Senate to get it done. But if we don't even fight to do it in the House, well then there is no pressure on the Senate. We gotta get it done. We're gonna work on that the rest of the week. Is it unfolds Louis Garmoert, thank you, my friend, eight hundred nine for one. Sean told that's what It's simple. They have the power. All they have to do is the work, not that hard keeping promises. The American people will will reward you politically for that. All right, that's gonna wrap things up for us here today. Wow, what a show we have on Hannity tonight. By the way, I just see Jerome Corsi as now said that his attorneys have prepared It looks like they filed a criminal complaint with the Acting Attorney General Whittaker on Muller's special counsel and the DOJ. Now, both Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone will join us tonight Hannity Tonight ninetiestern say DVR, We'll be back here tomorrow see tonight. Thanks for being with us.

The Sean Hannity Show

Sean Hannity is a multimedia superstar, spending four hours a day every day reaching out to millions 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 4,460 clip(s)