By we're finding all the subpoenas. Look, these aren't like impartial people. The Democrats are trying to win twenty twenty. They're not gonna win with the people that I see, and they're not gonna win against me. The only way they can maybe luck out, and I don't think that's gonna happen. It might make it even the opposite. That's what a lot of people are saying. The only way they can look out is by constantly going after me or nonsense. But they should be really focused on legislation, not the things that have been This has been litigated, Just so you understand, this has been litigated for the last two years, almost since I got into office. Now, if you want to litigate, go after the DNC, Crooked Hillary, the dirty cops, all of these things. That's what should be litigated because that was a rigged system. And I'm breaking down. I am breaking down the swamp. If you look at what's happening, they're getting caught, they're getting fired. Who knows what's gonna happen from now on, But I hope it's I hope it's very strong. But if you look at drained the swamp, I am draining the swamp. Thank you very much. All right. That was the President earlier today, Hour two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and nine for one Sean Tolfrey telephone number. You want to be a part of the program. President, the most cooperative of any investigation ever going on in a modern day presidency. And by the way, that includes Barack Obama, that includes the Clintons, all of that include George W. Bush's administration. They all exerted executive privilege this president, none, not once, nobody. I could not believe the idea that the White House General Counsel Tom McGinn spent thirty hours with Muller. He seems to think that he's the one save the republic. Not exactly. If Donald Donald Trump had it even within his authority to fire Muller under Article two of the Constitution, he could have fired him. Just because you're complaining about a witch hunt, that's not obstruction. Just because you're complaining about Rod Rosen, that's a and it's a witch hunt, that's not obstruction, none of it. So, now that we have the look at what the Democrats are moving in a thousand different directions because they can't accept now the fourth definitive investigation that says no Trump Russia collusion. First, the FBI nine month investigation even struck In Paige said nope, we had nothing. No, they're there. Then, of course we have the House Intel Committee their investigation. Nope nothing. Then we have the Bipartisan Senate Committee. Nope nothing. Now the Muller report can't be any more clear on any of these issues. Oh then well, well let's weaponize the IRS. But no real reason at all except that let's go after his taxes. That'll we'll get him there. I'm sure there's a reason why he was audited all those years anyway. So now they want to impeach the IRS commission or for not turning over Trump's taxes. Elijah Cummings wants to hold stonewalling White House witnesses in contempt on the same issue. Unbelieved Nadler wants to jail Trump officials who won't comply with his subpoenas. Why are they gonna pay for the attorneys in DC A thousand dollars an hour for a decent attorney, Maybe eight hundred if you're lucky, six hundred if they give you a cut rate. But these people have all been interviewed. Maxine Waters claims America's clamoring for impeachment. No, now, Lindsey Graham is going to join us at the bottom of the half hour. He's gonna be telling us where his investigation is going to be going, and also that he believes is going to be a Democratic Party stampede, stampede to impeach the president. Anyway, here to sort through all the legal issues on all of this, we have Alan Dershowitz, who Professor Harvard, and he contributed an introduction to Skyhorse Publishing's edition of The Muller Report. Greg jarrett Is best seller The Russia Hoax. All right, I want to ask you both. Here's where I think we've got to go in this. We now have evidence that Hillary's investigation was rigged from the beginning, even struck in page recognize such eighteen USC. Seven ninety three. The Espionage Act is clear. That's the underlying crime, the intent to take some pen at emails the lead thirty three thousand of them, bleach bit your hard drive, eliminate the evidence, beat up your devices, remove SIM cards. That would be an intent to obstruct. I think we got to make that one bucket number two got to get into the whole FIS abuse. The Inspector General will weigh in on that was their fraud committed to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. We also have to get into the spying of the Trump campaign stefan helper, who enlisted them, etc. And we need to get into the whole issue of why did we have a three hundred and fifty percent increase in unmasking American citizens in twenty sixteen. That's an important bucket. Then we've got to get the release of the FIS warrants Gang of eight information three O two's, as we've been telling you, five buckets there. Then we've got to get into the question of, Okay, those people that tried to undo an election and bludgeon a president, when did they know that there was no collusion? And why didn't they investigate Hillary's dirty dossier, which The New York Times suggests this week could have been all disinformation to create chaos From the beginning, we'll start with you, Professor Dershowitz. Where do we go next? Well, I think the most important thing is the way in which the FISA court was misled. We now know for certain that the information provided to the FISA Court in the X party application was incomplete. It was not the whole truth. It was a half truth, and a half truth is a lie. And I think there should be an investigation conducted by the Inspector General apparently that's going on, but also by the FISA Court itself. The FISA Court was misled, and I think there was a contempt of court committed by those A who submitted the PIES application without indicating the source, and B failed to correct the FISA application once they got more information about the source and indeed sought renewals of the FISA application. So those are I think very important areas for any civilibitarian because remember, PHIZA warrants can be issued against any of us, and if it can be done without any consequence based on misleading and incomplete information, then we're all victims. And so I think you start with any thing that involves every American potentially a victim of a violation of civil liberties. That has to be the first order of business. Do you think the President is right? Before I get to Greg, Professor, the President is right saying, you know what, You've had your four investigations, We're going to fight everything now. He never used executive privilege. He could have. He could have prevented people from talking to Muller. He could have fired Muller. By the way, I think he'll even agree he could have done so legally under his authority under Article too without a doubt. And in the introduction to my book, I go through the whole obstruction of justice argument presented by Mueller. Mueller turns out to be dead wrong on the law. He has some idea that if in fact the president had decided to fire Mueller, indeed, firing come he thinks could be an obstruction of justice. He just has the law wrong. By the way, on the Amazon reviews, everybody's ganging up on me. All the anti Trump people are writing terrible reviews, saying I never should have been allowed to do the introduction to the book because I'm objective and honest and non partisan. So I urge any of you who read my introduction and who think differently write a review saying my introduction is objective, it's nonpartisan. I end by saying I would have written the same review, the same introduction if the shoe had been on the other foot, if Hillary couldton't have been impeached improperly or been subject to an investigation improperly, I would have been defending her as well. I am not defending Trump on a partisan basis. I'm defending civil liberties and constitutional rights. Greg Jarrett, Well, I want to say, I just ordered Professor's book and I anxiously look forward to reading The Obstruction of Justice. Why doesn't he just give us a free copy? I mean, we're friends. You're trying to get a free copy or you have to write a review and get a free copal. But you know, this is why prosecutors should never comment on uncharged crimes. It's unfair to the uncharged person. Muller went out of his way to smear Trump with the patina of a crime that he couldn't prove. Mueller didn't find sufficient evidence for an obstruction charge. If he had, he would have said so. So what he does is he turns the law completely upside down and he says, well, I couldn't prove the president didn't obstruct. You know, prosecutors are not in the business of exoneration. There in the business of proving crimes based on evidence. Muller couldn't prove an obstruction, And when Coomey went after Hillary Clinton that way, we all objected. Democrats and Republicans a life. Why is it different when Mueller goes after people who have not been charged and sets out non criminal conduct that he disagrees with. That's just not the proper function of theater. If Muller could not prove an obstruction crime, and he could not, then he should have simply stated that he wasn't recommending any charges. Anything other than that is blatantly unfair. I agree, I agree. Let me let me ask you, this is Trump to clear when it's done to Trump? Is Trump right not to cooperate any further? Considering there's been four separate conclusions and investigations on this, well, you know he has to listen to his lawyer on this. I think that he would have. I would certainly advise them not to testify. My advice to him was don't don't pardon, don't fire, don't testify, and don't tweet. He listened to three of them, but not the fourth. But right now, I would say, it depends if if you think the investigations by Congress are impromperly motivated and don't have a legitimate legislative purpose. You have no obligation not to raise your constitutional privileges. And remember, executive privilege is designed to protect all Americans, not just the president. It's designed to protect the president c from improper intrusion by the legislative or the judicial branch. And so it's there as part of our separation of powers and checks and balances to protect all Americans. He's not just doing it in a self serving way. Nadaler is now taking the position, Well, you've waived the privilege because mcgant spoke with a special counsel, no as special counsel, as an employee of the Department of Justice. So you've got one branch to the Department of Justice, White House counsel talking to another branch of the executive So it's not a waiver of a privilege at all. You can actually never waive executive privilege. It's been invoked by almost every president. The first was George Washington who invoked it. All Right, when we get back, I want to debate the question as to what we do with a Hillary Clinton question and how far back who needs to be held accountable. Right as we were all along, Alan Dershwitz, Greg Jarrett with us. All right, what are your thoughts on the president challenging these a penis Who's going to win this battle? Greg Jarrett? Well, I think the President will because it does appear that this is nothing more than presidential harassment. You know, there has to be a reasonable basis for this. That is to say, there has to be some sort of articulable, factual basis for the investigation that indicates that a crime has or or will take place. Well, there's none of that here. This is a fishing expedition as safari to search for anything under any rock they can find to damage Trump. The president has a solid legal basis to oppose it. What do you think, Alan Durshoy I have a slightly different view. I think that if subpoenas come from the legislative branch, they don't have to be looking for crime. They can be looking for information relevant to their appropriate role of legislating and oversight. But there comes a time, and it happened during the McCarthy era, when the Supreme Court or other courts will look at subpoenas and look at requests for testimony and say enough's enough. You've now exceeded your legitimate authority, and you're just doing this to harass or expose. Well, are there aper function of Congress? I think, don't you think we're a point? Professor? Come on, well, no, that's the point. And I think the courts will look at it on a case by case basis. They're not going to just say willy nilly that no subpoenas will be in force. They'll look at every subpoena. They'll look at whether there's an articular basis for any legitimate legislative purpose, and I think they will begin to refuse to enforce some of them, as they did during the McCarthy periy. But what about all these what about all these one what about all these people that are going to be called back again? I can't afford these lawyers that are very expensive. Listen, professor, what do you charge an hour? A lot? You know you don't want to know half of my cases of pro bono. I know half are pretty expensive because I do represent a lot of very wealthy people, and even if you're wealthy, getting these subpoenas can really really be very expensive. Washington lawyers do charge in excess of a thousand dollars an hour and the hours accumulate because you have to do the research, you have to check out all the facts. And so we're talking easily about six figure legal bills that can sometimes get up to the seven figures. Yeah, Greg, Yeah, I mean look at people like Jerome. Course, he was never charged with anything. He was threatened. They tried to pressure and extort him into signing a false statement implicating Trump, which would have been a lie. You know, that's the equivalent of attempting to suborn perjury. He had to hire a team of lawyers to represent him, you know, and his bank account is empty as a result. Well, let's look at General Flint. Wrong, Yeah, both mccabegging, He doesn't need a lawyer. Then call me bragging, hau. I wouldn't do this in the Obama or Bush administrations. Top two FBI guys. They're setting him up, I mean, professor, and then he loses his house. Now he's millions of dollars in debt. They threatened to go after his kid. This is how we treat thirty three year veterans that put their lives in harm's way. Look, it's a terrible, terrible thing, and it's been a terrible thing for many years that prosecutors do abuse their authority. You know, the idea of arresting people at gunpoint, whether it be somebody who is like a stone or somebody who is Felicity Huffman, whatever you think of them. You don't have to arresture people at gunpoint and threaten them and show how powerful and strong you are. And you don't have to. I got a run into them. You can write them a nice letter saying if you have any information, please provide it. But you know it turns to harassment at some point. And all right, I gotta let you both go. Thank you, Professor Dershowitz, Thank you Greg, Jared Lindsay Graham. Next, this was an investigation at its core about Donald Trump's daily, sometimes an hourly, assault on the rule of law in this country as the country's chief executive. He sat in his pajamas watching Fox and Friends, maligning the FBI. Bill gar didn't walk into that room with the scale at zero rule of law how to deficit because Donald Trump had been kicking it in the team. Can I just talk about this issue of the president's concerns about leagues, Well, Jake, what I did is I looked on my shelf for the Watergate Senate Watergate Committee report. I looked at the Iran Contra report. I also looked at the ken Star report, which is too bragged big to bring to the set here. It's four volumes, over two thousand words, and I've got to tell you I've read all those and in four hundred words, mister, this report from their Special Council is more damning than all of those reports about a president. Right. That is the predictable freak out of course by the left wing media Democrats. They cannot accept now, four separate findings, no Russia collusion, none whatsoever. Anyway, joining us now is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. And well, you've been saying that in spite of four separate reports, and it's done, and none of this is going to happen, that they're going to stampede towards impeachment anyway. Well, we can see the process now beginning to unfold before our eyes. And you know the predictable names and characters, Maxim Waters and you know Chairman Schiff and who by the way, did collude and Nadler and the rest of them, they're going nuts. Well, so here's what I think you need to look for number one. The Muller report should be the last word on all things Russia and Trump, all things obstruction of justice. But it won't be. So. There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If you don't believe me as Muller, that's what started this whole mess. As the two obstruction of justice. How can you say President Trump impeded the Mueller investigation. Give me one example of where Mueller was impeded from doing this job. Quite the opposite. You've got the best research team, probably on television. What I would like you to do for your show is to give a list of the things that the White House did to cooperate with Mueller, the number of documents, the number of people that were allowed to be interviewed by Mueller. I would suggest, in the history of the investigating of the presidency, nobody has been more cooperative than the Trump presidency toward Mueller. We know they handed over almost one point five million documents, when we know this is the first time an administration is not invoked executive privilege and can just stop your right there, Okay, Obstruction of justice has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt name an event that actually impeded Muller from doing his job. You've just laid out one point five million documents turned over by the Trump administration Dumuller voluntarily, and they refuse to claim executive privilege at any stage in the process. How the hell is that obstructing justice? Can I ask you? You know, the people that are supposedly care about other people, you know much at cost when you have to hire a Washington DC lawyer and you're a staff person that works for the president and they drag you in there ten fifteen, twenty hours. Now they want to drag you back again, and what asked the same questions over and over again, just to come to a different conclusion where the evidence doesn't supported. What do you recommend? What point does this get labeled? What it is? This is harassment. People can't afford these lawyers that are working for the government. Frankly, even senators and congressmen can't afford it. Well, hell no, I couldn't afford this. So I don't know if there's some fun we can create to help these people. But here's what's hell. How about they all go in and plead the fifth and say it's over. I'm not used I refer to my previous testimony. I don't know if that's a smart move, because you know, I don't think they've got anything to hie in criminally. But let me just say this. We'll deal with that issue. But what I want you to listeners to understand is it sometimes you and I have disagreed. I thought Mueller needed to be allowed to do this because there was a conflict with Sessions. He was brought the campaign, and I thought to make sure Mueller had the resources in the time to finish the job. He has now finished the job. President Trump came out of this thing great. He was cleared without any doubt about colluding with the Russia, and there was no effort by Trump to impede the Moller investigation. So it's over for me. Now what do you have. You have people taking the document and trying to turn it into an impeachment document. You have to really be unhinged and hate Trump to want to know more about the Moller investigation. This is not about learning more, It is about getting a different outcome. They can't stand but that that Trump withstood two years, twenty five million dollars forty FBI agents two thousand subpoenas, whatever the numbers are, and he made it through. He strived them crazy. So they're unhinged and they're coming after Trump shine not because he did anything wrong, because they wanted to destroy his presency. But this is where we are now. If it's not that, well, let's move on to taxes. They want to now impeach the IRS Commissioner for not turning over Donald Trump's taxes. Elijah Cummings wants to hold the White House a White House witness in contempt of Congress. And by the way, this is also about you know, at some point every time you go under oath, you know that they're setting perjury traps for these people. Nadler wants to jail all Trump officials who won't comply with the subpoenas. The President has laid down his marker enough. He's not going to allow this anymore. And I think the President's right, and I also believe that he's on you know, sound legal and constitutional footing that he does not have to cooperate anymore. Everything He's allowed everybody that they ever wanted to talk on these issues. Maxie Waters is claiming America's clamoring for impeachment. She's been clamoring for it before the election. Okay, we've gone from an inquiry based on a special Council trying to find out if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Two years later, twenty five million dollars later, forty FBI agents later, we know the answer is no. So everything they're doing now is to try to destroy the Trump presidency and his family. This has got nothing to do with the truth, the rule of law. This is political revenge. What is playing out in front of us is using the power of the Congress to oversee the executive branch afuse that power to destroy the president and his family. And if I were President Trump, I would fight back. If there's a site we could go to get money to help these people in their crossfairs of this count me in. I'll write a check. Okay. So you now are an important member of the United States Senate with a lot of subpoena powering its powers itself. We now know that the General Council under Jim Comey, the FBI's top lawyer, thought that Hillary should be indicted. We know that struck in page We're laughing because they knew the investigation was rigged and struck himself who said that Hillary should win one hundred million to zero because Trump is lowsome. He did the interview with Hillary and also allowed two friends of us in the room at the time, which doesn't happen, And so we have that aspect. Then if we care about collusion, the Ukraine is now saying, well, we're guilty, we colluded with the Clinton campaign and offering us evidence. Nobody seems interested. Then you got the dirty Russian dossier that the New York Times even acknowledged this week could have very likely been as Hillary bought and paid for misinformation on purpose, and it was used as the foundation for the Biser warrants. When do we get those people and hold them accountable. Well, it's going to start. Bob Barr is exciming. Bill Barr is going to testify the Attorney General may first before my committee in the Senate about his few of the Mueller investigation, the decisions he's made, and why he made them. Then that ends it in the Senate, and we're going to move on to four areas. I'm going to look at how the Clinton investigation was handled, not in a way to go back and put her in jail, but to find out why she was basically given them pass. So now if what if it's proven that invest was rigged and laws were broken, Well, that's why you need a special counsel. I don't want Lindsey Graham to do that. I want somebody outside of politics to look and see if there's criminal liability regarding the way the Clinton EMIL investigation was conducted. The second bucket is the counterintelligence counter intelligence investigation. I want to know that a legitimate counter intelligence investigation or was it a ruse and backdoorway to get into the Trump campaign. I want to know about the FISAL warrant, how it could be issued four times based on a bunch of political garbage. And the last bucket I want to look at is why did they surveil General Flynn in transition? What was the purpose of surveiling the transition team? And was there an effort after the election to invote the twenty fifth Amendment. Those are the four areas I'm going to look at. Well, we know that that's all true, that we have enough evidence and testimony to such. At this point, let me go back to all of these issues because I think the evidence is clear, incontrovertible, It is overwhelming. And that is that the eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, the Espionage Act is clear. You cannot have secret, top secret classified information outside of a government server. It was put there. So you have multiple felonies. It would be for every instance we've already. Oh, here's what I would I would say that that if you did what she did, would classified information could probably be in jail. But rather than Sean Hannity, conduct in the investigation, or Lindsey Graham or criminal liability, I am begging the Attorney General to assign somebody to this case for the very reasons you just suggested, independent of the political process, some mutual person to get this a look why they did Mueller did Trump? Well, I think that has to happen then, I you know, I actually think that a lot of things should happen even beyond that. What do you think, Well, let me get to a quick break here. We'll continue. Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina with US eight hundred nine for one Seawan Tolfrey telephone number. And as we continue, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is with US. He's the chairman of the all powerful Judiciary Committee. All right, so you want there's four areas of interest the Clinton investigation. Why was the counterintelligence investigation started in the first place. All evidence is now beginning to point that it started much earlier, not as we have been told July. Well, you know, you know him, probably more than me. And also we want to get the FISA warrants, the bulk of information of which was Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dirty dossier. And then you want to get to the issue surrounding General Flyinn. Well, we know he was illegally amasked, we know he was illegally surveilled, we know raw intelligence on the general was released, and I you know the fact that you know he's going bankrupt, sold his home, him as a millions of dollars of debt, and has no idea what his future is going to be. You know, a great way to treat a thirty three year vet. And by the way, Comey and McKay bragging how they treated him and tricked him and told him he doesn't need a lawyer, and they would never do this type of thing in the Obama or Bush White House. Wow, So let me just follow through that yes, I want to know what authority they had and what information to head evidence to suggest that they should surveil the transition team. I want to try to find out to leak the fact that Flynn was being surveiled to the Washington Post. Did Obama himself know about the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign before the election. Did Obama himself know about the surveillance of the Trump transition team after the election? What was the basis of the surveillance, and go from there. I also think we've got to look into the abuse of intelligence. We had a three hundred and fifty percent increase in twenty sixteen in the unmasking of American citizens. That's a problem, Yeah, it is. And did the UN ambassador Yeah, she requests unmasking, so three hundred times, but you say she didn't do it. Yeah, yeah, Well, so what I want to do is there's really three things going on there. Horwitz is looking at the defisal warrant process. His report should be out in the next thirty days. I hope I will take a look at it from a different point of view. He's looking at it from an in house council to try to find out who inside the FBI d og needs to be disciplined. What I want to do is look at it to make sure it never happens again, change our laws if necessary, and hold people accountable in a different way. After the election, I want Horwitz or somebody in voting me to look at whether or not the surveillance that the transition team was lawful, legitimate, and was there an effort by d o J types FBI types to try to invote the twenty fifth Endment against newly elected President Trump. Wow, all right, we look forward to this. Youn't believe this. You just promised bill this as a movie. Well you can't. But if we don't hold them accountable, rigging investigations, trying to steal it again a presidential election, and trying to basically undo an election using Russian lies, it's pretty amazing to me. And abusing power all along the way. When did President Trump say, hey, go out there and fire Mullers? He never? Did you know? I was there at the same time that the report says that you know McGain mentioned this, and I don't was. I was. I was assigned to deal with Muller, and I briefed the president every day and every week I saw Muller or quarrels for eight months. At no time did the President ever say, you know, John, I'm going to get rid of him. John Escot going to do it. It was just the opposite. Here's the message the President had for Bob Muller to me to carry one, you tell him I respect what he's doing. Number two, you tell him he's got my full cooperation. Number three, get it done as quickly as possible. And number at number four, whatever else you need. Yeah, let me know. So that was always the message, and that's exactly what we did. He wants described to me on this program that the Trump administration's actions related to the Russia probe our quote of a size and scope probably beyond Watergate. What do you say now, Well, I think it's clear from the Muller report that that's exactly right. The obstruction of justice, in particular in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did. The break in by the Russians of the Democratic institutions for an adverse very far more significant than the plumber's breaking into the Democratic headquarters. So yes, I would say, in every way this is more significant than Watergate, and the fact that a candidate for president and now at president nine States, would not only not stand up and resist Russian interference in our election, but would welcome it goes well beyond anything Nixon did. The Fact that the president Nined States would take putin side of his own intelligence agencies go well beyond anything Richard Nixon did. So, Yes, I think it is far more serious than Watergate. Yeah, of course he's been saying that, just like he's been saying I have all the evidence of collusion and it doesn't exist. I mean, it's really when you have four separate investigations that have all concluded the same thing. How many more times do you have to go back to this Mueller report and read no collusion, just like the FBI struck and page no collusion, a nine month investigation, although it might have even started earlier, which we're doing a deep dive into even as we speak. And they cannot help themselves. It is a level of rage, hatred, and psychosis. You know. The big question now is is the left wing radicals of the Democratic Party are they going to override any bit of common sense? You have the new Nest House Intel Report, the Bipartisan Senate Committee report, the FBI report and the Muller report, clearly no collusion, no obstruction, it doesn't matter. And then we want your taxes. We want tell me where any of this is good for the American people. What are they doing to serve their constituents. This is not service. And the biggest liar of them all is you know, Adam, the cowardly shift. And it's like the media cannot give up the addiction that they have anyway. John Solomon is with US Investigative Reporter, Executive vice President of The Hill on the latest on the probe. John has given me a little bit of a preview of more details on this tonight. I don't know how much you can give me, but like we're doing on this program in our own way, you in your own way, you know, you want really specific things answered. And if we don't answer them and we don't solve the underlying causes, we are risking a system of justice that really does is not predicated on our constitution any longer. It's a dual system of justice, no equal justice under the law or application of our laws. And those that abuse power must be held accountable. That's we're on the same page on that. Yeah, listen. I think the American public's on the same page as well. They This concerned about dual justice and hijacking of the intelligence and law enforcement community for political purposes is becoming more rooted in the American contest. Out of the Mother Report is out. I think the most interesting thing I've heard the last five or six days, and it was in my column this morning, Sean, is that a growing number of intel people that I'm talking to you are beginning to say we may have had the assessment wrong, that when we said that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton, it may not be that clear. In fact, a lot of people look at the facts that Muller has put in the report and said, instead of a collusion strategy, it looks like Vladimir Putin was doing what is known in the spy tradecraft as a discoverable influence operation. What does that mean? In Layman's terms, it means he was set up. It was a setup. It was designed to be detected so that people would then question Donald Trump, a sort of the intelligence equivalent of framing someone. So to hear that and one of the people who said that's Daniel Hoffman, the former CIA station chief in Moscow. If anyone knows Russian spycraft, it's Daniel Hoffman. When you start to hear the intelligence community talk that way, you realize how wrong the early assessments were, and all the early reporting in my industry was, and how much there's a welcoming of a fresh review of all of these conclusions. When are we talking about going back as far as what you know? I think you have to begin to take a look at the period that begins in December twenty fifteen. If as a lot of the facts seem to suggest this was a political operation, a political oppo research operation designed to create a breadcrumb trail that the FBI would bite on and then go after Donald Trump. The first key moment seems to ocur around December twenty fifteen, when, as I previously reported last year, Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele, soon to become the oppo researcher of the Clinton campaign, start talking about trying to get dirt on Paul Manafford through a Russian connection they know as Oligdara Posca, one of the oligarchs they were targeting. From that point forward, I believe over the next few weeks and months, we will be able to track a series of events where you can see the Democrats working with foreign powers, foreign people, and let me let me interrupt you, because I think I know what you're saying. In other words, that we might have very high level people within say the intelligence community, that we're farming out things to other countries that would be illegal for them themselves to do exactly. I think that's going to be one of the predominant questions. Did we ask the foreigners to do what our law prevented us from doing against American citizens like Trumper or any of his advisers. I think that's one piece of it. I think a second piece of it is the Democrats, the Justice Department under democratic control, State Department under democratic control, the Democratic National Committee, Hillary couldn't campaign. Did they work with foreign powers to get information? We have some pretty strong hints of it, right. We know that Christopher Steele and Brussel are targeting Russian olig Derek Posca. We know Christopher Steele got the majority of his information from a former Russian intelligence officer, which, by the way, doesn't exist. When you're in the Russian intelligence you never leave. And then we know that there were these contacts with the Ukrainian embassy that Political wrote about in twenty seventeen. I think we're going to be able to fill in a lot of gaps between those different points and show a much more robust effort by Democrats and the Democratic administration to work with foreigners to get dirt on Donald Trump. You go through tonight, and I don't want to give away your story tonight because we're going to break it on Hannity to the extent that you and I have talked, I'm going from memory here, but and you know, if mister editor teared down these faults and unproven Russia collusion stories, which is all true, but you go into very specific detail about very specific instances that there was an epic fail at the media and now we have cable TV. That's one aspect of it. The Washington Post, the New York Times is an aspect of it. The you know, the other tales about Carter Page and and Manaford a sane and Buzzfeeds unfounded scoop on the Trump Tower, Moscow project, et cetera, et cetera, or you know Michael Conan Prague or you know McClatchy, who got so much wrong in all of this. Yep, you're right, you know there's I go back to a very important point in journalism. I remember nineteen ninety eight, that's today, that the Wall Street Journal broke a story about Bill Clinton that turned out and Monica Lewinsky that turned out to be false, and they did the right thing. They did the wrong reporting, but when they were called on it, they retracted it. What we've seen my industry do these last few years, as over obvious information has come out to contradict or debunk a story, instead of correcting and retracting the story, they're just doing appendages, things that people won't notice. So add a little bit. Oh, Bob Mueller says he doesn't agree with our assessment. Well, in the old days, we used to call that story wrong and we would retract it. And I think the discussion I'd like to have in my own profession is what are the stories that should be retracted because they're either demonstrably false or now two years in, can't be proven. That standard used to be the standard by which we retracted stories. And I think we'll be able to talk tonight about a whole bunch of those stories that don't meet the test of journalism accuracy, journalism ethics, and I think there's a good discussion for the American people to demand that our industry fixed and track these stories. You know, it is an amazing thing. I got to a stay off Twitter now I don't even have access to my accounts, either Linda or or my TV staff. Tweets out everything. And I went through a series of tweets this weekend after there was this ridiculous report by the you know, absolutely hardline left wing um, you know, Daily Beast, and I just, I just we just got into it because there's so much that they have not that they have gotten wrong from the very beginning on all of this, and you know, it was time for somebody to call them out. I call them lazy, overpaid propagandists, you know, false politically driven coverage. You know, the only the medium mob is likely lost all credibility forever. I made a list of everything that they have been wrong about in terms of you know, going through the list of small at starting with for example, Bold Richard Jewel and straight on through Nicholas Sandman and Cambridge and police and Duke Lacrosse Uva Ferguson Baltimore vetting Obama. They were you know, or Cavanaugh, I believe, versus the Virginia Virginia lieutenant governor. They've got it all wrong and they never held accountable. Yeah, we need, we need a moment in our profession. And I say this as someone that still revers a profession and still believes it can do good things in the world, that we need to have an inflection point to acknowledge where we've gotten off the rails. There was a quote back from nineteen ninety eight that a journalism experts at the time, which is the danger of scandals is that you get so emotionally invested in them that you mistake a bullet for an atom bomb. And I think that a lot of what happened here in the intelligence world. Hey, John, with all due respect, you've been very kind and gracious. They always get it wrong. Well, I can think of times where we got the profession got it right. I know. Well, okay, but hang on, think think of the extent on Donald Trump. Everything is wrong. They loved Obama, they hated Trump, and they acted as such. And yeah, well, are there exceptions to the rules. Sure? Um, Cheryl Atkinson is an exception. You're an exception, but generally speaking, they are hard line left that now has gone so over to the other side. They you know, there's an indignation that they cannot admit or retract and apologize. As you said, it's never hell will freeze over, John, It's never gonna happen. It may, it may, and that will be an unfortunate thing because I think we have to fix ourselves as an industry. Journalism is dead except for the few people that really care about truth. And you know, it's not by accident that I have a track record that I'm right almost all the time when they're wrong. And the same with you and you don't stick to the facts. And I think much emotion in politics have gotten into the profession that it clouds the judgment of editors and of hell you think, Um, let's go back now, because let's get a big picture the days, the weeks, the months ahead, what's coming. Yeah, I think the biggest dynamic to see is watching the investigators now become the investigated. That is going to be the dynamic that will dominate the next six months, and that will occur on many fronts. It will occur in the intelligence community. It occur with Attorney General Barr, who is doing his own assessment. It will occur with the Inspector General of the Justice Department, and I believe it will occur in both the House and the Senate. Even Republicans in the minority are starting to do some pretty remarkable things digging into some of the issues. And even though they don't have committee power, they still have the power of their office. And I think you'll see House Republicans Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson and Wisconsin who has a very powerful committee. I think you'll see between those five sectors a lot of accounty ability coming out and a lot of hard questions. And I think the biggest thing the President the United States can do to help all of those gain transparency declassify the documents that have been identified in those five buckets. Well, and you want to remind people, I remind them off them, but the way you say it is different, so maybe they'll hear from you better than me where you've had it right from the beginning. So it's de Fisi document it's the Gang of Eight documentary. It's an application the Gang of Eight would expose the FBI acknowledging failure, yes, and showing the missteps. So when you read those two together, you sort of have the perfect compendium of what went wrong in the FBI. Then there are some emails that show how early on the FBI knew that there were problems with Christopher Steeles, an informant. Remember, affirmatively, they told the court he was in good standing and they knew of no derogatory information. I don't think that declaration is going to turn to be out to be true. You know, I got to give props and kudos to you, and I can't mention every person, but there's maybe twenty or thirty of us that have been on this from day one, and we wouldn't be here honestly without you know, this is two now critical and crucial to the republic that we love, and if we don't solve these problems, it's going to happen again. Anyway. Thank you so much, John Solomon. We'll see you tonight on Hannity nine, Eastern Fox News Channel Quick Break Right Back. Democrat Mark Penn a hard hitting article about Mueller being done and Democrats should be too because Trump is no Nixon. Well he'll weigh in on the extremist now taken over the Democratic Party straight ahead, have all of this case of obstruction presented in the Muller report, As you just stated, some might ask, why haven't you start, why haven't you opened an impeachment inquiry? Or in fairness, is that what you're doing right now? I don't think we're doing that. We may get to that, we may not. As I've said before, it is our job to go to go through all the evidence, to all the information and to matter, and to go with the evidence lead system. You think this is impeachable, Yeah, I do. I do think that this, if proven, if which hasn't improven yet, some of this, if proven, some of this would be impeachable. Yes, all right, construction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable. And then you're going to go about to see if you can prove it. Well, we're going to see where the facts lead us. The report is out, the partisan divide seems wide, or even wider than ever. What happens now, this document, the Muller document, has now left us with a roadmap to go forward. I think he basically said to us as a Congress, it's up to you to take this further with regard to obstruction and the other matters that might come up. Well, already, mister Chairman, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria A. CaCO Cortez, Maxine Waters, Julian Castro have said we should begin proceedings to impeach the president. Are you there yet? I'm not. I'm not there yet, but I can foresee that possibly coming. I and my staff began to look very closely this president early on, and when we looked at all of his allies and the people who were connected with him, and with Putin and the Kremlin and with the oligarchs of Russia, we determined something was very wrong and we dubbed them the Kremlin Clan. The Kremlin Clan, as identified has been on my face page on Twitter for almost two years. We know who they are. And this report only confirms that what more do we need to do? Okay, So if we cannot decide, if the Democrats cannot decide that they're gonna move with impeachment, I guess they're gonna go on with these investigations. How long are they going to go on with them? What more do they need to prove? That's Nadler, Congressman Cummings Congresswoman Maxie Waters, and you know, look at the headline say Democrats may pursue impeachment against Donald Trump. Shifts may take up impeachment proceedings if it's in the best if it's the best thing for the country. Waters enough information in the Mueller Report to move forward with impeachment. If we do nothing after Mueller Report, Trump is going to be emboldened. Another headline, and it gets on from there. You know, there's a conspiracy TV MSNBC panel debating over the weekend. The strategy on impeachment would be a mistake to start the hearings right away, but we got to do it. You know, Joy read badgering a Democratic a congress person for not wanting to impeach Donald Trump. This is who they have now become. When is there ever somebody tell me an instance where they say, you know, maybe we could work with the president secure our border, lower the prices of scripts and drugs like we have been How many times has doctor Josh been on this program of Atlas MD and he gets his own negotiations with drug companies at ninety five discounts and concierge's care for every American at pricey bucks a month for adults. It's humbly. You walk out of the doctor's office with your prescription and he's duplicated that nearly a thousand times. What are they gonna talk about? Oh, how can we be energy independent? How? You know? How what do we do with the vast resources of energy? Is there anything that Democrats are offering that helps forgotten men and women that were so hurt during the Obama years? Anyway, there is one Democrat a lot of courage in all of this. As a new piece in The Hill today, Mark Penn's headline, Muller's done. Democrat should be too. Trump is no Nixon. But how much abuse do you get for saying what is so obvious that they're destroying the Democratic Party? Well, you know, I get a mix of everything. I've had people rightly, even from the Watergate era, thanking me. So you know, look, I know it's a controversial viewpoint, but I was in impeachment in the middle of it in ninety eight, working with President Clinton, and I saw how destructive these things out of the country. You want to have an election, an election, you want to have an impeachment, You sure can't have one on the basis of this report. You know what's amazing, Mark is And I said this in terms of Bill Clinton and the difference between him and Obama, and I felt like I was out there on a limb with the smallest twig hanging on a leaf from that was left from last fall and about to you know, Duke Gingrich told me, if I keep pushing so hard and vetting Obama, that I'm probably going to rule my career that I can't stop. It's who I am. And I concluded, after Frank Marshall, Davis Olinsky, Acorn community organizer, and Reverend Wright, and Arison Dorn that Obama's going to be a radical ideologue. And he was. He never changed Bill Clinton. You know, after two years, Republicans take back Congress for the first time in forty comes up with the era of big government is over and the end of welfare as we know it. He governed conservatively as a Democrat from that point on, at least moderate, moderately, working with New ging Ridge to solve problems. Well, yeah, I was part of that effort, right And we had welfare reform, we had a balanced budget, we had an immigration reform bill. At a time we had a lot. We did a lot of good. We said, look, let's put the country first. You know a lot of good. Listen, the last time we had a balanced budget was with new to speaker and Clinton as president. Yeah, that's true. Look right, and Knut and the President would pound at each other all day and they would go and negotiate all night, and it worked and the country was better off. Correct. So you see the headlines, you see the new Green Deal. You hear impeachment, impeachment. You know, they're still pushing collusion for crying out loud even though the Muller report couldn't be any more clear. What does this do? Who wins this battle? If there even is a battle? I mean stanny horriers trying to pull back. Even Pelosi tried a little, but then she gets hammered from her left flank. I would argue that the radicals have taken over the Democratic Party. They win. Well, Look, Gingridge at the time went too far and we gained seats in ninety eight. And I think Democrats around the path of going too far. They're too far because the Mueller report showed no collusion. And if it showed no collusion, how he obstruct justice? That wasn't going to happen. Then, in fact, the injustice was the investigation itself. And I've seen how frustrated presidents get when they're investigated for things they did do, let alone for things they didn't do. You know, I love that whole thing on obstruction. Well, he said that I want a firemaller. This is ridiculous as a witch hunt. He said it all publicly. Or Rod Rosenstein is a bad guy. He needs to go. Or I hope General Flynn doesn't get in trouble. He never took any steps, and he had the authority himself to do all of that. He would have legally, he could have fired Mueller, right, he actually had, He had the constitutional authority to Fireballer. And what did he actually do with Mueller? However, more documents than we ever would have never invoked executive privilege one time, not once, not one time. So he did the same thing he hit him during the day and with politics, and by night he cooperated fully, gave them full access. And you know what did they find that? Sometimes he got frustrated. Who wouldn't get frustrated. But he didn't step over any lines, He didn't shut down their investigation. He didn't pay hush money. There was none of the things that was done like Nixon. This is absurd. This is a president who was continually frustrated that an investigation that should never have happened was plaguing his presidency over something that didn't happen. And it's incredible when you think about it, it's scary. Actually, now I can tell you my last interview with the president, he was very clear that he will declassify he Russia Gate documents. And from all of my sources, and I worked a lot of sources in the two plus years this has been going on, I think you're pretty well aware of This was a team effort. This was not just Sean Hannity. And we know that there's damning information in those five applications. I'll quote the Grassly Grand Memo. The bulk of information in the FISA applications came from that Hillary Clinton paid for Russian dossier with lies, and it was also disseminated to the public. And we also know that the fix was in even page and Struck threw it right on the desk of Loretta Lynch, that they rigged the investigation into Hillary's email server and obvious obstruction of justice. Um, when we get the Gang of Eight, those FISA applications, those five buckets that I always talk about, then there's going to be a new narrative in this country. You're you're keenly aware of it as well. And that's the abuse of power that took place and the effort exactly to undermine a duly elected president. Look, there were three things that that you know that that caught my eye, right, I mean, first, when it came out that the dossier itself was really paid for through an OPO research group that actually was in fact funded by the DFC, and the Hillary Kim page, So anyone would have would have said, hey, why are we using a document it's not legitimate intelligence. Second, anybody should just read it. It's a joke. When you read it, it's a complete sham joke. If if you just read, actually adopt it's not a joke. Though, if you're it's not a joke, right. Which the struct page text which said, you know what, the possibility of a conspiracy inside is real. The stuff that you had on was real, that there was more evidence for that than for the opposite, And any objective journalists should have seen that. You know, I went on a tweet storm last night and I don't have access to any social media having for a long time, so I have to I have to ask my staff. I wrote it out and I sent it to them. I said, can you send this out in a series of tweets? And all the things that they didn't do, all the you know, the fact that they tried to unsee a duly elected president, that there was an insurance policy for such the fact that the news media was so wrong so often, as we have pointed out, the fact that, you know, all of these things happen, and they get it wrong on Richard Jewell, Cambridge Police, UVA, Duke Lacrosse, fergus in Baltimore, Vetting Obama, the Covington kids, Kavanaugh. You know, I can go on forever, and they never This is the biggest epic fail ever by a news media. How does this fall out for them? Well, it ranks up there with weapons of mass destruction. So let's say, you know it. Look in fact, I don't understand how the media hasn't said, look all of these connections with Russia. We didn't. We only looked at this campaign. We didn't looked at everybody's connections. We didn't look at at the Democrats connecta. We looked at these connections and none of them led to anything that could remotely be called the collusion. And therefore the media should have in effect apologized. And frankly, it's incredible that it went. You know, for any real observer what Muller was doing. He does have a single prosecution based on that. He either has it on Farr registration taxes or process crimes related to his own investigation. Without even a single person indicted for obstruction or for collusion. How he then going to put this at the president's feet, unless you think the president is a magician. I think it's well said. All right, stay right there. More with Mark Penn and the former poster for the Clintons. It's his article. Muller's done. Democrats should be too. Trump is not Nixon eight hundred and nine for one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of this program right as we continue, Mark Penn, former Clinton polster is with us. Muller's done. Democrats should be too. Trump is no Nixon. But it's not going to happen. Now what I imagine is going to happen at some point based on some of the closed or testimony that we got, especially on the Clinton email investigation, and I don't know where you stand. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. She had top secret classified information on a private server. The law is clear eighteen USC. Seven ninety three. But struck in page referred to the fixed being in on that investigation. Also, that would be an underlying crime. Then if you want real obstruction, well there was a real intent when you delete thirty three thousand subpoena and emails, you bleach bit your hard drive to make it clean and it makes it unrecoverable, and have an aid bust up your devices in case there's any evidence on that, So that would be intent. Then you have the whole fives abuse scandal, and then an attempt to undo a duly elected president. Do you see all of these things now coming to light? And isn't it in the country's best interest to get to the bottom of all of it? Well, you know, someone who worked for the Clinton sun I steal away from commenting directly on people whom I respect, and I feel it did a lot of good for the country. Item think, let me ask you another way if you deleted thirty three thousand subpoena emails, got need to do that? No? No, if you deleted thirty three thousand subpoena emails, acid washed your hard drive with bleach bit, had an aid, bust up your phones and blackberries, do you think you'd be in trouble? Well, let me foot to this way. You don't delete emails unless you really deep too, especially if they're other congressional subpoena. As a general rule, I just don't think I'm gonna be nice and just let that pass by the way, go ahead. I don't think they're going to go back to there. I think the focus here is going to be on the FBI, the CIA, the Obama administration, the listening and the unmasking, the trick that was done against against Flynn by by Sally Yates that was terrible. That's where things are going to center. And I think it is the most explosive scandal really, certainly in my lifetime, in American history. You're on the right side of history. It is the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal we've ever seen. They tried to rig an election. They saved one candidate from indictment, then they tried to undo an election, and they knew what they were doing, and unfortunately for those involved. There's the evidence that is coming that proves at all We already have a lot of it. Mark Penn, thank you, appreciate it, all right, glad you're with us News round up, information overload our look, a lot of you working, a lot of you busy. Nine thirty. The Attorney General with Rod Rosenstein with him, and of course with consultation of the Special Council and the Office of Independent Counsel. Yeah, they made the decision because there's no evidence that rises to any level of obstruction. Many of you missed it. I want you to hear it in full, and this is the Attorney General bar from earlier today. The Special Council's report states that his quote, investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. I am sure that all Americans share my concern about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Council report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election process, but thanks to the Special Council's thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump Campaign, or the knowing assistance of any other American for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sew social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, Especial Council brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending and the individual defendants remain at large. But the Special Council found no evidence that any American, including anyone associated with the Trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA. In another way, the Special Council found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities. Second, the report details efforts by the Russian military officials associated with the GRU, the Russian Military intelligence organization, to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals associated with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign. But again, the Special Council's report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of the Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking. The Special Council's investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Council found that after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen documents to entities that it controlled, DC leaks and goosafer two, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to wiki leaks for publication. Wiki Leaks then made a series of document dumps. The Special Council also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of material would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Council's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Council's investigation. As I addressed in my March twenty fourth letter, the Special Council did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Council is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense. Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Council's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Council's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusions. In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation as he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president. Federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion, and as this Special Council's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aids to testify freely, and asserting no privileged claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent arm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing investigations and criminal cases such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case. These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Council's Office, as well as the intelligence community and prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product. No redactions done by anybody outside this group. There were no redactions done by anybody outside this group. No one outside this group proposed any redactions, and no one outside the Department has seen the unredacted report, with the exception of certain sections that were made available to ice the intelligence community for their advice on protecting intelligence sources and methods. Consistent with longstanding executive branch practice, the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House had voluntarily cooperated with a Special Council, Significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege, and he would have been well within his rights to do so. Following by March twenty ninth letter, the Office of the White House Council requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with longstanding practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Council's report. Accordingly, the public report releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege. In addition, earlier this week, the President's Personal Council requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with a practice followed under the Ethics and Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent council the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President's personal lawyers were not permitted to make and did not request any redactions. In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect of the Special Council's investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler through this process, and we will continue to do so. Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Council's investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to commodate Congressional requests, we will make available, subject to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees, a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves, with a limited exception of that which by law, cannot be shared. I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Council's investigation. Mister Attorney General, we don't have the report in hand, so could you explain for us the Special Council's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the Department's longstanding guidance on non indicting. As Senate President, and you say, disagree with some of his revolt, peris, why did you disagree with? An honest I'd leave it to his description in the report, the Special Council's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction of fence. But I will say that when we met with him, a Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him along with Ed O'Callahan, who is the principal Associate Deputy on March fifth, we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion, And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime. Given that, why did you, mister rosenstein Field, the need you had to take it to the next to conclude that there was no crime, especially given that DJ policy, well, the very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries, and the compulsory process that's involved there is for one purpose and one purpose only. It's determined yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. That is our responsibility, and that's why we have the tools we have, and we don't go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information, we use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the Special Counsel did not make that decision, we felt the Department had to and that was a decision by me and the Deputy Attorney General. Special council indication that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress. And also, how do you respond to criticism you were seeing receiving from Congressional Democrats that you're acting more as an attorney for the president rather than as the chief laws been officer. Well, special counsel. Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not. I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as Attorney General to make that decision. Asked for Robert Mueller himself to testify. Robert Mueller remains a Justice Department employee as of this moment. Will you permit him to testify publicly to Congress? No rejection for Bob Mueller personally testifying, the Stinney generals, other Democrats who have questions some of the process here. A Republican appointed judge on Tuesday said, you have who created it, and vironment that is called a significant part of the American public to be concerned about these redactions to you clear the president on obstruction. The president is fund raising off of your comments about spying, and here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions. So what do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president. Well, actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs are recognizing the report that there was substantial evidence for that. So I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that I am being generous to the president. He makes an unpresidented situation. It just seems like there's a lot of efforts to say to go out of the way to acknowledge how this well is there is there another precedent for it? No, but it's okay. So unpresidented as an accurate description, isn't it. Yes, there's a lot of public interest in the absence of the Special Council and memforts of his team. Was he invited to joining up on the podium? Why is he not here? This is his report obviously that you're talking about the day to report he did for me as the Attorney General. He is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. I'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision entirely discretionary to make it public since these reports are not supposed to be made public. That's what I'm here to discuss. And with respect to the breaking New York Times story about about the White House and Justice Department, the only collusion here is colluding on this. This is actual collusion. By the way occasion ward, what does collusion look like? It looked at like the Attorney general briefing, the astorney general's lawyer's briefing the president before Congress of the public. Here's a different theory that he spent the last twenty years watching Fox News and he's become a real Trump supporter and he's like everyone else. In the admonistration, I was asking, there's another explanation. Yeah, okay, but I mean not saying you don't get explan I just think, you know, if you look at his behavior, it is not that of a geriatric It is that of a partisan. And although we thought going into it that he's deeply conservative as well, that he was very close to Trump, that he was going to be a truck lackey of the president. It turns out that this Attorney general is he was under oath. He said he wasn't going to talk about the report till it comes out. So I think people are confused, at best confused. Why would you come out and talk about a document and shape perspective of a perspective on a document document that nobody has been able to see what has changed in a week. The president is the subject of the investigation, and honestly, I've never heard of such a thing. It's a complete breach of president, it's a breach of common sense, and indeed, it makes Trump look blatantly guilty. We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow. You said it exactly right at the open. We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow as anything other than performative coonery. We shouldn't take anything that the president says tomorrow as anything other than spin. This seems to me it's just analysis here, exactly like something Trump would do is push someone out to brand it, then rebrand it himself, and then the report comes out and we have to go through all of it and do our best to deal with it fairly, with every piece of information painstaking, but Michael, it's also shortsighted. He again, he does something once again that is going to scuff up his reputations, actually his reputations. I mean the attorney I'm talking about the attorney generals bar maybe the person ultimately responsible for a change in how we select our attorney generals. And it seemed bizarre at this point. Luckily this president has a client attorney general clearly and a very amped up, jacked up message operation. Sean Hannity said two years ago that Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to resign if he'd had Fox News. Actually think HARALDA said it to Sean Hannity and they chuckled. That might be true, because this conduct is as sort of impeachable looking if you put it in a time capsule, as Nixon's conduct. But when Nixon didn't have was an overdrive sort of social media we now know, aided it embatted by Russian rolls and a news network dedicated to amplifying what is a very subjective read of a report that, in the end, if it exonerates them, why are they so upset by all the details? All Right? They have it more of the media meltdown. I'll take it as a compliment because we told the truth. It is amazing, it's so predictable. It's everything I told you would happen yesterday happens. But it's over. And they don't know yet that it's over. In so many different ways. Eight hundred and ninety four one sewn toll free telephone number. Now we played in the last half hour the Attorney General Bill Barr and he had Rod Rosenstein right next to him, and the Office Illegal Counsel in conjunction with consulting the Special Counsel. Yeah, they left it to them to decide unobstruction. And for all the reasons that we've discussed earlier in the program. Today it's over. It doesn't matter what these people think. None of these people care about real obstruction. It's like they cared about I believe every woman has a right to be believed. I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe. Then it's a democratic governor lieutenant governor in the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Virginia who is accused of rape and violent sexual assault by two separate individuals who told people at the time give compelling interviews to Gail King of CBS, and all the I believers are nowhere to be found. They don't care about real obstruction, but with an underlying crime, which is this is the biggest problem here. Biggest problem they have is that they have no underlying crime. The president is totally, incompletely exonerated. The idea these ten items laid out in part two of this you know waste, monotonous, boring, dull, ridiculous report that took two and a half years to put together, is that they have nothing except in uendo, which is all they're left with and process crimes. Yeah, well I conclude things. I've gotten things out of this and nobody else seems to get. And you know what, they blow up the most insignificant things, ignoring the biggest one is that we are vulnerable as a country, which brings to light the danger of what Hillary did by putting top seek or classified information on a mom and pop you know server, and then yeah, that was a real violation, fell in the Espionage Act, and then of course they rigged that investigation, and then of course the intent destroying subpoena emails and washing her hard drive and beating up her blackberries and iPhones. Yeah, that was all that was. The intention was to destroy the evidence, slammedun case. Not one person in this corrupt rage hatred media mob dare bring that up because they lose. But it's now now everything begins to go back to what I've been saying. Anyway, joining us now we have Jonathan Gillham, former FBI agent, Federal Air Marshall, author of Sheep No More. Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert. Thank you both for being with us. When you get to the bottom line and all of this, there is no collusion, there is no obstruction, there is no case for such, and now we have this is their last gasp at hysterical and feigning coverage of moral outrage, which we know is selective and phony. Jonathan, Yeah, I think you know. I watched your show last night on Fox News, John, and one thing that really stood out is I winner ran because I wanted to see how the media was spinning certain things and how people were going to say stuff. What you just brought up is something's very important, is that throughout this entire time you all have been showing proof. You've been saying this. You know, these are the examples of what happened and how this case should have never gone forward with the fake docia and the fake evidence and all these other things. And it was very important because last night was validating for you, and today is validating for you. But what it showed me was that when people on the right discuss and analyze this, they do it with evidence, not with emotion. And that is the biggest thing that you see today with all those clips that you just play, is that it's a hundred percent emotion. And these people are being fed their own information that they created and then they get emotional about it, and it reminds me of when so it's what they've wanted and they put all their credibility, not that they had any on the line, and they ran with their anonymous sources. But when you get to the whole issue, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, even when the Mueller reported with his partisan team of hacks, I mean you could they're seething with hatred and dying and wishing and hoping that they can nail this guy and they can't, you know, And when the report has the State the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. The case is over. And then you say, well, the President wanted to fire Sessions, and he wanted to fire Muller, and he wanted to he wanted General Flynn not to get in trouble, and you know all of this, Okay, Well, the Danielle you also had people in the deep state that wanted to wear a wire on the president and talked openly about it, and wanted to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment and talked openly about it. And then you have real evidence where Hillary Clinton, you know, had her investigation rigged from the get go, and real evidence of obstruction. The double standard is nauseating in this country. Good afternoon, guys. You know, they're a chin instances in this report where the president is alleged to have obstructed justice, and there are many more where it's reported by the investigators that he tried and failed because people around him decided that they weren't going to go along. I agree, you know, Robert Muller did his job, Bill bar did his job. They have concluded basically because the president that decided cannot be indicted for a crime, which is DOJ guidance that there is not a crime there. The answer here will be political. And the way I think about it as this, would you lose your job if you've done these things? I would lose my job. This is a political thing. This is I suspect there. Maybe if you've done what? If you've done what things? What done what? There's an internal investigation in your job, and you do go out of your way to destroy evidence. You lie to the American people, which is what Sarah Sanders did when she talked about that FBI agents will as a country were glad that Jim Komi was fine. The way, excuse me, every FBI agent I know, and Jonathan knows more than me. None of them like what what the likes of Comey Struck, Paige McCabe and others did. None of them. But that's not what Sarah said. She said that people had told her that from the FBI, and that was a lie. She liked it. How do you know, Wait a minute, I'm hearing it from my FBI friends all the time. As a matter of fact, I'm wearing an FBI pin a lot of nights on TV because one of my FBI buddies said, you know, thank you for sticking up for the ninety nine percent of us that are honest and decent and hard working and take our job seriously and we would never do what they did here. I have ultimate respect for any person in law enforcement. I'm talking about Sarah sand it's lying about what a purported You keep repeating it, but you know, but I'm telling you, I'm hearing it everywhere from the same FBI agents, probably Jonathan. What do you hear from your FBI buddy? Still a lie because it's not Don't see what people are looking at when they're saying that somebody obstructed justice. There was nothing there. And if you're being an investigator, if anybody else is being investigated and they didn't do anything wrong, I would be telling people. As well. As a former FBI agent, I would tell people, don't cooperate, go get an attorney. If somebody's trying to prove you guilty of something that you didn't do and they're fabricating evidence and the entire case is hinging on fake evidence, I would say, get an attorney, don't cooperate, and then if you get a chance to go out into the media and stand up for yourself. I would say do that, and that is exactly what the Trump administration did. There's no obstruction of justice because there was no justice. How can you obstruct a fake investigation? There is a difference between not cooperating and actively obstructing an investoration. To cooperate with a fake investigation. Why would co operate with a fake investigation if you had If you weren't conducting an investigation as an agent, and you knew that someone was trying to tell people to lie, with destroying evidence, with telling people to lie on other accounts, would you would you go after that person for obstructing your investigation. I would never investigate somebody unless, and this is where the FBI works, unless we have probable cause to believe that they're guilty. And in this case, there was no cart probable cause. It was the sake piece of evidence that was paid for by political operatives. I would never have brought that investigation forward, Danielle. We know about Papadopolist, we know about the Australian ambassador, We know about the fact that somebody connected to that campaign knew that Russia had hacked the DNC and there was damaging information on Hillary Clinton. That is probable cause you cannot have foreign interference in an election. And I want to say this again, I accept the report as all Americans should. They did not find criminal wrongdoing. This will become a political process, and who knows what's going to happen. We saw what happened with Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich got over his skis. He went too hard, and the Republicans lost the House. But Democrats are going to have to decide what they do. But when I see the stuff and writing, I just think if I had a job and I did all this stuff, and I'm thinking about people at haunts, would you keep your job on? This conversation that you're having with us doesn't mean anything because it was a completely fake investigation. Let me tell you something. If you were standing you were really hungry, and you were standing under an apple tree that was swarming with worms, but there was one small apple up on top of that tree, would you even waste your time with that? No, because it's a spoiled tree. And that's the way justice works. We don't look at one thing that one person said and then build a case around that. We look at the entire case, and we say, is their criminal activity going on here? And one person having one meeting when they were drinking does not make a case, right. But it was more than that, Okay, there were people who had ties, no more three I had been watching for you know, three years. There were all of these things that happened in due time. It was fine James Coomy that got the Special Counsel of Prosecutor because the president reportedly is and the report asked Jim Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, to go easy on Michael Flynn, because Michael Flynn, and he was on tape, he was lying about his context with the Russian ambassador during the campaign, and I think maybe into the transitions. So folks were worried that there was an act. There was an actor who was getting rid of people, who wasn't investigating his friends because and so they thought there might be something there. Turns out there was no connection between Russia and with you legs and the Trump campaign. They could not thread those dots. And I said to anybody in media, anyone on the left who was still banging the drums, the facts are there. You have to live with that, Okay, we have to live with us, and we have to go on. And I guess, all right, let me let me, let me go on. Then I'm just kidding anyway, Thank you both. All Right, that's going to wrap things up for today. See you tonight.