Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast, Right Glad you with us? And right, has anybody heard anything about me in the last twenty four hours? Names you know, at some point when you really think about the obsessive coverage of all things Hannity lately, I mean, and a lot of it just a typical fake news, you know. I love the fact I really would like equal treatment under the journalist ethics, And uh, maybe we ought to start looking into Anderson Cooper's uh different financial holdings or everybody else on on TV considering, Uh, everybody's so interested in what they think they know or don't know about mine. He stood up and he said the name Sean Hannity. How did he say it? Was it like Hannity Han, Sean Hannity, Shaan Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, John Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, John Hannity, Hannity, Is, Hannity Kennedy, Johnny John Hannity's hand Hannity, Hannity shown Hannity, Sean Hannity, Shaun Hannity, John Hannity, Hay Hannity, Hannity shown, Hannity, John Hannity, Hayjohn Hannity, Shohn Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Hanny Shot Hannity, Sean Hannity, Shawn Hannity shown, Hannity, Shaun Hannity shown, Hay, Shaun Handy, John Hanny, Hay, Sean Hannity, Shawn Hannity, Han Hannity. Hi, this is the Sean Hannity Show. Oh man, here is a true statement one Shawn. The media is wait, wait, I'm sorry, what was your name again? My name is Sean Hannon. What's the name of the show, Sean Hannity Show. Is that a capital H? All right? Will you stop, uh think about this? When we were out there, like we usually really are hanging up at the top of a tree, out on a skinny branch, hanging onto a twig and a leaf on the twig, um vetting Barack Obama, they're there. They so hate anybody that supports the president or the fact that we have done such a big deep dive into the deep state and we have exposed what we now know to be the biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in history. Um now, they just think they're vetting, And Linda, tell me if you disagree, they're vetting me more than they did Obama for president. I mean, I can remember you talking to George Stefanopolis when he was getting ready to interview him and saying to him, Hey, George, do you know about this? Hey George, do you know about that? And he knew nothing that he had never heard of Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dorn. There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is his the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Airs, the unrepentant terrorists uh from the Weather Underground, who on nine eleven of all days in the New York Times was saying, I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough. When asked about it by the Political David Axelrod said they have a friendly relationship and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask, well, I'm right now. September eleven, two thousand, one of all days, there was an article in the New York Times and there are a number of quotes about Bill Ayres and the Politico had in there the comments about from David Axelrod. I think that's an interesting question that nobody in the media has really brought up. We've we've highlighted a little bit more here on this program. But let me see if I can help you. You want any more questions? Keep going. The Chicago Reader talked about and commented has comments of Barack Obama why he attended the million man March that most people don't know that. I don't think that's pretty Didn't he write about that in his book. I don't remember that but picular, but I know that he was quoted extensively in The Chicago Reader December eighth. I forget the year, going back a couple of years, by the way, but he had never heard about it until I told him. You see, it's a very simple answer to all questions. If people would just call you, they would get the information they need. Well, you see, all right, really everybody having a good time. Ever, No, I'm sick of my own name. Do listen. If they want to have some fun with it, so can we. But the fun is the funny part is as I think they're vetting me more than they did Avanna Obama. And I also think I'm getting a little sick and tired of I've been looking at the TV all day and there I am on every channel all day long. I could have sworn you were prime time, but today you're all time. I don't know what's going on. Well, it's been the same for the last four weeks. I mean when they ran out of the courtroom, Alway's Michael Cohen's third quite Oh well, we explained that tell no cases, no billing, no retainer. I think three questions on real estate, but I said, let's I want this attorney client gave him ten or twenty bucks. That was it, And I think they're disappointed and so anyway, so now that but I I I think I want to get paid. I think CNN owes me a paycheck. I think NBC owes me a paycheck. ABC Conspiracy TV owes me a pa. I think they want to start paying me because they've run the by show every day and talk about me every day at this point, I'm figuring we ought to get paid back anyway, Enough about me, Um, all right, we now my sources. What do you mean you have sources? The funny part on that is, you know people are writing bizarre conspiracies about Sean Hannity. Oh, he is the shadow chief of staff and he talks to the president in the morning, and he talks to the president at night, and he talks to him all the time. And he's like this, and it's he should have a desk in the White House. And then when I contradict something that I knew wasn't true in the New York Times and their anonymous source, what does he know what he's talking about? He has no no clue what he's talking about. But I do have sources now. Mayor Julianni today in another sign that Kim Jong gun is sincere and his pledge to give up nuclear weapons if it wasn't enough for people in the media because they'd rather talk about stormy Um that he walked across the d MZ into the arms of the South Korean president and history was made. Um. Mayor Julianni mentioned that we've got Kim Jong gun impressed enough to be releasing three prisoners today. Um, and while it hasn't been confirmed, we are pretty clear. Um, my sources are telling me that's absolutely true, that that is in fact. Now. The interesting thing about that is, how's the media gonna react to that? Uh, this is how it will be on TV. Oh, three hostages were released, but Stormy Daniels, but Russia, Russia, Russia's how corrupt the media is here and as of late Wednesday, US officially done the confirmation. Apparently you know we're hearing. Sarah Sanders wouldn't confirm it. Um, but the bottom line is it sounds like really good news is coming. Thank God for these hostages and let them get home safely to their families as quickly as possible before I get into my interview with Mayor Julianni last night. Um, something else you're not gonna hear. And I kind of feel it's my obligation to put out information because the media won't do their job. The fake news gang out there wants you to think that the fate of the world hangs on a hundred and thirty thousand dollars that was paid to a point star that claims to have had sex twelve years ago, um and who paid who and who knew what, when and where? But new applications for US jobless benefits now increased less than expected that last week, and the umber of Americans now receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level is since nineteen seventy three, which points to a tightening labor market, which is good for people that are in the workforce because that means that you have employee ers that are going to be fighting for employees. Initial claims rose two thousand AD just seasonally adjusted, etcetera. But you know this is all good news. Fourteen states now have record low unemployment numbers, record low unemployment numbers for women in the workforce, record record lows for Hispanics in the workforce, and African Americans and the workforce. It's all phenomenal. Um. Now, I want to start with where I probably shouldn't, but I will, because you know, I looked at everything I look. I was there for this interview with Rudy Giulietti last I know he's done some other interviews since and and I didn't catch it right away because the quiet and I was asking was different than the one that he originally answered. And then later in the interview. I went back to it because I wanted to make sure that I had gotten it right, because I'm thorough and I want to do a good job. Um, And that was his comments. You know, the media is ignoring that he said Robert Mueller's questions are intended to be a perjury trap for the president. They're not talking about that. They're not talking about why Trump fired Comey in the long discussion we had about that. They're not talking about Mayor Julianni saying Comey is a disgraceful liar and the Mueller probe is tainted. They're not talking about when he looked in the camera. Sorry, Hillary, you're a criminal, and Comy fixed the whole case, and and Comey's perverted. You know, they're not talking about. Uh, my biggest regret is I should have taken the attorney general job. Uh, the country would turn on Mueller and if if, in fact, he went after the First family, and that he didn't understand. Now that you know, none of these revelations are really They basically have recycled out of a forty minute interview one thought because the others would be too damning to the deep state, and it all is part of their obsession. They didn't they never played the tapers, and there's no Russian collusion. That's over. It's absolutely done and finished. Now, with all the news that came out of this interview, what is the media, folking focusing on here? You know, not any revelations about the negotiations with Mueller, which are very important and what constitutionally Mueller has a right to do. Or when I asked him about the abusively biased team of Mueller, he's they're not talking about Julianni's blistering assessment of James Comey, not Julianne's stunning conclusion that the only crimes that have been committed so far well have been committed not by President Trump, by the deep state, by the government, and he said it numerous times, meaning the Obama Justice Department, you know, people way up high in the Obama FBI and the Obama White House. All they have fixated on and focused on and zeroed in on his Stormy Daniels and the mayor's revelation. The President Trump reimbursed reimbursed his lawyer, Michael Cohen for a hundred and thirty thousand dollars that Michael Kohn said he didn't ask permission for and used his own money, And this morning the fake news brigade was having a collective meltdown that Julianni's statement means Trump lied when he said he didn't know about the Stormy Daniel's payment when he was asked about it an Air Force one and when Trump issued the one word denial, no, Well, I took it to me that he didn't know in advanced that a payment was being made, which is true because Michael Cohn has said that and stuck with that story, and that he did it on his own and that he viewed it, I assume as part of his job. And it's not surprising if you work for a billionaire at a billionaire's company that that you're gonna handle things like that. But as a matter of everyday business, it sounds horrible. But that's in other words, true or not. I'm not even talking about veracity here. I'm talking about problem issues that come up that need to be dealt with. And in that sense, it's Michael Cohen, in his position as a a General Council vice president at the Trump Organization, to jump on a grenade if he sees a problem for the company and his boss, which it sounds like he did. And um. But by the time the press asked Trump whether he knew about the payment in April, of course Trump knew about that. By that time. Everybody knew it had been in the newspapers for weeks. His no answer obviously referred to some point prior to Wall Street Journal's first report on the Comb payment in January of when he said no, it was in April of and time matters. I'll explain more on the other side of the spreak here, and then we're gonna go over what I think we're the more relevant points of the interview that were missed. And I thought the mayor laid out a devastating case against many individuals right as we roll along Sean Hannity Show, so much that you know, the fake news brigade out there having a mount. Julianni's statement me, is it Trump lied when he was on Air Force one and he said no when he was asked about you know, did he know about Stormy Daniel's payment. Well, when Trump issued that one word initial denial, it was on April five. Now it was obvious what he was saying is that he took it to me. I didn't know in advance that the payment was made. There's no Hillary gets all the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, well, she deleted the subpoena emails, national washed the hard drive, and you know, foreign agency's picked up on our emails. And yeah, she put it in a mom and pop shop closet where it became vulnerable and even classified top secret Special Access Program information. She gets a pass on everything. Donald Trump said, did you know about the payment? No? In other words, he didn't know about it in advance. That's consistent with everything Michael Cone has said. In other words, the Michael Khne took it upon himself, which would be part of his job. I assume working in the Trump organization and jump on grenades, and that's what he did. It's problem arises his job. They call him the fixer. Oh, he's a he's handed, he's fixed. No, he's not Hannity's fixer. You know, he's never done any case for me, never involved with any third party with me. So anyway, Um, but by the time the press asked the President if he knew about the payment, of course he knew. He knew because it was talked about night and day twenty four seven, it was everywhere. So it is no answer referred to. You know, at some point prior to the Wall Street Journal's first report on comb Uh, he didn't know. It's a simple answer, but it's deep and it's profound, and it shows how corrupt the news media in this country is. On February, Michael Cohen said, neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly. What Cone didn't deny in the statement was the possibility that the president had reimbursed him out of his own personal funds, as Mayor Juliani said, which would be perfectly legal. Alright, thank you, Scott Channon. Glad you with us right down our toll free number. It's eight nine one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program. I don't want to belabor this. April fifth, the question of Trump was did you know about out the hundred and thirty thou dollar payment? Did you know? Past tense? The question was not when did you know it? Was did you know that Michael Cone had paid it? And he said no, and that's consistent with what Michael Cone said. That is a percent consistent. And these idiots in the news media are just dumb. They're dumb and their sheep, and they're overpaid, and they're lazy. You know, they're lazy because they have to run my tapes all day long because they can't do their own work. And part of the reason is because they're obsessed with anything that's about destroying and delegitimizing the president, not about doing real honest reporting about deep state corruption. They'll leave that to me. They'll leave the vetting of Obama to me. They'll laugh at oh hand, any things Trump cann't win and they think it's funny he's the chief of staff. Then the next day he doesn't know a thing. These people are pathetic. So if Trump found out about the payment after the journal, after the Wall Street Journal broke the story on January, and the question was did you know about the payment, and he says no, he's telling the truth. That is consistent with what Michael Cohen said. So everybody, all this analysis is just backwards, asked backwards and wrong as usual. In fact, Trump still didn't lie. If he found out about the payment at any point after Cone made it, which was I guess what at some point in October, Because the question was clearly intended to find out if Trump had four knowledge of that payment, whether he ordered Cone to make that payment. Cohn says no, The President says no. And if he didn't know about the payment before Cohne met it made it, then the President didn't lie. Unbelievable alright. Eight one. Now we have a report out today and it looks like the illegal surveillance of President Trump's associates might have continued up to a few weeks ago. NBC News is reporting that Robert Mueller wire tapped phone calls between Trump and his personal attorney, Michael Cone. Look, I I don't know what kind of justification did they have for this. Maybe they used the bulk of the information in the docier, just like they did to obtain the fiz awarrants. Who knows what they used. You know, they've offered nothing whatsoever that would justify this kind of egregious violation of attorney client privilege. Let it loan every American's basic right to privacy. You know, that's the whole issue with with illegal surveillance. And I'm masking and no minimization. And you know, then leaking raw intellig and Samantha Power is unmasking at a rate of one a day. You know, we still have to get back into that scandal. You know, I don't care if a Democratic judge signed off on on this. There has to be a justification just cause otherwise it's unconstitutional. Otherwise we're back to the same tactics that appeared to be used in the case of lying to the FISA court judges in their application and subsequent renewal applications. Just by on Carter page, a Trump campaign associates the bulk of information was provided by a docier that Hillary Clinton paid for that was unverified and uncorroborated. Well, I'm telling you that we are living in really dangerous times here. You know, this gets really serious. If you believe in the rule of law, equal justice under the law, if you believe in equal applications of the law, if you believe in the constitution of your against unreasonable search and seizure. Anyway, federal investigators of wire tapped the phone lines of Michael Cohen, longtime personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, under investigation for a payment he made etcetera, etcetera. It all goes back to their obsession over the porn star. You know, it's unclear whether what incriminating information, but they also are saying that one of the calls was to the White House. Wow. Now he represented Trump and the Trump organization and its business dealings I think for about two decades before Trump was president. You know, Robert Muller is interested in information that federal investigators in New York would pick up. You know, if if that was the case, you know, was the was the government made aware of it? Two sources according to the U. S. Attorney's Office and FBI, they declined comment. Two sources close to Rudy Juliani say he learned that day's after the raid, the President had made a call to Michael own. I know why he made a call to Michael Cohnan's obvious because he's worked with him for all these years, and he feels bad for somebody he considered a friend and probably likely Um As a matter of fact, I know every one of his lawyers said don't do it, but he did it anyway because he wanted to support his friend and he wasn't gonna abandon him in a time of need, which is what I think good people should do. Anyway, the former U S Attorney Chuck Rosenberg and NBC analysts said that there's a high bar for having a wire tap approved. This is an acting This is an exacting process where the government must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an ongoing crime. That's a high bar. Except the FISA Court, they have a high bar to the highest bar. They approved the surveillance warrant on a Trump associate and the lead up to a campaign which extended to the entire Trump transition team later on the basis and then the residency later on the basis of the political hallucination that was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and company. So if it's a high bar, I can't wait to get to details of what actually happened here, which we will eventually will get to. May take us a year. Took us a long time to find out Hillary paid for that phony dossier and what happened with that DOSSI March eighth of seventeen, Sarah Carter and John Solomon on This program broke the story that there had been a fiser warrant issued with Trump Tower in relation to the Trump campaign, nobody paid attention to it. And then slowly but surely, look at all we learned in a year and how all of this has now come out. We have some other interesting stuff in all of this. Judicial Watch is now suing the d o J. For fiser hearing transcripts that are tied to the Clinton d n C dossier. By the way, I think the American people need to see these applications and these renewal applications, and there were original application they need to see who signed them, like Rob Rosenstein signed off on one, which would render him, you know, somebody that is conflicted out of all of this. You know, there's a this motion that is now pending before the FISA Court by some journalists. You know, there is a specific rule of procedure in the FISA Court law that requires the government to correct any material misstatement of omission from an application immediately. Well, we now know that through the Grassly Grand Memo, the bulk of information presented to the FISA Court was the Clinton bought and paid for foreign national Christopher Steele Russian propaganda and lie document. All has the correction been made on the record. I'd love to interview the the judges that were lied to and manipulated. Here, Oh, a little asterisk may have a slight political tape. Yeah, Hillary paid for the whole thing, opposition party research. You know, there's a lot of questions that that I'm telling you all of these guys are eventually going to have to answer. You know, look at the story that has been out there about you know, all these rich Democrats, you know, continuing to pay Christopher steel On hiring Fusion GPS, still looking to corroborate the cookers, uring on urinating on the bed story. At this point, you might as well assume it never happened. Like a lot of the information and there's outright lies and propaganda. By the way, Hillary was paying for and Fusion GPS is feeding to the media. That's called manipulating the American people. And the lead up to an election. Not exactly surprising because that Republicans, conservatives are always maligned before elections, you know, Julianne he's saying last night, the Mueller probe is total, totally garbage. The investigation, you know, calls James Comey a disgraceful liar and he's a perverted man. When he said about Hillary Oh, she respects the rule of law, Julianni saying Mueller's questions reveal a desperate attempt to trap President Trump into perjury. The Special Council would like to interview the president. There's no secret about that. Every lawyer in America thinks he shouldn't be. We meeting myself and j. S Ecalo and the Raskins and all the people involved in the investigation, and now our new colleague, uh Emmett Uh, We're gonna have to decide. Probably fallsmore on us because he's on the government side, whether the president should granted interview. Here's what it's all about. It's real simple. American people can follow this along with me. Are they objective? Are they well? Right now? A lot of things point in the in the direction of they made up their mind. The Comey's own the truth and not the president. When you look at those questions about what does the president think, what does the president feel, what does the president really desire? Those are all questions intended to trap him in some way in contradictoring what is in fact a very very uh solid explanation of what happened. And then with the Washington Post News, this week that in fact, Robert Mueller has talked about a subpoena of the president, you know, as Dershowitz and others point, that doesn't leave the president without any options. You know, he could bring a challenge to court on any subpoena that Mulla brings and can go to a federal district court, the Court of Appeals, the U. S. Supreme Court that you can subpoena president in a criminal case in front of a grand jury, and he probably lose the broad issue. But then he can argue, you can't ask a president why he engaged in acts that are authorized under Article two of the Constitution. That is an easy argument to win, in my opinion. And then they can argue they get they can't ask him questions that go beyond the scope of the special counsel's authority, namely, you know, to any business dealings of the president or what he thinks of people, as if thinking is somehow, in some way a crime, you know. And then they could challenge Rod Rosenstein's position to a point in the first place, considering he signed off on one of the FISA warrants and he himself would be a you know, witness a in the case, and there's so much to get to all of this that is just unbelievable. Now. The President um responded to the the Cone part of this on Twitter today. As a Mr Cohne, an attorney received a monthly retainer not from the campaign, having nothing to do with the campaign from which he entered into through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non disclosure agreement or n d A. These agreements are very com and amongst celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is full force and effect will be used in arbitration for damages against Ms Clifford Daniels. The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting there was no affair prior to its violation by Miss Clifford and her attorney. This was a private agreement. Money from the campaign or campaign contributions played no role in this transaction. Oh, I mean, I don't think you know? The timeline fits perfectly into Donald Trump not knowing and in his answers, Um, you know, he actually quoted John Dowd, who was one of visitors to This isn't some game. You know, you're screwing with the work of the president of the United States of America, and with North Korea and China and the Middle East and so much more. There's not much time to be thinking about this, especially when there was no Russia collusion and the President's right, you know, a rigged system, you know, look at look at how their stonewalling Devin Newnesses Committee and Trey Gowdy's committee and Bob Goodlad's committee. They don't want to turn over documents. The President tweeted out to Congress, what are they are afraid of? And we know what they're afraid of. We know they're gonna get exposed. You know, why so much redacting? Why why such unequal justice? At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the presidency and get involved. I can see that day coming, I really can. You know, the questions are an intrusion into the president's Article two powers under the Constitution that he has the right to fire any executive branch employee. What the president was was what what the president thinking is outrageous while he was thinking this, but he didn't do it. He's thinking that, but he didn't do it. It's we're gonna hold people responsible for thought crimes. Now, this is all insanity, and this is a mass media left wing Democratic Party psychosis that has taken over and it started at the moment it became apparent that Donald Trump was winning the presidency and their beloved Hillary lost. Now it's the insurance policy time of struck Page and McCabe. This is all the insurance policy. Al Right, So what happens if, in fact Robert Muller's subpoenas the president before a grand jury? What? We have three great lawyers gonna join us for the full We're gonna go over everything the interview last night with Rudy. Uh, David Shona is coming in, Greg Jarrett and Jay Christian Adams. We're gonna analyze every aspect of that interview. What the president's options are, Uh, is there any legal jeopardy? And how would you deal with Robert Muller and his very band of democratic donors and unethical lawyers. Is that's basically who we appointed. I love Brudy's answer on that last night. Alright, quick break eight nine for one seawn are toll free telephone number and later in the program, will check in with Byron york A much more right as we continue our to Sean Hannity's show, complete legal analysis of all the issues that I discussed with the President's attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But NBC is now reporting that Michael Cohen, the attorney for the Trump organization, UH, that apparently we what we know is federal investigators pursuing to a lawful court order warrant, we're able to wire tap the phone lines of Trump personal attorney Michael Cone. That is a wire tap that occurred several weeks before the now public search warrant that was executed New York several weeks ago. And they went on to say at least one phone call between Cone and the White House was recorded, and Trump, of course at the time, railed against the raid, as did Rudy Giuliani last night. UM. Anyway, let's get our panel in here. We have David Shown with US Criminal and Civil Liberties Attorney. We have j. Christian Adams is the President of the Public Interest of the Legal found Legal Foundation, editor of PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analysts, UH, and author of the upcoming book, The Russian Hoax, The illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and framed Donald Trump. Welcome all of you back to the program. David Shone will begin with you. Well, I assume, or have to assume, or should I even assume in light of what what what happened in the lead up to the FISA warrants where in fact FISA judges were lied to UH and information was purposely omitted. But I have to assume that the Fed's got a legal wire tap against Michael Cone here. I mean, you know, we can make that assumption, but in every single case, and especially this one, those applications have to be examined carefully. Um, we know now from the history that there's a history of misstatement and omission, both which in the FISA court are particularly troubling. It would be troubling for any surveillance application. And again this is the most intrusive kind titles for the application listening in on phone conversations and the phone conversations of an attorney. The Department of Justice has a special set of regulations for this kind of thing. So we have to make sure every eye was doubted, every he was crossed, and that the underlying information was reliable. Um, so many things to check, Greg Jarrett, your initial thoughts on this, and apparently there was one call to the White House. Now Rudy Giuliani had made the comment earlier today that in fact the President would have been would have had to have been given a heads up if in fact it was him or or at any point. But I guess it could have been anybody at the White House, right he it It's hard to know. Look, this is completely separate from the FAI s acchord. This, the d o J would have had to have gone to a federal district court judge. And under the Fourth Amendment, a surveillance wire tap as a searching seas or you have to have probable cause, which is you know, it's an important standard and there are, as David pointing out guidelines in the d o J Guideline book. Let's say this is what this is the burden you have to sustain. And assuming they followed that, then a judge would have signed off on it. Uh my my senses, the president knows that when he has conversations that that they can be listened in on and uh, you know, he wouldn't have said anything. I suspect that would have been incriminating. He probably spent the time just saying this is outrageous that they rated your office. In his conversation with Michael Cone, well, I've gotta why would I think that the President of the United States, more than anybody, should have the most secure line of anyone. Well, I mean, they actually record some of their conversations that go through the switchboard. Uh. And you know when you go through the switchboard, they notify you that some some conversations are recorded. So, I mean, I think the president is very guarded. Um, and I doubt that he would have said anything knowing that they're a rat had taking place. I mean, look, he's a smart guy. If they had just rated Michael Cohen's office, he probably knew somebody's listening in on this. What is your too quick? Too quick? Two quick points, I'm sorry, I just want to jump in two very specific technical points. Number One, there is a minimization requirements under Title three in this case. That is, once they see that the conversation doesn't relate to the purpose of its investigation, they must stop listening to that conversation. That's going to be interesting to see the follow here. Well, but but hang on, David, we know because we dealt with the surveillance issue a lot, and we dealt with wired Uh. The for example, when you have surveillance, you're supposed to Yes, if it's an American citizen, you're supposed to minimize. But not only did they not minimize, then they leaked raw intelligence and one victim of that was General Flynn. Because that intelligence was leaked. You know, remember unmasking took place at a level of one a day by Samantha Power, who was in fact the UN ambassador. Why would the UN ambassador be unmasking one American a day? Yep. The second point doesn't any aggrieved person meaning anyone picked up on this tap as standing to challenge it and because their privacy was invaded too? Sorry, Jay, Christian Adams want to get your thoughts. That's laughable. I thought a tease cross guidelines all that's that's obsolete talk, Sean. We now have a Justice department that doesn't care about guidelines. They've been unmasking private citizens. You're right, they did it to Mike Flynn. They they they suck in conversations. Uh, the people have with targets like Michael Cohene and his former client, the president. That's what this was all about. This is about a muscular, aggressive anti Trump FBI and Justice Department doing what it can to undermine the presidency. You mean you think that they went to Michael Cohen so they can listen in on his conversations with the president. I think that they went to Michael Cohen because they have disregard, disregard for the boundaries that used to constrain the department in the FBI, this is a political witch hunt against the President and anybody who supported the president. It's designed to bankrupt them like it is doing to Michael Flynn and others. This is an all out war by the left using the institution of government to undermine them by criminalizing political differences. Well, that's what Alan Dershowitz has been saying. You know, it's it's amazing what the media only has wanted to pick up on, which I find pretty fascinating, and that is is Rudy Giuliani's comments about the issue involving well the president paying back or keeping Michael Cohen on a retainer. Uh. Meanwhile, he talked about Mueller's questions are intended to trap Trump. Meanwhile, he talked about Comey being a disgraceful liar. Meanwhile he mentioned Hillary as a criminal. Meanwhile he said Comey should be prosecuted for leaking confidential FBI information. And uh. He also goes on to say, you know about Robert Mueller and this whole thing, that it needs to go away, and that Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein need to make it go away. And um, and all of these things have been ignored. You know, we'll go to cut ten here. Um. I was actually in the beginning, I was asking the mayor. I was asking the in the capacity of the attorney for the President about Perkins Cooey in that particular case where money was funneled. And then he brought up the issue of the repayment to Michael Cohen, are you concerned in the process of this, we did discover that a foreign national, Christopher Steele, was paid through Fusion GPS, used Russian sources that not only weren't verified with debunked. Are you concerned that that was paid for to manipulate the American people in the lead up to an election. Isn't that closer to the mandate than Michael Cohen? Why isn't that having that, sir, having having having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman a hundred and thirties thousand, I mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal. That that money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money, no campaign finance violation. So they funneled it through the law firm, funnel through m and the President repaid it. Oh, I didn't know he did. There's no campaign finance law zero. So the press, like every sean, so with this decision was made by everybody, everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I wasn't I knew how much money Donald Trump put into that campaign. I said, a hundred thirty thousand, But they're gonna you're gonna do a couple of checks for a hundred. When I heard Cohen's retainer of thirty five thousand, when he was doing no work for the president, I said, that's how he's repaying that's how how how he's repaying it with a little profit and a little margin fit paying taxes for Michael the president. Do you know the President didn't know about this? Uh? I believe that he didn't know about the specifics of it as far as I know, but he didn't know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. Uh, there's a busy people. And then he went on to say that he had a retainer. Now, at no time everyone saying in the press that what he contradicted him. He's saying he paid him on a retainer and that yeah, that would be compensation for the job that he did here and pay back for it. Um. But I remember Michael Cohen saying Greg Jarrett that he didn't inform him the president and he originally did use his own money. And I mean, everyone's trying to break Rodeo over the coals, but I don't see anything inconsistent in their stories. There isn't Trump paid Cone a certain amount of money each month, both his compensation and to take care of business. Cohen made a hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment over time. He then reimbursed himself from his monthly retainer. It is perfectly legal. It is also perfectly legal to pay somebody for them to stay quiet and go waste done every day in contracts. If it can be shown, as Giuliani states that Trump reimbursed Cohen, that eliminates any campaign finance problem. Was it an in kind contribution? No, as long as there was another purpose, of personal purpose. So this should actually exculpate both Trump and Cone, it seems because that was not the question I was asking that that was something that he wanted to say. J Christian Adams, Right, only the most radical and zealous campaign finance UH law interpretation would make this a campaign finance violation. All Sean, there are people who won the federal government to have that much power, but right now it doesn't. So it is not a campaign finance violation because it's not a campaign expense. It's that simple. It was an unrelated event. If that was a campaign finance violation, Bill Clinton would probably have been prosecuted how many times by now because of all the money that was throwing around to protect his history. So this is not a campaign finance violation. What's your take, David Show, I don't agree that the question is resolved based on whether campaign funds were used, as was suggested last night. But the whole idea that this is a campaign contribution, in k contribution, unreported contribution is absolute nonsense. It's not just that people do this all the time. And that's a very good point, is that Mr Trump has done it in the past without any regard to any election. Ever, it's a private matter Mr Trump wanted to keep private. Listen, all kinds of cases are settled on confidential terms every day of the week, not just this kind of nondisclosure agreement. But this is particularly personal. Um. So you know, this is the most radical take, as Mr Adams said, and that's to take. I'm afraid Mr Mueller is going to try to put on it. But that's a tough case to make. Doesn't past the last time, And as we continue, we're gonna do this for the hour because there's so much to get into here. UM. From the interview with Rudy Julianni tonight and as subsequent interviews that he did after our show last night, David shown criminal and civil rights attorney, civil liberties attorney J. Christian Adams as the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, Editor PJ Media, Greg jareded Fox News legal analysts. UM let me get to the question of what he said about James Comey. He called him a disgraceful liar, and then I asked him specific Now, Greg, you've chronicled exactly the wrong things that call Mey has done. Um, where are the lies that he's talking about that he said should actually he should be prosecutor for leaking? Well, Um, he appeared to have exonerated Hillary Clinton for political purposes. That would be a felony. It's a crime to steal government documents. That's a felony. Um. If any of the presidential memos he took home included classified documents, which is what the FBI now says, that is also a felony. And then there's potentially lying to Congress. He testified that he made the decision to clear Clinton after she was interviewed. Documents prove otherwise. Also, was there a lie by omission when he only admitted to giving the documents to one person but it turned out to be three. That would be a false and misleading statement. Eighteen USC. One thousand and one. Yes, if you omit a material fact under the statute that's relevant to the inquiry, you're guilty of that felony. David yeah, but I gotta say this, the bigger pictured thing to me, that interview was absolutely amazing, just that to have Rudy Giuliani like them or hate him. Rudy Giuliani is known for one thing in the world besides being mayor, and that's for being a prosecutor, a hard nosed prosecutor who fought to get every single case he could get credit for it, et cetera. To put everybody away forever. For Rudy Giuliani to say, Comey is a liar and the investigation is garbage, you may say, well, he's Trump's lawyer. Now. One thing Rudy Giuliani isn't doing is selling out his credentials as a prosecutor. To hear it from him, the same reason that people want to hear, you know, the civil liberties issues from Dirty with I suppose, but to hear from Giuliani Comey, who he knows very well, Mueller, who he knows very well, old ends. For him to use that kind of language on National TV on your show is a major coup. We'll pick it up there. We'll pick up with Jake Christian Adams and David Shown and Greg Jarrett eight hundred nine for one. Shawn is a toll free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program. We have Daniel McLachlin Jonathan Gilham also coming up a much more in incredible Hannity tonight at nine quick Break. Right back, we'll continue. Commy should be prosecuted for leaking UH confidential FBI information when he leaked his report intended to develop a special prosecutor for the President of the United States. I have never ever turned over a doctor. You know me, Sean, you know me, want s attorney UH A lot of allegations to mother mob. Never leaked a damn thing. I would have considered resigning if I ever did that, or if one of my assistants did. Did the FBI League, did the SEC League? I'm sorry, guys, you did all right? That was really Juliani and the exclusive interview that I had with him last night. We continue with our legal panel. We have Civil Liberties Attorney, Criminal Um Criminal defense attorney David Shown J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, Editor of PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, fact Fox News legal analyst, author of the upcoming book The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Uh, let me go to you, J Christian Adams, and and let's go to those specific comments. Comey is a disgraceful liar. Comey should be prosecuted for leaking. Well, Rudy's right because not only is he even leaking, he's been profiting from it. But Rudy talked about something else very important, and that is McCabe. Don't forget Andrew McCabe, number two guy at the FBI, working closely with Comey. The two of them were a pair of liars. McCabe violated eighteen USC one zero zero one, which has put plenty of people in jail multiple times. He did it an inspector general interview under oath. He did it in front of FBI agent thunder oath. I mean, Sean, he should have been hauled in front of the grand jury and indicted a week ago. I mean, it's not in hard case to prove. So what's going on with Jesse lou the U S attorney in d C or Rod Rosenstein. What's going on? Why isn't this happening? Well, I think that's why it was so important. Greg jareded that when I asked Rudy Julianni, do we have a dual justice system? He said yes, and that was the best line of the night. There there's actually three systems. There's there's the system for Hillary Clinton, in which everything she does is okay. There's the system for the rest of the United States, you and me and everybody else, in which we have to abide by the law. And then there's the third system of justice, which is the Trump system. If he so much as sneezes, it's a crime, according to East top officials at the Department of Justice in FBI and David Shone, you agree with that too. I mean, look, I talked about it, and I'm not wasn't really even in Jess last night because if they want to interview the president, okay, well, you know, the questions are a little absurd, and and we've all pointed out, well, what do you think of comys Tessa? Who cares what he thinks? What do you think about Sessions were accusal? Who cares what he thinks or what he thinks about Robert Muller. It's irrelevant to anything in this case. But there are things that are relevant in this case, and that is, do we have a dual justice system. Was Hillary Clinton, did she violate the law at a high level and was she given a rigged investigation? Because if that's the case, we don't have equal justice under the law in America. Right right there there, there's a basis for the expression of the government of laws, not of men or women. Um, and that's what we're seeing here. Unfortunately, we're seeing personalities and personal agendas take over the justice system. I don't like to talk in sort of tripe phrases, but we heard about drain the swamp. If ever that would be applied in this situation, it's got to be with the Justice Department. D Rosen has to be out. We have to start fresh here. We have to take a whole new look at this special council. Special counsel investigations take on a life of their own under the best of circumstances. But here there's a definite agenda, a political agenda, and this that has infected the process and has become a government of men. It cannot be I don't think we've suscratched the surface yet. Potentially, with Mr Rosenstein's conflicts of interest, sessions should have been off of this case. Then certainly wait a minute, we know, we know enough that he'd be a witness in the case against Comey. Would he not? How about how about the finds the applications that he would which isn't the heart of all of this. If he signed off on it, there are a lot of questions to answer, including the date. If he signed off on it during, for example, an extension and a second application, third application during the Trump administration, he didn't have the authority to do that on his own. By the way, under four UM, he's sort of a default person only if the president certifies that Rosenstein can sign it, but the main person to sign it is a National security advisor. Um. What happened in that case? The status specifically spelled that got to be certified by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or some other executive branch officer, only the deputy director of the ATI if the President designates him as a certifying officer. Did the president designate him? Did he get somebody else's approval also? And if he did sign on this, Rod Rosenstein, he's got to be out of this thing. He can't be calling the shots on Muller's investigation. I think that's Well said, and I think that's what the Freedom Caucus has been arguing, and we've been arguing here on in this program. Let me go to a legal question and I think needs to be answered, and we got into this in some detail last night with Mayor Juliani, and that is Mueller raising the possibility of a subpoena of the president. At what would happen under that case? And for example, if he issues the issue a subpoena, he refuses, are they going to hold them in contempt next? And how do they enforce contempt on the president? I cannot enforce contempt on the president. An inferior unelected officer, which is Mueller cannot hold the pret have or move to hold the president and contempt for violating the subpoena UH and removing the president from his discharge of his duties. That's unconstitutional. US Supreme Court has said, so it's in the writings of the Framers. So if I were the president, I would simply ignore the subpoena and let Mueller try. Good luck with that. What do you think, j Christian Well, Sean, this is indicative of something you mentioned, and that is the politicization of how people view the law law enforcement. I was at the Justice Department under Holder when he first came to office, and I will remember distinctly that if you wanted to go after somebody like they're doing to the President, you create the most outlandish, radical, far left wing legal theory. But if you're on the other side, like like they we're with with Obamber Holder, you create the most outlandish defense of Holder. It's it's a question that the law is no longer more reasonable, agreeable standards. The left has destroyed that. And that's what you're watching play out now because all of these lawyers of the Justice Department working for Muller, these Democrat lawyers, don't think they're doing anything wrong. This is just how they behave in the post Eric Holder world. All right. So let's walk through this a little bit more closely here, because Alan Dersho Dersher which would say, well, is a danger here because if he took the fifth, they'll give him immunity in the fifth doesn't apply, and that sets him up for yet another perjury trap if he says something that contradicts somebody else in a situation where he has to answer, well, right, And that's exactly what he's trying to do is set up a perjury trap because one zero zero one, which is lying to federal agent or official or frankly employee, is very easy to prove. And you know, Donald Trump has some very colorful ways of expressing things, and you can be sure the left wing lawyers working for Muller will look for anything that they think is colorably false. They probably think everything he says as false already because they're left wing lawyers working for Muller, so they will use anything he says against him. And it would be insane for Trump to appear to even do a voluntary interview, all right, So then no circumstances, and this was discussed last night. Under no circumstances. Should the president, if any interview to Muller, Should he give a written Crawford? Would Muller agree to that? Because apparently Mueller already has threatened to use the power of subpoena and bring him before a grand jury. Well, the president, as I said, should simply ignore subpoena. This is an idle threat. It cannot be exercised. UH. You cannot force a president from office with a contempt citation. UH for his failure to respond to a subpoena to appear. It's just it's as simple as that. Now, if I were the president, I would uh have my lawyers make an offer to respond to a limited number of questions in writing. Apparently that offer has been declined, declined by Mueller. Declined by Mueller. That's what the mayor said last night, been let Mueller pursue a subpoena if he wants, and and he's Mueller willing to take the country, drag this country, the United States of America, through the mud like this. Now, I I have always said, based on the team that he's appointed, led by his pit bull, according to The New York Times Andrew Weissman, that this they were out to get the president? Have I been right the whole time? In your opinion, David shone right every single time you've said it. Look, I wish I were as uh as um confident about the process as Greg is. You know, this kind of has been attention about this issue since at least the earliest edition cases Thomas Cooper, then the case of Aaron Burr, et cetera. Such a clear question. They certainly can't force him out of office, but there are other contempt remedies. Look, what has to be done, in my view is starts from the top. This is why Rod Rosenstein goes Now, before we deal with this kind of battle. I'd like to think a judge would have enough judgment not to force this kind of situation on the country, to say enough of this nonsense. There is a political witch hunt, an agenda. But start from the top, there is authority over this special council. Don't be intigated anymore by this stuff. People elected President Trump as a man of action. Take the action, deal with the Justice Department, and rain in this Mueller invest football investigations from the top before we deal with things that make a mockery of our justice system. But if if Mueller doesn't have the authority, as Greg is saying, you know, to to force this issue, which by the way, Alan Dershwoodz thinks he does have the ability, does he has the absolute ability to force the issue? He files most of the contempt and it is up to the judge at that point what to do. And you know, I wrote a memo on this issue, all right, So so all right, if the judge, if he wants to push it all the way and the judge in the case is a liberal judge. Um, how do you enforce the contempt the president? And if he complies and takes the fifth and they'll give him immunity, wouldn't they? Yes, they would, And then what would happen? How do you enforce contempt? There's no It raises the specter of completely appropriate conduct to think of anything. Contempt can be enforced by a fine, a daily fine. As the president, if you don't here, I'm gonna find you X number of dollars a day. Um, there are other remedies. However, Greg's ultimate point is right, he can't be forced from office. So what is the teeth? And it never put the country through this battle. And as I said yesterday, by the way, someone Thomas Jefferson said, never put the country through this battle. He ignored the pen on the president. He turned over some documents, but he said, I'm the president. Don't try to haul me into court for something like this. And by the way, we're not talking here about a criminal defendant exercising his fifth and sixth Amendment rights to bring a witness forward. This is a special counsel on political agenda trying to turn the country upside down by hauling the president to court. We'll take a quick break. We'll come back more with our legal panel, David shown, Greg, Jared, j Christian Adams and your calls coming up later in the program, News round Up, Information overload at the top of the hour. Quick break, right back, we'll continue, And as we continue with David Shone, Jake, Christian Adams, and Greg Jarrett Shawns on number Jake Christian Adams, I haven't given you a chance yet, Mulla raising the possibility, the threat of a subpoena with Trump's legal team. How do you take that? Well, look, Sean, he can do that, and I'm sure there's plenty of people on the far left who hate the president, and we all know who those people are. We read about him every day. Did want this to become a crisis, that want the President to have to either take the fifth or just ignore a subpoena so they can they can go to the streets. I mean, look, make no mistake about it. This is an integrated attack on the teen election by the far radical, often Sorrows funded left, whether it's Perkins Cooey who gets gobs of Sorrows money to represent both Hillary in the in the left. This is in that for to destabilize the presidency. It's nothing short of that. Don't lose sight of it. And so it would surprise me that Mulla would do that because probably the attorney's working for him believe in doing that. That's the problem. And I can tell you that Rod Rosenstein's deputies, due to one of Rosenstein's deputies, a d o j A, a principal assistant deputy turn in general, was a sorrows fellow. I wrote about him at PJ Media. At the end of the day, I'm I'm guessing from all of this that now this has headed down a road that's going to go on for a very long period of time. Predictions Greg Jarrett, Well, I don't. I think Mueller realizes that he has reached an impass with his demands to interview the president, and I think they will negotiate aggressively a resolution of it, because I think Mueller realizes that as an inferior unelected officer, he cannot force the President UH to comply with the subpoena. Everybody says, oh, well, Bill Clinton did. That was a civil case. The subpoena was withdraw on by mutual consent and President Clinton did agree to be interviewed privately. Show that's different. Uh, this is a criminal case. The president cannot be removed from office by Mueller. What do you think, David shown again, I wish I were confident. I know Rugi Guliani said he was going to bring it to a close. I don't see any incentive from Mueller or team to close this thing. They're not going to be embarrassed. Whatever they come up with, that's not incentive. They have an agenda. He's got a whole team with an agenda. It has to be stopped. Now. There is no constitutional crisis in stopping this investigation. Now, it's the constitution working. It's the president exercising his article to power through attorney. You think he should pile You think he should fire Muller and Rosenstein. Politically, I think Rosenstein you want to continue an investigation and have it controlled by someone who has the country's in Just remember one of the criteria under the Special Counsel Act is it has to be finding it's in the public interest to go forward. It's not in the public just to take one political partisan position to attack another person and pervert the system. By using a special counsel to do it. Start with Rosenstein, let him rein in this investigate. With the next replacement rein in, the investigation gets focused. We still don't know, by the way, what the full mission statement that's required under the Special Council regulations provided for the breath of this investigation. The interesting analysis. Last word, Jay Christian, President of the Power to fire subordinate officials, that includes Mueller, includes Rosenstein, uh and includes even ross Stein's deputy Suji Rahman, who was a Soros fellow that has been giving Muller cover in this investigation. All right, thank you all for being with us. Eight hundred nine one Seawan toll free telephone number. We'll have more of our coverage walls. Have your calls coming up. We had a lot of ground yet to cover today. Byron York will join us. Also, we'll check in with Jonathan Gillham and our friend Danielle McLaughlin. A much more straight ahead stay right here for our final news round up and information overload. Secretary Clinton is someone deeply in meshed and meshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret Special Access Program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. Mr Mayor war Laws broken. Let's start with Hillary. Did she have I've been on Well, we go back three years with this John when I produced my chart crime she committed and we got up to about eighteen. I'm sorry, Hillary, I know you're very disappointed to win that you're a criminal. Equal justice would mean you should go to jail. Uh. I do not know why the Justice Department is not investigating you. Did James come name told me fixed the whole case and it was rigged. Well, you can't read that stupid report that he wrote, which is at the beginning of his destruction, in which he says, we're not going to prosecute no reasonable prosecutor would indict her. No, honest, reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her. He said today or yesterday called me. He said, Hillary deeply respects the rule of law. Cally said that, Wow, well this is this is a very perverted man. I feel so sorry. Do we have a two tier justice system in America? Yeah? We have one for Hillary and and and uh and all all those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton. All right, News round up in Information Overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show. Nine Poll one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program as we are joined by Jonathan Gilham, author of the best selling book Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, and a turn constitutional expert or UH from the Federalist Society. She wrote how conservatives took the law back from liberals. Welcome both of you to the program. You know, Danielle, I know it's a question you don't like. I know it's a question that needs to be answered. We heard Rudy Giulianni last night. Um, you have tried to duck and dodge a very simple question about Hillary Clinton, and I want a real serious answer today. Is that if if in fact what James Comey described that they were marked classified at the time, and in fact Special Access Program, which is the top level of classification, was in fact on that computer in that mom and pop shop bathroom closet, and we're told five or more foreign entities services, we're able to hack into that system and get that intelligence which talks about sources and methods and people's lives are at risk. And then she tries to delete what is subpoenaed. There d three emails, acid washed the hard drive, beat up her devices. Are you gonna make the case to this audience that she didn't violate the Espionage Act, that she didn't violate obstruction of justice laws in this country? Are you saying that any other American could act in that way and not get penalized by the law for that? In a very serious manner, Hi shan, great to be with you as always. Look, I understand the concerns around. Did I ask about the concern I want to listen. You do this every time you say Hi, Sean. You you always sound nice and and you are You're a wonderful person. Alright, I agree, al right, we agree you're a wonderful person. But here's the problem eighteen USC SEVENE says it's a felony if you mishandle classified top secret special access programming information. James Comey admitted she did it, and then when it was subpoenaed, she acid washed the hard drive, the deleting thirty three thousand emails, and then beating up her devices. And my questions are simple, did she commit felonies? Did she obstruct justice? Let me start with a slightly easier one first, if you don't mind it. That's the thirty thousand or thirty three emails that were deleted. They were personal emails to the Clinton cow whoa, whoa? How would you know that? Because she said they were about yoga, a one wedding, one funeral, and emails with her husband. But her husband does an email. So you're saying she deleted thirty three thousand emails about yoga, a wedding, and a funeral, and you buy that she's telling you the truth. So actually, James Comey said this, When I looked into the deletions, he said in that big long press confidence that they found no evidence that the deletions were done with any problematic And wait a minute, he said under way, he said under oath before the committee. When he was under oath, he went on to say that they weren't in individually looked at by the attorneys as Hillary said. Hillary lied when she said she sent emails to her husband. Uh, there's no way any one person can write thirty three thousand emails about yoga, one wedding, and one funeral. It is impossible, right, So this I want to clear this up. The subpoena was directed to the big Ghazi emails and so everything that was not responsive, and the Clinton campaign determined by law you can determine as your own defense counsel. I I do this. It doesn't matter why it was subpoena and she was pulled to preserve her email records, and she and her lawyers or whoever works for her decided not to agree with the subpoena, not to follow the law. I understand the order was given to deplete the emails before the subpoena was served. That is not true, standing, that is not true. The timeline I had the timeline that her campaign or her lawyers said to the people at Platt River who were the service, which I will completely admit, with a terrible decision and a bad decision to use a private email serve. You will never find me defending that decision, just like I don't want the president, not even Hillary's team is trying to thread the needle the way you are. The bottom line is you just heard James comey. This is the day he exonerated her, after he excoriated her and admitted lies were told and that subpoena records were destroyed. Look, he used the term extremely careless. He made the decision that he didn't have. He didn't have a prosecution. Prosecutors do this all the time. I'll be very honest. I supported her. I liked your policies. I can understand your frustration with me and your frustration with her because you're duck in the question I asked you, did she obstruct justice when she deleted, acid washed and busted up devices with hammers? Yes? Or no? You need to know the intent, Okay, like you need to well, what other what other intent would there be to then to obstruct an investigation and justice? If you acid wash your hard drive, beat up your devices with a hammer, and delete the emails that were subpoenaed, maybe you don't want your personal emails to make it into the public eye. I don't know, but I will say this is my frustration with Danielle. It is it is obvious she violated multiple laws here and committed felonies. And that is that that then leads to the outrage of exonerating her without investigating her. Danielle, Daniel, Daniel once again, are gonna have to I'm gonna have to give you I'm good and I'm just great to have to be talking with you. I'm going to have to give you another teaching lesson from from the government worker perspective. Here. You know, first of all, your great attorney, and you're proven that because when Sean asked you one simple question, which is yes or no answer. I mean it truly is yes or no answer. Um, you dive into this long time rade of of all these good things about the other emails, and they may have been private, and that maybe why they did it. And then you say things because I've been through whatever the defense to tuning, but Hurricane was perfectly legally able to decide what was responsive to that subpoena and what wasn't. And I do it. I do it everybody subpoena here, Here's where we're getting into the nuts and both of this. When we talked about the sailor a while back, you said this was maybe a bad decision on Hillary's part, and we don't look at this sailor a while back he took pictures on a submarine five pictures, um, and he spent a year in jail for that. That was one bad decision. I think he deserved the penalty that he got for that, because everybody knows it's a top secret environment. You don't take picture. He got what he deserved, probably a little less because he got you know, he got pardoned for that. But overall, that was one incident. If we look at Charles Manson and we say he made a bad decision with Sharon Tate, um, if you look at all the rest of the things that happened, we know through the again I say this every week, the totality of circumstances, what happened with Sharon Tate and Charles Manson had falling was not a bad decision. That was a calculated decision that fell in line with a number of things that they did that were evil. When you look at what Hillary Clinton, James Comey, uh, Bob Mueller, the Deputy Director uhum, and all the rest of the people that have been involved with this, Rod Rosenstein, all these people, McKay, that was the word I'm looking for her page instruct All these people have done things that are calculated, not one off, not one bad decision. It was calculated. And here's the gift of this whole thing. Even if when we when we're just talking about the destruction of the phones and the emails, even if that was done to hide personal emails, it's still illegal. And then when it's wrapped up in a case like this, it will be considered obstruction because even if they're trying to hide personal emails, it doesn't matter. They were sending and receiving them on a government piece of property. So that indicates where they have to follow the law. I can tell you what happens when a client destroys emails, for example, they get a it's called spoliation of evidence when they are found to have done it on purpose, and the court, you know, when they get to trial or wherever it is that they're being adjudicated, a jury or a judge is allowed to take the inference that what they destroyed was bad for them. So that's what you're talking about that kind of evidence. It's not it's not obstruction of justice. You talk about government are you talking about private entity? I'm talking about a private entity. There's the difference right there. Who government entity? This is government property. And when you violate the law with government property that that government the youth a topic equipment and government equipment, you are in violation of the law when you when you use that for personal means, when you go outside of the office, touches, putting this stuff in your home, uh, destroying the blackberries without the proper chain, you are, in fact, whether or not your intent was to obstruct, you are obstructing justice when it comes to investigation, and you are destroying government property, which is a violation of the law. And anybody else that would have done this tape your sailor we spent a year in jail for taking five pictures. Had he taken five pictures of that, had he gone and then done gone into some kind of a nuclear facility and taking pictures, we would see is that based on the totalitious circumstances, it was not a bad decision, and in fact, there was a motivation there. And that's what we're looking at when we look at this circumstances, Hillary Clinton and the rest of this gime. I know you're always trying to get me to say here is that you know she's a criminal, she was wrong, she should be thrown in jail. And all I'm trying to say is, these things are processes where prosecutors have the discretion and you don't have to say that. You don't have to say that. I don't mean I'm not trying to get you to say that. The fact is, this is the government property and government stuff it is. You don't even have to say that she obstructed, that she did this. You can simply say the actions that were performed were an obsessive justice and they were against the law in the way that the law governs the use of government equipment and top secret information. All Right, I gotta take a break, right there will continue Jonathan Gilham and Danielle McLaughlin Byron York at the bottom of the hour. And as we continue, Danielle McLaughlin and of course Jonathan Gilham, eight hundred nine for one, Shawn is our number. You want to be a part of the program. Uh. I want you to finish your point, Jonathan, because you're directly challenging in a way. But you know what I think Danielle is really good at, and that's being a criminal defense attorney. But when you the direct question, did Hillary commit crimes that you have struck just as the answer is obviously yes, it's obviously yes. And what I what I want daniel and the rest of people that that don't want to they say they don't want to get into the weeds of saying Hillary is guilty or not. Um, look at the crime, look at the actions that we're taken, and ask and answer the question, are those actions according to the law and the governance of top secret information and government equipment? Are without even talking about instruction, are is that against the law? Then ask if this stuff was involved in investigation? And you get it, Debbie Washerman Schulton did the same thing with our computer and uh and the Awen brothers. If people are maneuvering to destroy things when there is an investigation in process, whether it's the high personal information or not, is that obstruction of justice? And the answer is yes there as well. Well, I Well, all I'm gonna say is what what called me see it as the head of this investigation when he decided not to prosecute her. And that was those thirty three thousand emails that I'm sorry st I'm repeating myself. They were ordered deleted before the Benghazi subpoena. They had no belief from all the investigation that they did there was intent to obstruct justice or to get rid of those in events they were able to, as you know, from fragments of thousands of emails and from other emails that weren't produced came from other people who sort of gather a much broader and though we don't we have never confirmed that we've gotten those thirty three thousand emails back. No, no, I'm not all those stalks that there were some fragments left in the server and they did what they could. I gotta let it go here, though, But I thank you both for being with us. Eight nine one, Shawn are toll free telephone number A right. More on the North Korean hostages, and also the latest on obviously my interview with Rudy Giulianni last night, which appears they will be you know, I want to start getting money from NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN because all they do is run my stuff seven I mean, and they've been doing it for weeks and weeks and weeks, and we get no residuals. We want, we deserve to get paid. We'll continue. Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed, enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret Special Access Program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. All Right, she is a woman that has deep respect for the law. All Right, you've got to be kidding me, right, Um? Anyway, that was James comey then and now um, going back to the exoneration letters and and and varying drafts before the investigation ever took place in that case. Eight nine one. Shawn is a toll free telephone number byron Yorke is here. He is the chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor, author of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. How are you, sir? Doing well? Sean? Thanks for having me. Uh, It's always good to have you. Um. Let's start with Hillary Clinton and and respecting the rule of law, because if she had such a deep respect, I would assume she would not have deleted thirty three thousand emails, acid washed the hard drive, and then have the devices beaten up with a hammer. Well, you know, the key word in that is unilaterally deleted all of those emails. She is the one who decided what investigators could see or could not and that's that is really perhaps the most egregious act in all of that. And I do think in a lot of everything that's happening now with President Trump, I think the Clinton example of how she was treated by the FBI, that is how the the exoneration memo was begun in in May, how the decision was made before not just Hillary Clinton, but maybe more than a dozen key witnesses wherever interviewed, the fact that immunity was handed out sort of like candy. UM and also the fact that if you remember, it was kind of a big deals on the July fourth weekend, July second, a Saturday in s she was interviewed for several hours, and then there was he was interviewed by Peter Struck. Wasn't she exactly? He was one of them, And there was Sunday and Monday was part of the holiday, and then Tuesday was the first business day back. And Tuesday, July five was the day that James Comey came out and said all of the reasons that she should be charged and then concluded by saying, well, we're not going to charge her with anything. Uh. And you you almost wonder if over that holiday weekend the FBI had enough time to go over a three hour interview with a fine tooth comb looking to make sure that she said the truth in every single sentence, because they have sure been concerned about that in current investigations. So, Uh, there's just a heck of a contrast between between the way that one was handled in the way this one is being handled now. It's such a compare and contrast the whole thing. I know that the media focused on only basically one part of my interview last Night with Rudy Julianni. I want to play what he said about Hillary Clinton because he didn't mince words and he was very forthcoming about saying Hillary is a criminal. Mr Mayor war laws broken. Let's start with Hillary. Did she ask I've been on we go back three years with this show. When I produced my chart, I remember thirteen crimes she committed, and we got up to about eighteen. I'm sorry, Hillary, I know you're very disappointed. You to win that you're a criminal. Equal justice would mean you should go to jail. Uh. I do not know why the Justice Department is not investigating you. That James Comey told me fixed the whole case and it was rigged. Well, you can't read that stupid report that he wrote, which is at the beginning of his destruction, in which he says, we're not going to prosecute. No reasonable prosecutor would indict her. No honest reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her. He said today or yesterday called me. He said Hillary deeply respects the rule of law. Comey said that, wow, well that this is this is a very perverted man. I feel so sorry. Do we have a two tier justice system in America. Yeah, we have one for Hillary and and and uh and all all those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton. I mean I thought that was one of maybe you know, a dozen or more moments that were incredible that the meat you just dismissed and didn't even report on. Well, by the way, thank you for that interview last night. It was it was tremendously newsworthy on a whole bunch of levels. I agree with you, there was just I learned a lot about what julianni was thinking about the current state of the Mueller investigation and the president's inclination or not inclination to interview with Mueller. I just I learned a lot out of that interview. So um, so thank you for it. But you know, looking back on um, you know, we had a situation in which both major party candidates were under investigation by the FBI, And I mean, maybe you could make the argument that we had two sketchy candidates, or maybe you could make the argument that the FBI was too involved in politics, and um, I'm not sure exactly how the Clinton's situation should have been handled. I mean, it is just a huge, huge step to indict one of the two candidates for president in the midst of the campaign, as it would have been in July. But um, but I just have to think and everything we've seen lately that the FBI has just gotten way too involved in our political system. And um is maybe exhibit A, B and C for that. Let me I keep bringing it up. But I actually raised this with the mayor last night, and who is now the president's attorney. I said to me, it's very simple, is that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Ack eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, miss handling classified information destroying such information. James Comey admitted in that press conference, you're right after the you know, just two days after they met with her, because he was writing the exoneration with Peter Struck that was being written in May. I've never heard of an exoneration being written so far in advance of of interviewing the main people, seventeen other people and herself. But on top of that, then she was obstructing justice by deleting the emails, acid washing the drive and and beating up blackberries with hammers or having aids to it. And then you've got the whole LEFTBI cover up of this thing. And I do believe they rigged an investigation. I think the crimes were obvious. I don't think any American would get away with the type of behavior that she pulled off there, And I think they aided and abetted her, and that would be obstructing justice in their own way. And I think it's corrupt what they did the highest levels of the FBI, and then if they went forward, I mean the whole idea that they're looking into collusion with Russia and foreign nationals aren't post influence our elections. Nobody had a problem with Obama trying to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in his last election. But more importantly, she hired an outside a foreign agent, you know, somebody outside the country named Christopher Steele. He was funneled money through Perkins Cooeye, which funneled it through Fusion GPS, and he used uncorroborated, unverified Russian sources to manip relate the American people. And then on top of that, it gets worse because the bulk of that information, according to the Grassly Grand MAMMO, was then used to obtain a fizal warrant to spy on an American citizen. Former Trump campaign associate, and they never told the judge that nobody verified the information, nobody corroborated the information, and that Hillary paid for it, and an asterisk that said it might be might have a political taint to it is not the truth to me. That's lying by omission. And the thing that's absolutely jaw dropping in what you were just talking about is that you do have this retired foreign spy gathering second, third, fourth hand information about one of the candidates working for the Clinton campaign. And the jaw dropping part is he brings it to the FBI, and the FBI wants to hire him to keep doing that work during the campaign and afterwards the deal falls through. But the FBI's UH reaction to this was too higher Christopher Steele and have him do his work for the FBI. And my guess is if that had actually gone into effect, Steele would have been collecting paychecks from the Clinton campaign and the FBI. At the same time, let's talk more about your general thoughts about last night's interview and what you got out of it in terms of the president with Rudy Giuliani and Emmett Flood and Jay Seculo and really a new team of attorneys now that he's put together I think some of the best in the country. And what you think this says and where you think this is going. Yeah, My my impression after watching your interview was that we've just had a massive turning point in this investigation. Um. And the twenty four or thirty six hours between the leak of the Mueller questions and then Rudy Giuliani's appearance on your program, I think really shows this massive change because we had had a situation in the White House in which um ty Cobb and um oh gosh, the other lawyer who has left, John Doubt, Yes, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and John Doubt had basically been UH counseling cooperation with the Mueller UM Mueller investigation. Remember back in the in the Clinton years, there were all these fights over executive privilege and Clinton didn't want to give anything to the Independent Council. He even invented things like protective function privilege, like like a secret service agents had some sort of privilege that we haven't had these privilege fights in this because Dowd and Cobb were co operating cooperation and the idea was UM that if if the White House did cooperate, then that could bring the Muller investigation to a quicker close. And I think anybody you know with two eyes is seeing that that didn't happen. And I think what we saw here again with the leak of the questions and then Juliani's appearance on your show, I think we saw the White House taken completely different turn towards a much more confrontational approach. They've obviously got to make a decision about whether to talk to Mueller and if not, how to handle it. But I think that they are they are realizing that as far as the president is concerned, and I know you've gone over with your listeners this question whether a sitting president can be indicted or not, I'm one of those who believes he cannot. That impeachment is the proper remedy if if there's the belief that the president has broken the law. I think the White House has realized that that could be where they're heading, depending on the results in November, and they have to get out in front of this and fight it in a different way. So I think that's basically the biggest message from from your show last night, isn't It also probably going to dovetail into a referendum come the mid terms. You know, it's a great question because I think back to two thousand six. It was George Bush's second term, so that's different from today. But um, the Iraq War was going terribly. George Bush's UM approval ratings were in the mid thirties and the Real Clear Politics average of polls, in other words, they were five to eight points lower than Donald Trump's art today. And there was a there was part of the Democratic base that wanted to impeach Bush if Democrats won the House in two thousand and six. And the problem was maybe forty something percent of Democrats supported impeachment for George W. Bush, far far smaller numbers among independents and certainly among Republicans. Nancy Pelosi, who stood to become the Speaker of the House if they won, was worried about this, worried that it was would turn off voters if the Democratic election. Democratic campaign was, you know, elect us and will impeach the president. So she came out in May of two thousand six, about this time of year, and said impeachment is off the table. Uh. And they went on to win, and impeachment was indeed off the table. Different situation now Nacy Pelosi still wants to be speaker, although that may not happen. Um. But about in the most recent poll we've seen from Quinnepiac, se of Democrats want to see the impeachment of the president. If Democrats when the House, now that is going to be that's a big number and it's gonna put a lot of pressure on Democrats. I'm not sure they can get away with the old impeachment is off the table line from from Nancy Pelosi, which means, uh, since the overall electorate, the overall public is opposed to impeachment, I think that gives Republicans a political argument to say, look, look at these Democrats. Our economy is going well, America is showing strength in the world. The president is enacting a whole list of conservative of agenda items. And if you elect Democrats, what do they want to do? They want to impeach the president. That is certainly going to be one of the arguments we're gonna hear a we're running out of time completely Byron York. As always, you've been doing phenomenal work, uh, writing for the Washington Examiner, and it's always better when I get a direct link uh from you or cut and paste uh and uh. I applaud anybody making those changes. Thank you. We hear your complaints and we're listening to you. Okay, alright Byron York. Thank you, Shawn and tone free telephone number. That's gonna wrap things up to today. We have an amazing Hannity tonight nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel as the Great One, Mark Levin, Joe to Jenneva, David Limbaugh, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, and much more. That's all Happening ninety eastern. Analyze everything in our interview with Rudy Giulianni and the media meltdown that followed. That's all happening tonight at ninth. Thanks for being with us, See you tonight at I'm back here tomorrow