Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio show podcast. Hey guys, unfortunately almost half you men out there over forty need to listen up. And we know this is uncomfortable to talk about, but it's common and not weird, and there's something you can do about it. E D not being able to perform your best Now, thanks to science, it can be optional for hymns dot com is a one stop shop for hair loss, skincare, and sexual wellness for men. Hymns connects you with real doctors and medical grade solutions to treat e D. Prescription solutions backed by science. One e D pill starting with a V just came off patent on December eleven, and that's a game changer. Being your best means performing your best, and now you can do it with no waiting room, no trip to the pharmacy, just a simple online medical consultation and direct ship into your door. Try hymns for a month today for just five dollars. We'll get you started for just five bucks while supplies last. See website for full details. This would cost hundreds if you went to the doctor or a pharmacy, So go to four hymns dot com slash big. That's f O R H I M S dot com slash big for hymns dot com slash big. All right, glad you with us. Wow, what a day this has ben. If you watched any of the hearings or if you didn't, it doesn't matter. We'll get you up to speed right down on toll free telephone number and eight hundred nine four one sean if you want to be a part of the program. We have Lindsey Graham, who was pretty amazing yesterday as it relates to the hearings that took place in the Senate. And how's Freedom Caucus Member Jim Jordan's who was literally part of the sham hearings for the Inspector General and the FBI director. But there is there's one thing that you need to take away from this on top of everything else, is you again, everything is a process. It's so hard for people. Okay, the i G report is out. Now what well the now what is beginning to happen? And that is okay. Now the i G a who I thought looked pretty silly at moments today during the hearing. Now he is going to give his testimony. Then we're gonna hear from hopefully Struck and Page and Comy and and all these other people, and then the criminal referrals, likely that haven't been made, will be made. We know that there are at least five referrals, we don't know exactly what they were as part of the release of the i G Report, So we're gonna watch all of that closely. Um, it was good to see Trey Bowty and great Gouty back in his old form, uh during his opening statement at the hearings today, scorching Jim Comey. What was a blistering opening statement at this hearing, declaring, we can't survive with a justice system we don't trust. You know. The only one bit of comfort that I take out of watching all of this is that those of you in this audience are deeply familiar with every aspect of what they're talking about. Is because we have been on the front lines talking about this and exposing this while the rest of the media has been, you know, pretty much numb and quiet. And then the camp of doing all they can do to protect Hillary Clinton and also not call attention to the fact is that they have not done their job as always and so I'm glad that a lot of it's familiar to you, because it's all true. We've not been wrong, We've been proven right every step of the way. And Gaudy then goes on to accuse Comey of watering down as initial statement on the investigations findings which he did, gross negligence, six stream carelessness, uh foreign intel services highly likely they hacked into Hillary's emails, then taking that out, watering it down, beginning the process in early May, often interviewing Hillary on July second, seventeen other key witnesses, and then wrapping it up three days later because it was all predetermined, even though the violations of law are incontrovertible, the facts are irrefutable, and anybody else would be in jail over all of this, and also pointing down that you know the findings in question, why he didn't seek as special counsel as he did so passionately by leaking well documents that might also be getting him in trouble. As we now now, Gouty, Uh Comey is now being investigated for the document leak of himself he might have violated, ironically the same exact law that Hillary Clinton had violated, as relates to the Espionage Act. Instead he appointed himself. Gaudy goes on the FBI director, Attorney General, Special Council, lead investigator, and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him, and Gaudy said, Harowitz report, which was released last Thursday, should conjure anger, disappointment, and sadness in anybody who reads it. And then he says that in the wake of the IG report, they were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Clinton case. We know why because they had this hatred and bias that was full and complete towards Donald Trump and Hillary was their favorite candidate. If they applied the law as it should have been applied, the Hillary Clinton would have been indicted and then the whole election electoral process for the Democrats. Yeah, I would have been put into some chaos, but it would have been the right thing to do. It would have been what the law required them to do. And he says, these exact FBI agents an attorney prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before that even began. It's the same players. That's why if we're talking about the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation. It starts out with the most anti Trump pro Hillary abusively biased agents at the upper echelons of the FBI, And you can't have a system of justice that rolls this way. Now, the FBI urged the i G to investigate James Comy. This was interesting that Michael Horrowitz revealed he's now investigating Comy based on a ferral that urged them to do so. But the bigger news is the identity of the source that use that issued the investigative referral. That turns out it was Comey's own FBI urging Horowitz to investigate Comey's misconduct. What did I tell you? A little nugget that nobody seems to pay any attention to. At the end of the day, the hero here are going to be rank and file FBI agents. That's why you can't have you know this, the broad sweeping generalizations. If you have a few bad cops, actions of a few bad cops should not reflect on the actions of others. That don't. They do not reflect on the actions of others, And in the case of FBI agents, they have a very hard time telling their stories they have to be subpoenaed before they can ever talk about what it is. Many of them now are lining up to talk about anyway, specifically under investigation for his handling of the memos that he wrote about his interactions with President Trump. While the FBI director and Grassley asked Harrow, which yesterday are you investigating the handling of his memo and does that include the classification issues? And should comey expect a report when it's complete anyway, horro It's responded, We received a referral on that from the FBI. We're handling that referral and will issual report when the matter is complete, consistent with the law and the rules that are a report that's consistent that takes into account. He said, um Now, one other thing here is um as all of this is going on, remember there is a battle and a war that is now beginning of bubble over. It's been percolating now for a while, and it has to do with Rod Rosenstein and the lack of cooperation, frankly, obstruction of Congress's investigations into all of these matters, because as you know, they have they have constitutional oversight. We have a system of checks and balances coequal branches of government. Congress is empowered and it is their job to conduct oversight for the purposes that that people don't abuse their power. This is what this whole scandal is about, abuse of power and corruption. And uh now it's it's going to probably result sometime tomorrow in impeachment articles now going to be filed against Rod Rosenstein. These guys have stone walled, they have obstructed, they have refused Congressional subpoenas, they have lied, they have redacted in the name of national security when there are no national security issues. In other words, the very same things that if you did in your life, if you got a subpoena, would probably land you in jail. Bill McGurn, writing in the Wall Street Journal today, leading member of their editor oriole Board, is calling for the House to actually impeach the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and maybe even the FBI Director Christopher Ray. Anyway. Writing in the Journal, mcgern says impeachment is the only way to end the FBI and d j's continued stonewalling over key documents. He said on Sunday on Fox News with Maria Barrett to Romo devon Noon as the House Intel Committee chairman made it clear his patience has run out. Last Friday, there was a meeting and he and other House chairman at this meeting, Bob good Lad of Judiciary and Trey Goudy of Government Reform fully backed in their demands by Speaker Ryan. Speaker Ryan did ask people to hold back a week before the file these impeachment issues. Anyway, Ryan sent Rosenstein and Ray, and I'm an ambiguous message comply with Congresses ordered this week anyway. Um Ryan was on a radio interview in Milwaukee on w I s N and said the new leadership at Justice and the FBI has to decide whether it will be part of the cleanup crew or the cover up team. If Justice and the FBI don't comply within the timeline that he laid out, we're gonna have to take action. And the obstruction of Justice and the FBI appears rooted in the mistaken idea that they are somehow above the elected representatives of the American people. And while Mr Rosenstein is referred to Congressional talk of impeachment as extortion, Mr Ray and his statement to a press conference outlining steps to fix the FBI conspicuously made no mention of better cooperation with Congress. An impeachment that removed either Rod Rosenstein or Christopher Ray, or a contempt finding that sent one of them to the Congressional pokey for a spell, could send a good message to all federal bureaucrats inclined to be dismissive of Congressional subpoenas. Then again, if either man thought he was in real or imminent danger of being impeached or held in contemn Congress would likely find him instantly cooperative. Of course, that's not exactly why Congress has these powers, not so much to punish, but to encourage the accommodation and the respect. But if rosen Stein and Ray don't cooperate, if the stonewalling starts again, the House auto impeach or jail until it gets satisfaction. Because the congressional power Congress is too timid to invoke is worse than a hollow threat. It becomes a sign that Congress need not be taken seriously. And that's interesting now. Jeff Sessions, by the way, Ductor questioned last night about Rod Rosenstein's obvious conflict of interest in an interview with Laura Ingram are you involved in all the discussions about a possible recusal of Rosenstein from overseeing Mueller given the fact that he did sign one of those FISA warrants and that's a big controversy in the case. Session said, well, I'm not involved in that. He's the acting Attorney General for that matter, and he has to make his own decision as I had to make my decision. Well, that kind of seems like he's taken easy way out. All right, Let's go to Tray Goudy from earlier today. Now this is Trey literally tearing into them. Were FBI agents and attorneys who you know, predetermined the Hillary Clinton email case and the Russian case, and he calls it what it is, textbook bias list. There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case before the investigation ended. I want you to let that sink in for a second. They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before the investigation ended. And these exact same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the Russian investigation before it even began. If prejudging the outcome of the investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins is not evidence of outcome. Determinative bias. For the life of me, I don't know what would be. That is textbook bias. It is quite literally the definition of bias, allowing something other than the facts to determine your decision. These ages were calling her president before she was even interviewed. They were calling for the end of the Trump campaign before the investigation even began. They were calling for impeachment simply because he happened to be elected. That is bias. It's amazing how long it is taken all these people to get caught up to where we have been. You know, it reminds me of my friends and music radio. By the time a DJ is getting sick of the song, it's just about the time that the audience is beginning to recognize what a great song it is. I know that sounds bizarre, but it's on the one hand, it's satisfying, but it's also frustrating. We should be well beyond this point, but for the obstruction that's been going on. All right, we got a lot to get to. Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan's we'll have the latest on this immigration to bate. Clearly the team mid term elections have begun. This is where the Democrats want to get a lot of it's predictable, and we'll give you a fact you're not getting elsewhere in the media. Senior FBI agent Peter Struck wrote, No, no, he's not. We will stop it now. I think this is the Sat Peter Struck who worked on the Clinton email investigation. Do I have that right? St. Peter Strock, who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began, but it was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia pro Do I have the right Peter Struck? That's my understanding. Now Is it the St. Peter Struck who was put on the Muller Special Council team? Yes, all right, St. Peter Struck. And this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone either. This is the same Peter Struck who said Trump is an idiot, Hillary should win one hundred millions to zero. Now, Mr Inspector General, that one is interesting to me because he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the espionage I at the time, he wrote that in March of sixteen, he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he can't think of a single solitary American that wouldn't vote for her for president. I mean, can you see our skepticism. This senior FBI agent not only had her running, he had her winning a hundred million to nothing. So what if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her? What if they had indicted her? Is this the st Peters? He wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton? Was he? Uh? He was present for the interview. Huh, He's a part of everything. I mean, that's just this is only a small sampling. But when Trey Goudy is on his game, there's nobody better. That's why it was so frustrating without information that he went out on the spy issue before. I'm I'm guessing he'd probably regret said he was part of the meeting that took place on Friday, would speaker Ryan and Devin Noness and Bob goodlad and and they basically told Ray and Rosenstein that either you guys start cooperating and stopping obstructing or We're just gonna have to now hold you in contempt and bring impeachment charges against you, because that's what's gonna happen. I think it's probably gonna happen as early as tomorrow because they've not turned over the documents, documents that have been subpoenaed now for many, many, many months. The most fascinating part of all of this is that Hillary did it all, and the FBI agents caught hating Trump and loving Hillary then began they were at the inception, the origin, the beginnings of the Russia phony investigation, and they used the sledge hammer there and then of course the soft club treatment for Hill. That's not equal application under the law, equal justice under the law. To the top of the hour, one, Sean, you want to be a part of the program. Explosive hearings in the House today, joint committees with Director Ray and Michael Harrowitz, the Inspector General. UH. Let me go back. Cut three. This is Trey Goudy talking to Michael Harrowitz talking about the two FBI agents one attorney UH showing their bias against Trump and how impactful this ought to be in the minds of the Inspector General listen. So I want to go back to the no, no, he's not going to be president, will stop it? What do you think the it is in that phrase? Will stop it? Oh? I think it's clear from the context it's we're gonna stop him from becoming president. That's what I thought. Two. Now, I wonder who the WEI is and the wheel stop it? Do you think the we is? Well? I think that's probably subject to my to poll interpretations. Let's see if we can go through them or the broader or a broader group beyond that. I mean, it's hard to fathom a definition of weed that doesn't include him. So we know he's part of we. You could assume that the person he's talking with is FBI attorney who also happens to be working on the Russia investigation. She may be part of the we. But I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animals or biased against President Trump? We did? How many? We have found three additional FBI agents, as we detail in the report, and we're any of them working on the Russia investigation. Let me let me just create two agents and one attorney to other agents, one other attorney. Were they working on either the Russia investigation or the Muller pro Uh. I believe two of the three were, but I'd have to just double check on that, Okay. See five of the fifteen top people looking into the Hillary matter have a hostility towards Donald Trump and a love of Hillary Clinton, even going as far as referring to her as president before she's ever be where they even conclude the investigation. See why when I say, writing an exoneration before the investigation, why that's so pivotal. And when you see that the very same people that literally gave her every consideration, this even you can't even make the case that this is about prosecutorial discretion because it's not. What what she did is so egregious. The violation of the Espionage Acts so clear, and you just need maybe bring into that committee and that hearing Christian Saucier six little pictures on the cell phone. Never shared them, never put them on social media, never did any thing with them except he was proud of the fact that he worked in a submarine. He got a year in jail, and of course the obstruction issue, there's never been a more clear cut case for obstruction of justice, and of the fifteen key lead investigators, at least five of them are on record having this horrible hatred towards Donald Trump and bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. Anyway, Goudy goes on as carwits with Peter Struck meant in a text, saying that he'd finish it. Let's listen in Peter Struck is back on his phone, texting some more for me. In this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation. Now I need to fix it and finish it. Fix what uh? Well, there is outlined in the report. What Mr Struck's explanation for Well, I know what he was. I'm gonna asking our view. I'm asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the Southern District of the New York and had a distinguished career at the Department of Justice, did you rather cross examinated or struggle on that explanation or would you rather direct the examinational that explanation Probably cross exam That's what I thought. How about finish it? When he said I unleashed it, now I need to fix it and finish it. What do you think he meant by finish it? I think, in the context of the emails that occurred in August and the prior August that you outlined, I think um a reasonable explanation of it, or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action. But this is twenty four hours into him being put on them all reprobe. There's no way he possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation. Maybe that's the outcome determinative biased that my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding. Now that was the whole thing that well, we can't find that that political bias was involved. Even though then Harwitz goes on to give example after example after example. What he said is he didn't have a smoking gun. And you know, if you're putting a case together, you know oftentimes you're not gonna get a criminal that says, yes, I pulled the trigger and shot an innocent woman in the vestibule, and I killed her. What you have to do is you take the evidence, forensic evidence otherwise, and you put it together in some cases circumstantial evidence and with all this hatred geared towards Donald Trump and all of these specific comments about will stop him, and all the people that were involved, the same guy that's involved in interviewing Hillary, same guy that's involved in writing the exoneration in early May, the same guy that is then the heart in the beginnings of the Russia investigation. Yeah, he's got a bias now. Chairman Bob Goodlad at one point asked Michael Harrowitz about the struct text saying that he's going to stop him and whether or not it shows political bias. They should put an end to what the left is saying in this regard that there doesn't show any political bias. Yeah, Bologney. However, each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress's constitutionally mandated oversight. The infamous text from Peter Struck saying we will stop President Trump from taking office, which we received on the day of your report release, is a prime example. This text was revealed to you late in your interview as well as I understand, do you believe this text shows political bias? I think, as we found it clearly shows a biased state of mind. And if so, do you believe the political bias shown by this text had an effect on the initiation of the Russia investigation that I think, as you know, uh, Mr Chairman, that's the matter we've got under review and are looking at right now. More more to be determined on that were to be determined. But the time proximity, as Mr Goudy pointed out, is significantly correct correct. In fact, there are these other text messages in a roughly the same time period. No, yeah, that's pretty obvious. It's political. What else could it be? But political? What else could it possibly be? Madam President Helps. Of course Hillary is gonna win. Now we've got Jim Jordan who's going to join us uh in the next hour. Lindsey Graham will also join us in the next hour. But Jim Jordan's was on fire today. Asking Horowitz about strucks bias and Trump painting, let's play that, Mr Horowitz, does Peter Struck like the president? Um, I can only speak to what his text messages say, and they're obviously not positive comments about the president. February Marcheen, Peter Struck said Trump's abysmal. Trump's an idiot, He's a bleeping idiot. Hillary should win a hundred million to zero. Sounds to me like he hates the president. His text messages would certainly leave that as the implication. Your report says Struck ran the Clinton investigation on a daily basis. Is that accurate? That's correct? And Peter Struck in your report he was the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. Is that true? That's my understanding for the time pret he was on. So the guy he ran the Clinton investigation, he runs the Russian investigation, and he hates the president. But your report says, while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't impact final decisions. Is that accurate? It didn't impact the prosecutor's final decision. Right. Let's look at a few other things Peter Struck had to say. On May fourteen, the day after President Trump secures the Republican nomination, Mr Struck says, now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation. Sure why the pressure would be more or less the day after? It seems to me you want to just do the investigation. On July thirty one, as mentioned earlier, the FBI opens the Russian investigation. One week later, Peter Struck says, I can protect my country on many levels. Two days after that, he says, we will stop Trump. One week after that, he says, no way he gets elected. As like an insurance policy. So think about this, Mr Horowitz. Peter Struck opens the FBI opens the Russian investigation on July teen. Peter Struck is the lead investigator. Within the next fifteen days, he says, I can protect my country on many levels. No way he gets elected, we will stop him. We have an insurance policy. Now, that seems like, at least I think a lot of regular folks would interpret that is more than just casting a cloud on what the FBI ultimately did. All right, that was Jim Jordan's And yeah, that's true. Now, one of the notes in all of this is a sort of a follow up to that, Horroorwitch confirming today that he's investigating whether trucks anti Trump bias factored into the launch of the Bureaus Russia probe. Well, of course it had to play a part number one. And we now know that this was going on a lot earlier. Now we also know that there were spies in it. Now we know why there was a willingness. Everybody knew the FBI protocol and fights a law mandates that you verify and corroborate any information that you're gonna present before a fights a judge. They never did it on four separate occasions, and then the d o J gets some Sally Yates signed off on one, Rod Rosenstein signed off on the last one. They lied to four fives a court judges. It can't wait till one day, get them under oath and see how they feel about being lined to. I've yet to meet a judge in my life that likes being lined to, which usually yes your honor, no, your honor, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, yes, sir, no, sir, That's how that usually goes. But anyway, so earlier today, Harrow, it's testifying that his office is now reviewing all of these anti Trump text messages as part of a separate probe related to the Russia investigation, because, as it was just revealed with Jim Jordan's and others, that it clearly shows a biased state of mind, and Horowitz corroborated that referring to the text messages, and that's both biased in favor of Hillary and not being serious about doing a real investigation into the felonies that she did commit. Nobody's asking yet, what should happen to Hillary? How does she get to skate in all of this knowing that these crimes were committed. And then it goes on good Lad asking Horowitz and whether the bias influenced the initiation of the investigation into the Russian interference, etcetera, etcetera, and potential collusion. That's a matter we've got under review, we're looking at right now, Harrowitz said. Good Lad then pressed Harowitz over the politically charged text messages, which the report described as hostile, and noted how several was set near the start of the Russia probe. Actara had said, in fact, there were these other text messages and in roughly the same time period, and the exchange coming minutes after Trey Goudy outlined the curious timing of the text messages between Struck and Page, just as the Russia probe, which Struck was involved in initiating, was at its beginnings, its origins, although we do believe it actually started earlier now and three weeks after Clinton was exonerated by Comey and Struck that now leading the investigation into Russian coordination with the Trump campaign. Um, this matters, because this matters that's pretty interesting. Now this matters. This is just after the Russia probe begins in July. Timeline simple Hillary's exoneration written by Struck and Comey in early May, Hillary seventeen other key witnesses don't get interviewed until early July July two in the case of Hillary, and she's exonerated after long laundry list of crimes that were committed, all of which we've gone over on this program many, many times, and County lays out that timeline July five, Comey goes out there taking on a role he of no business taking on, saying no criminal charges against Hillary. And from that point to July, when the FBI officially initiated their counter intelligence investigation into the Russia issue, and three weeks after Hillary is exonerated by Comy. Struck, who helped write the exoneration before investigation, is leading the investigation into Russia and so called co ordination with the Trump campaign. You know, because this matters, He said, you know, this matters. As he's texting back and forth with Lisa Page, Well, you know, it sounds like they went through the motions. She gets the you know, soft glove treatment in her case, and Trump gets the sledge hammer because of all this political bias. You can't say this bias, this hatred of Trump didn't play a partner as it did. Imagine presenting any of this information to a jury and what their reaction would be. The case comes down to this. You know, I've noticed the attorney for Peter Struck came out with a ridiculous piece. I think it was in USA today today. The guys a patriot and he played by the rules and he could have leaked about the Russian investigation, but he didn't. Um, Okay, I understand that he's in a bad spot, and uh, but just it just it doesn't pass the smell test on any level. The reason you need to be concerned about this is because Hillary got away with things you would never get away with. And she got away with it because people in power, the highest levels of power, decided they liked her, favored her over Trump, who they hated, and they went with the the soft glove treatment all things Hillary, and they put the fix in and then they put the sledgehammer to Trump on an issue that was nonexistent. That's what happened. How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on July of the second. There were um, I believe six or eight people present, but two agents conducting the interview. So as I understand that there were two agents and two prosecutors. Correct, Okay, Now this was an email sent in February from Page to McCay. Hey, you've surely already considered this, But in my view, our best reason to hold the line at two and two, two agents and two prosecutors is she might be our next president. How did you feel about that? We were concerned about it, and we lay it at layout here why we were Okay, let's keep talking about this interview. One of the FBI agents in the interview said on election day to another FBI agent, you should know that I'm with her. Now her was Clinton? Right, how do you feel about that? Are concerned? Okay? E bitually very concerned? Gets to be enough. Already this is struck to Page on October twenty. Trump is an effing idiot. The bottom line is, I'm glad you found what you found, Mr Rowarts. I'm not buying that the Clinton email investigation was on the up and up. And the reason I'm not buying it discussed the two people intimately involved. One the guy, that the lead investigator clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president of the United States. Finally, do you agree with me that finding her liabel criminally would be inconsistent with stopping Donald Trump? If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable, that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put those two things together? I guess it would depend when, but yes, for the convention clearly could conceivablief. Well, not only clearly, conceivably That's exactly what's happening here, folks. You cannot hold her criminally laval and stop him, No, you can't. That was Lindsay Graham at the Senate hearing yesterday. House hearing has been going on today and Trey Goudy just really lit it up earlier today, as Lindsey Graham did yesterday. Who joins us on her Newsmaker line, How are you good? You don't have to be Sherlotte Colms to figure this one out. You know, you're so annoying when I disagree with you, But when you are right on something, you're so right on something, and so I have to give you your credit. Well, it's true. I mean, you know, I'm not shy about being critical when I disagree with you, but I definitely know that. But you did a great job yesterday, and I give you a lot of credit for it. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Let's stay with the fundamentals. If we ken, Senator for a minute, that Hillary Clinton violated the espionageack and obstructed justice, do you have any doubt? No, Here's what I would say. Here's what's important. The original statement that Tommy was going to read on July five, exonerating her said that she was grossly negligent. The reason they changed that term to extremely careless is under eighteen USC. Seventy nine seven nine three if grossly negligent creates criminal liability. So what I want to know is who changed the term grossly negligent extremely careless? Because when you find out how that happened, you will realize that we don't we know the answer because we know the following. We know that both Struck and Comy we're writing, and they began writing their exoneration in early May, they had yet to interview Hillary or seventeen other key witnesses. That Hillary's interview took place July two, and Comey assert the power of the Attorney general and pretty much everyone else and exonerated her publicly on July five, and not long thereafter, the same people that that put the exoneration in or the fig so before the investigation then started the Trump Russia probe. Yeah, but what I Yeah, everything is dead right, But what I want to know is I wanna is there any email traffic is in your conversation about changing the words? Somebody put down grossly negligent and they suddenly realized, wait a minute, if you say that she's criminally liable, we can't say that and stop Trump. The the August eighth text becomes so important. That's when Page says to Stroke, Trump's never going to become president, right right, Struck responded, No, no, he's not. We'll stop it. So now you know that they wanted to stop President Trump from being president. How can you stop him because find her criminally responsible for mishandling classified information. That to me is the key here. Who changed those words? And when did they change it? Was it called me? Was it strong? How did it happen? No, you know you're dead right on this one of the We keep getting these nuggets as we read through this report. Again and again. Nuggets. Yeah, you're right, you see, and this goes to the heart of it, and that is that Horowitz and the Democrats jumped all over. Well, he said that he's not going to second guess prosecutorial discretion. But then on the other side of it, he lays out the single most compelling case of abuse and bias in the justice system amongst the highest investigators within the FBI that I've ever seen in my life. Is as stunning. But but you skipped over something that Creepo did. Mike creep who did a wonderful job, and I didn't have time to bring this up, but as brilliant who decided to prosecute, to give her, to let her off the hook. It wasn't a prosecutor, It was the FBI. So this was an unusual case. There was no professional prosecutor that over oversaw the FBI investigation. In terms, there's no case here. The same crew that basically was in the tank for Clinton decided not to execute Clinton. Loretta Lynch didn't make this decision, called me, did the guy in charge of the FBI. So there was no independent filter here. There was no outside group looking at the FBI's work product saying you're you're right, there's no case. The FBI decided not to prosecute, not the Department of Justice. Well, we also know that of the fifteen lead, posibly that happened in my life. Well, of course, I've never heard of an exoneration written before you ever do the investigation of a case. Have you ever heard an investigator by the investment, Yeah, by Comey, and the investment was struck in comy that we're writing Rescue the lady exactly. This is not months before, months before. So the bottom line is they knew Trump was going to be the presumptive nominee on July five. The convention was July eighteenth one. So if you wanted to stop him, if that's your goal, and it's in writing in August they wanted to stop Trump, there's no way you could find her criminally responsible. And no prosecutor decided not to prosecute her. It was the FBI, The same people who basically were completely in the tank for her, decided not to prosecute. People got to understand there was no filter here, there was no overseeing the FBI. Well that was also, but it was because the Attorney General Lynch was compromised based on her tom tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton and finished up, well, you can't make it up. But here's the problem. The problem is is the same people, now five of the fifteen lead investigators that were involved in this case. Then immediately, if the timeline is July five, James Comy takes it upon himself. It's not his role, it's not his duty, takes it upon himself to exonerate Hillary and again makes the shifts and changes that you point out as it relates to the legal standard gross negligence, and also took out something else that's important, that it was likely that foreign intelligence services had hacked in the Hillary's email that was in the Mom and pop shop bathroom closet. Well, then those same people that are abusively biased and hate Trump then are at the initial start of the Trump Russia investigation. Doesn't that render that illegitimate? Well? I think, well that's why I think Muller fired these people. And the question is what effect did it have. So let's look at the August fifteenth text from Struck the page. Now this is a week after uh Struck said no, no, will stop it. Here's what they said on August fifteenth. I want to believe the path you throughout the consideration Andy's office, that there's no way he gets elected. But I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're forty. So I asked the question, who is Andy and m Andy McKay. So here's what's so important about this, did in fact the number two guy at the FBI sit down with the lead investigator of the Clinton email investigation and now the Russia Trump investigation and conspired to eat an insurance policy regarding the election? That is j Edgar Hoover, that is Watergate. So here's what Stock and Page say. They've said to multiple committees. We met with Andy McCabe and we talked about creating an insurance policy regarding Trump's campaign in election. McCabe says he doesn't recall that meeting. All I can say is, how many meetings did you have with FBI agents trying to figure out how to fix an election? This, to me is the most stamming thing about the Russian investigation and how deep the FBI was involved in trying to undercut the election. If it's true, that the number two guy at the FBI set down in his office to talk with the lead investigator of the Trump investigation about an insurance policy to make sure he didn't win. That is stunning, That is earth shattering, and that destroys How do these people still have How do they still have jobs at the FBI? I don't know how you would keep somebody on on the government payroll who clearly is trying to fix an election, you know, I mean why you slow down fix an election? This is the United Station. Yeah, this is how you fix an election. You take the guide that you hate and make sure his opponent, who is guilty, is sin has never charged. You start an investigation on the guy you hate to create an insurance policy to make sure that the outcome is what you would like for the country. That to me is fixing an election. And I don't say these things lightly. If Andy McCabe in fact met with the Page and Struck and they did have a conversation about taking an insurance policy out regarding the election, then that to me is stunning. J Edgar Hoover stuff watergate and doesn't it well, I think it's watergate, and it's worse than Watergate, But and doesn't it doesn't it then make sense that if you have a the beginning, the very beginnings of the Russia investigation, the same players and the same prejudice and the same bias and hostility towards one candidate, everything it puts everything it taints as the food of the poiseness tree, doctor and in the law. But are we seeing the same thing if you look at Genie Ray? How did Genie Ray, who once worked for the Clinton Foundation, get on Mueller's team? How does a guy like Andrew Weissman, who, because of his actions in the Anderson accounting case, tens of thousands of Americans lost their job. That was overturned nine in the Supreme Court. Then he put four Meryal executives in jail for a year. That's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on multiple occasions. He was excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory evidence. Now and everyone else that Mueller appoints as a Democratic donor, they couldn't find an independent, anybody, anybody's separate and apart, with a better track record than Andrew Weissman or background than Genie Ray. Well, what it does it put the same question everything that that flowed after that meeting with Andy McCabe. So the bottom line here is that what would have been kind of innocuous conflicts now become you know, very serious. And we haven't even talked about the FISA warrant yet. So the second report coming out is how did the Department of Justice use the doarcier he prepared by a foreign agent, paid for political party and candidate for office to get a warrant on American citizen? How did the system fail there? Now, that really goes to the heart and soul of the early part of the Russian investigation. What at this point have you seen that gives you any indication that there was any type of nefarious activities on the part of anybody in the in the Trump campaign, because I haven't seen any. Okay, the only thing I can, you know, just trying to be as honest with you, the the interaction and now you're gonna piss me off saying go ahead, okay, well, but the interaction in Trump power with these kind of weird Russians, you know what you're talking about, year grade summer would be better. I haven't seen anything come from that, But Here's what I have seen. I've seen absolutely no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign any Russian intelligence service. I have seen a counter intelligence operation that was never They never notified Trump what they should have told President Trump, Candidate Trump, Hey we got a problem in Matterport. Hey we've got a problem with Carter Page. Hey we got a car, a problem with Papadopolis. The reason I'm really suspicious of the government's intent here is a counter intelligence operation is designed to protect the country. So if you've got you've got some information on somebody that the campaign is interacting with, do you know the duty to tell the campaign? Carter Page and the President never met, never spoke. And the most exculpatory thing and the Comey Notes was Comey saying that he met with Trump, and Trump said, look, I didn't do anything, but if anyone on my team did, you need to do your job, I'll tell you something even more in sculptory than that. Let's trying to say you're smarter than well, now I'm not saying I'm smarter than you. I'm just saying I thought it's something you didn't confidential informant in a counterintelligence operation. Let's say there was one. Let's say that that confidential informant interacted with three members of the Trump campaign. Let's say it was Papadoptlis, carter Page, and Clovis. What did they find nothing. Clovis is walking around eating dinner somewhere, carter Page is still being wacky somewhere, and Papadopolis pled guilty to something completely unrelated to interact him with the Russians. So here's what I would suggest to the folks and the Trump world. If there was a counter intelligence uh AN informant, a confidential informant, that person didn't find anything, because none of the confidential informants information was ever used to get a warrant. I've got to say this, I want to hear from those FISA judges that were lied to with verified, uncorroborated Hillary Boughton paid for foreign national put together that even he said was fifty How did those judges get lied to? How did those two? How come they we haven't heard from them? Well, this is the rosenstein becomes important here. Rosenstown was in the chain of events, you know, in terms of re certifying for the warrant. Oh no, he signed the fourth warrant. In other words, they should have known by then. Yeah, well, yes, right, So so you had a guy still that you'd used in the past. You didn't provide any scrutiny. And he's screaming diet heaven? Did he hates Trump? One of the reasons he gave the dossier to the press. If TCACI has mad at the FBI for reopening the October investigation on I gotta run, but you're right on target. Uh. Lindsey Graham, Senator South Carolina, thank you, sir. When we come back. Jim Jordan Freedom Caucus. All right, Jim Jordan was on fire today, he joins us at the bottom of the hour. Uh, you have an immigration debate after let me tell you one thing on the immigration at twenty eighteen elections have started, and I'll explain that in in our final hour Free for All. Jim Jordan's was on fire before the I g Horowitz and Director Rate Today will play that next. Then, he joins us. Next as we continue the best coverage on your radio dial. Has Mr Comby been fired? Yes? Has Mr McCabe been fired yes? Did Mr McCabe lie under oath according to your report? Yes? Yeah? Is there a criminal referral for Mr McCabe, I'm not going to comment on that. Has Mr Ribicki left the FBI? Yes? Has General Council Jim Baker left the FBI? Yes? Was he removed from his position prior to leaving the FBI? I'm not sure of that. Has Lisa Page left the FBI? Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI? Believe so? And has Peter Struck been removed from his position as Deputy head of counter Intelligence? Yes, Mr Horwich, You've been in the d J for ten years, You've been Inspector general for six years. You're chief of all the inspector generals. Have you ever ever seen anything like this at any other federal agency in your time in the federal government? Six of the top people fired, demoted, reassigned, or left. UM. Obviously can't speak broadly to other areas that I haven't known before, but yes, this is I've been in I've been in this town learning half years. I've never seen anything like this. Even the I R. S scandal didn't come close. Never see this. And again, this is not in any type of reflection on the rank and file agents who I know you respect. We all respect and do a great job, but these were the six key people. I have never seen anything like this in my time in government. My guess is there's not a person on this diet who has his wealth. All right. That was Jim Jordan at the hearings earlier today doing a phenomenal job. I see this is breaking on other news networks. I have not seen it yet on Fox that CNN among them reporting Peter Struck is still employed, but was escorted out of the FBI building last Friday, joining US now House Freedom caucas member, former Chairman of the House Freedom Caucause, Jim Jordan's who may be running for Speaker of the House. And I've supported you although but probably is going to hurt you if I do. Um, not at all, not at all. I have not heard that about Struck, so that that did happen Friday, Sean apparently, Well, you know, I hate to site CNN fake news. I got five TVs in front of me, but you know, take it with a grain of salt, and uh, you know we're watching. We'll look for our own corroboration here, but that's what they're reporting. Um, you were on fire. The facts in this case remain, I think, and you got to go back to the fundamentals here, and the fundamentals are very clear, is that Hillary did violate the Espionage Act, just to ask Christian Saucier, and that she mishandled and destroyed classified top secret information. And James Comey even admitted that July. And then I don't think there's ever been a bigger case for obstruction to justice by the leading subpoena emails, acid washing the hard drive with bleach bit, and then of course having an aid bust up devices with hammers uh and handing over to the FBI device without a SIM card. That to me is obstruction. Do you agree? Well? And and remember what we just went through. The top six people who have all left and fired some one faces criminal referral. They were all demotive before they left as well. Those top six people are the ones whoreund the investigation you just cited. They're also the ones who then launched the Russian investigation. So that that's why this all When you say the fundamentals, those are the fundamentals. Um, That's why it's so critical and frankly shown. The other thing we learned today is the other guy. In addition to those six people, the fe the other guys. Rod Rosenstein, the one, you know, the one text message that we didn't have. We had thousands, tens of thousands that we were that that went back and forth between Peter Struck and least the page, the one we didn't get until last Thursday, just happens to be the most explosive one, which says we will stop Trump. Rod Wilsenstein's office had that a month ago, and they didn't give it to us until last week. Why did they keep it? Why did they try to hide that from this That another important Let me digress for a second, because the showdown is now come to a head. And last Friday, it's my understanding that Bob good Lad and Trey Goudy and Devin Nunas and Paul Ryan met with Rod Rosenstein and with Director Ray and they were told in no uncertain terms that if they continue to obstruct, and they continue to withhold subpoena documents and and use phony redactions in the name of national security, etcetera, that this is now going to come to a head, meaning contempt and possible impeachment of Rod Rosenstein. Is it come to that, Yes, it certainly has. Actually there's gonna be three steps. The Speaker was very clear last week with him. I Mr Guy talking over the weekend, he said the Speaker was strong in that meeting. He said, if you don't give us what we're entitled to have a separate, equal branch of government to do our job. If you're not gonna give that to us, there's gonna be three steps. First step will be the resolution. Mr Meadows and I filed anothers filed a week and a half ago, which says the House will go on record. The Speaker said he will bring that to the floor and say you've got seven days to do it. If in fact he doesn't do it, then then we moved to content. And then you moved to the beachment. That is that that is the logical profession of progression, the House to go on record saying we deserve this information, give us to us as a full body. If you won't do it, then then you moved to contempt. Then you moved to impeachment. What would happened to where the speakers at what would happened to uh average Joe citizen Sean Hannity if if you guys subpoenaed information from me and I pulled the stunts that Rod Rosenstein's pulling, you know what would happen. And that's what kicks Americans off, is this double standard. There's one set of rules for Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan's regular folks around the country. There's a different set. If your name is Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Learner, McCabe, Scott Page, if your name, if you if you name one of those and you're part of the swamp, you get a different set of rules. And frankly, Rod Rosenstein should know that and he should be given us what we've been asking for. But he doesn't. I hear there are very empassive information from us. I hear there are very specific papers evidence, if you will, information that implicates Rod Rosenstein. Have you heard the saying, uh, Chairman Nonaz is asking for specific information. I don't know what that specific information is, but yes, he has said he wants he wants certain information and he wants Mr Rosenstein's department just to turn that over. I do not know what that is, um, but the Chairman has been I think pretty clear about he wants information from Mr Rosen and he should turn that over all. Right, So if it's not forthcoming, by what day, will you begin the three step process. Well, I think it has to happen this week. I think the understanding from the meeting with the Speaker and the Leader and the Chairman and the head of the FBI Justice Department was it has to happen this week, and if it doesn't, I think you will see us move to the resolution and then whatever next steps we need to take. I'll be honest, I was very underwhelmed with the performance of Director Ray. And while he had every right to defend the good men and women in the FBI, which I do as well, uh, those that that do their job every day. And I've even predicted that the end of the story that in fact it's going to be the rank and file that the heroes here. But while he did that, he was not strong enough, in my view, in in understanding the urgency and severity of what's gone on. What did you feel, Yeah, I felt the same. I will say this, I think the Inspector Generals has conducted himself very well today in the in the hearing that we had um with the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committee. But um, I would like to see Mr Ray be a little understand like you say, the gravity of this, the fact that Lisa Page, Peter Struck, an FBI lawyer number two, all three on the Clinton investigation, all three on the Russian investigation, key players on the Russian investigation, Peter Struck was the lead agent, and all three of those individuals also went on Mueller's Special Council team. And then to act like this is not, you know, the big news that frankly it is, and the big issue that it is, I think, like you said, is a little bit of a scene considering the very people that are on record hating Donald Trump, hating him with a with an animous and antipathy second to none, that the very people then also violated every standard investigative procedure and thread every needle to basically put the fix in and rigging investigation for Hillary. They're the same people that initiated this investigation into so called Trump Russia collusion, and here we are a year and a half later and there's nothing to be found. It seems to me that from the get go that that would render that whole investigation illegitimate. And if you add to that the people that Robert Mueller has appointed under the conditions Mueller was appointed with comey leaking documents the way he did and for the purpose of getting a special counsel. Then Rob Rosenstein look at his team, Jennie Ray, who worked on the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman. How can you trust any special counsel off Andrew Weisman with his trust atrocious record is on that team. Yeah, here's here's the good news. Next week, Uh, I believe we will have in front of the oversight and judiciary community in the House Mr Struck, Mr Ray and Mr Rosenstein had as the plan. That's what the Chairman's pushing for. Um. So that is something I'm looking for because there's a set of questions that we need to ask these individuals again to get the answers that the American people deserve. Specifically, I want to know we've talked about this before, Sean. Why is we can't see the August second memo, what we call the scope memo, which changed the parameters of the Special Council investigation, the memorandum that second but that was Remember the dates are important here because July was the rate on mataphor it's home you know, guns drawn dark of night, early morning, pre dawn raid um. And then they changed the the original mandate if you will, you know, post dated to August two, after that took place. Doesn't that seem like it's out of order to you? Yeah, it sure does. And and that memo is in some way altered or modified the scope of the investigation. The Americans people have a right to know the parameters of an investigation of the individual day elected president. And Ron Rosenstein won't show us that. That's something we need to ask us about. And that's something is frankly, we need to see. And I think more importantly you folks in the media need to see in the American people need to see. Do you have any doubt that the question they rigged the investigation to prevent Hillary from being indicted, because I am a certain well, I mean, it sure looks that way. The day after President Trump is nominated, as you know, the presumptive nominee the Republican Party. The very next day, Peter Struck says this, now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation. Now, why is it? Why was there pressure to finish the examination the investigation just because Trump got the nomination Republican Party and then all the other things that he said that that show that they think about this Sean. They launched the Russian investigation in July. One week later, Peter Struct says, I can protect my country on many levels. Two days after that, he says we will stop Trump. One week after that, he says, no way he gets elected. We got an insurance policy. So within fifteen days after they've launched the Russian investigation, Peter structs the lead agent. He says, Trump is not going to get elected. I can protect my country and we will stop the president because we got an insurance that's unbelievable. You know, it's one thing to say Trump's a bad guy, Trump's awful. It's another thing to say we got an insurance policy and we're going to stop him, especially when you make those statements within days after you've launched the Russian investigation and just close the Clinton investigation. And that's what we tried to highlighten the day's hearing. I think the American people see this and they understand it, and they know that Peter Struct should not still be working at the FBI, and they know that Rod Rosenstein has some questions answer what happens to Hillary now? Does she get off scott free doing things that put other Americans in jail, I mean obstructing justice clearly. I mean, you know, I don't know if you saw the controversy, but Robert Muller is demanding everybody that he's been interviewing and investigating that they have to turn over their phones. So so I go on the air and I said, well, if I were to advise them, big word there, if, because I wouldn't. And then I even said at one point it's a bad idea. It's not gonna work out well for you. And I'm only kidding, but I said, if I told you to do everything Hillary did, and that is delete acid WHI and bust up with hammers and into etsy bitsy pieces and hand them over to Mueller and say equal justice under the law. This is the Hillary treatment. What do you think everybody wanted to put me in Gael? And even though I said that it was a bad idea, and she did all those things, so she get off scott free here. Yeah, yeah, I mean I don't know. Uh. What I do know is this, Uh Inspector General Horowitz is looking into whether Mr call me Um was there was classified information that he leaked. Inspector General Horowitz is looking into all the leaks that took place at the other statutes and limitations. Now that we're up against well, I don't know, I had to see. I don't think it's necessarily there because it's only been we're talking about the last couple of years. And then I think the real the real investigations, I'm I'm focused on the Inspector General Horowitz is working on his potential FIES abuse of the FISA process. When are we going to hear from the FISA judges? Well, I asked him. He said he's working on it. He's gonna do it as quick as possible. But I said, look, you know, we can't wait eighteen for that investgation like waiting for this one. And his and his reply was he said, yeah, but on this one, if we had turned this, if we had complete this investigation, on the Clinton investigation, we'd have done this in January. We'd have missed so many important things. So I understand that I just tried to impress that we want that is quickly asked this considering that the origins of the Russia investigation began with at least a number of the members that that helped break the Hillary investigation and had antipathy towards Donald Trump. And that's the origins of it. And then Mueller puts together a team of only Democratic donors and Genie Ray who worked at the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman his pit bowl with his frankly despicable and atrocious track record. Um is it time to now say that this is illegitimate from the get go? I think a lot of people are thinking that. Um. And and it wasn't just most Sean, it was basically the exact same team at the FBI. I mean, it was McCay's exact people. Was that BI lawyer number two was Page. It was the almost the exact same team. To RIBICKI was comy chief of staff, was involved in both. So it's almost Peter Struck ran the Clinton investigation on the daily basis, and he was the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. That's according to Mr Horowitz. So you know, the same team, and like you point out, three of those key players, FBI lawyer two, Page and Struck all go on Muller's team, so you know, and they subs we get kicked off for some anti you know, anti Trump bias and animus towards the president and pro Clinton. But frankly, just about everyone on Mulan. If you kicked everyone off a Mueller's team it was biased against the president, there wouldn't beny one left on Mueller's feat. Well that's my point. I mean, we're gonna be back here two years asking ourselves, well, why did we have such a biased team in the Special Council's Office. Um, all right, well, Jim Jordan, thank you. We're gonna watch very closely with the showdown with Rosenstein and others. Eight hundred nine four one. Shaun is on number We'll get into the immigration issue at the top of the next hour. So the Democrats at Chenda, what have I told you it is for? This is what they're running on impeaching Trump. But don't tell anybody. This is a secret. They'll just say it afterwards. We'll do it afterwards. What else keeping Obamacare? They want open borders obviously, and they're ignoring Oh yeah, Obama did the same thing that the Trump administration is doing. And by the way, it's their law. They can change the law. The President offered a deal DOCTA for funding the wall, and they wouldn't take it. Why because they want to run on it. So that's pretty much the Democratic agenda foren and of course lie, which they always do. We'll get into that next straight hut Tried news roundup and information over a little our Sean Hannity Show Toll free numbers eight nine for one sewn you want to be a part of the program, We'll get to your calls at the bottom of this half hour. Elijah Cummings, a congressman, accusing the Trump administration of setting up child internment camps more Nazi comparisons than I think I've seen in one lifetime, and then started crying while talking about the topic. And so I asked the question, and it is except question, are we really going to sit here seventy members of the Congress of the United States of America in twenty eighteen and have a hearing that just repeats the hearings the Senate at yesterday or Hillary Clinton's emails. We sent a letter after letter, letter after letter asking these committees to investigate the Trump Administration's policy which is now resulting in child internment camps. That's what I said, child internment camps. But we have got no response. Look, even if you believe people in it our country illegally, even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims in their own country, even if you believe immigration should be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that, in the United States of America, we will not intentionally separate children from their parents. We will not do that. We are better than that, We are so much better. We should be able to agree that we will not keep kids in town internment camps indefinitely and hidden away from public view. What country is that? All right? There are facts that actually go along with the emotion of this argument. The one thing you can conclude is the twenty eight midterm elections are in full force. And over the many years we've done this program, we have chronicled how in election years it's predictable. Republic the race card is going to be used. Republicans are racist, you know if you have Missouri radio. Add if you elect Republicans, black churches are gonna burn al gore. Republicans talking to a predominantly black audience don't even want to count you in the census. They want to poison the air, poison the water, and kill more children if they support a reduction of the rate of increase, in other words, a net increase of seven percent for medicare. They are trying to kill old people and granny and this is what we hear every two every four years. That they're racist, that they're sexist, that they're homophobic, xenophobic, that there islamophobic, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Now there are facts here that go along with this narrative that the media is not telling you. This is the law as it currently exists. In other words, well, yeah, you can have discretion. And remember Barack Obama said he didn't of his own have there. I can't with a wave of a pen, you know, through executive orders do these things because it's unconstitutional. It's not the way our system works. Ended up doing it anyway. But the rule of law is the rule of law. And if you want to fix the issue permanently, there is a solution, and the President is put on the table a DOCCA fix as part of comprehensive package that would include solving the problem forever as it relates to the southern border, and that's building a wall. But it is the It is compliance and enforcement of the law. People may not like the enforcement of the law. But that's what it is. And at the end of the day, a lot of people don't want to hear this fact either. You know, there is you know, if American citizen breaks the law and is put into the justice system, they're separated from their family and children. And in that sense, what the left wants here is open borders. They want this as a campaign issue if they wanted to solve the issue. It's been on the table now for a long time, and none of them want to come to the table and solve the issue because they don't want the wall built, period. They want open borders. And you know, as it relates to everything else. Oh excuse me, this is not the first time that this has happened. Yeah, it happened under Barack Obama, and yeah, families were separated. Illegal immigrant families were separated under him, and when they crossed over the borders, they were put in a criminal jel the system. Families were indeed separated. So you know that's the point anyway. Joining us to discuss and debate all of this is Chris Farrell. He is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch. Francisco Hernandez, an immigration attorney based out of Texas. And by the way, he agrees with me that we should build the wall and fund the wall. And when you when you heard the President talk about being willing to give up make the docta fix that you want in exchange for building the wall, you said you'd take that deal in the Harpeat, I told you I would because we're gonna have to legalize a hundred thousand Mexico to build it. But why don't we have to wait for an agreement with the Democrats. Republicans have a majority, and the Republicans are afraid of filibuster, throw it up for a vote and let them figure it out. It's not it's not that they're afraid of the filibuster. It's that, you know, and I know that there are motivations and Republicans, some of them have their motivations on these issues too. You know, there are some there, There are some appealing to corporate interests, hang on, some appealing to corporate interests, that inexpensive labor in this country. And then you have a group of Democrats. Well they're looking at this selfishly also thinking well, well that that could be the next potential voting base for our party. But at least you have a count of who voted for and against it. And he doesn't even think he can carry his own party. But that's not that's not why it's happening at all. I mean, if you can't get it to a vote in the Senate, if you don't reach the magic number sixty, and Mitch McConnell refuses to give up on culture, but you don't need sixty to take it. Well, didn't let him fill a buster. But that's the point, Chris, Chris Barrow, what are your thoughts? Listen, here's the other point. Nobody wants children separated from their families. But the bottom line is nobody wants that. Francisco, you've known me forever. I'm I don't believe in that. I don't. I don't want families separated, the kids separated from their parents. Um. And it has happened and it has gone on because these guys won't do their job and put the permanent fix in place that literally, legislatively, in other words, legally solves the problem the way it should ultimately be solved. Chris. And this is the attention wrapped around this event is manufactured. We've had this problem for years there's an entire facility outside of um Arizona dedicated to nothing but families and unaccompanied minors who who across the border. This is not some new phenomenon. We've seen an uptick in the number, certainly, but you've also seen corresponding both encouragement from south of the border to make a run for it basically and get into the United States. But the word travels back just as fast saying, hey, look, the Americans are doing enforcement, knock it off. Don't come here unless you want to lose your kid, which leaves you with two question what what what responsible parent would put their child in that position to begin with? And then secondly, the large numbers of children that are appearing at the border who are either unaccompanied or accompanied by someone other than their parents, in which case you're getting into really trafficking children. And there's the dirty underside of it that nobody wants to talk about. None of this is new. All the all the attention about around this is a manufactured hysteria. It's a propaganda stunt. No, it's it's for real. It is human trafficking, and there are criminal smuggling gangs that are at the root of all this they're not going and they've been going on fifteen years at a at a at a commercial level of trafficking. Suddenly suddenly there's a desire to pay attention to it. Why wasn't this a screaming headline a month ago? It wasn't. It's a deliberate attempt to grab headline and attention for political purposes. The problem has gone on forever. There's a facility in human Arizona in particularly that I've been to. This crisis has been percolating for the last ten years, especially with respect unaccompanied minors. But there's an effort to generate a crisis and use it as sort of a wedge or leverage issue. And so suddenly now everyone wants to pay attention to something that's been going on forever. But come on, than in Trump and the Attorney General jumped on it for the exact same motives, all of a sudden, enforcing the policy of criminal prosecution. Of course, remarks of President Obama. Elections have consequences, and so if there's if there's laws on the book, and we imagine this, we actually enforced the laws that that whole equal justice under the law motto on front on the top of the Supreme Court. So when you apply the law and follow the law, suddenly everyone gets all upset and excited instead the problem, there is a problem here in Secretary to follow the law. Secretary Nielsen pointed it out the massive increase in the last three months that they've seen. Also they've been able to observe large criminal organizations like MS thirteen have gained a foothold. And if in fact, you you put in the exceptions or the loopholes or the discretion that everybody seems to want to put in in the case of children, that that ostensibly means you have a function only open border. And this is all a result and it it all did happen in the Obama years, Francisco, so this isn't new, which which means this is all tainted by politics. But if we really care about the kids, the best thing that we could do for them is have the have the border wall up and make it functions, have that functionally working with the door that the President talks about people so people, so people come in legally. It's not going to get built. Even if you could get it built starting today, you're not going to solve any crisis for at least ten years, even if you think the wall will fix it. The problem is that what the problem is is what is causing these folks to flee their country. And that's the elephant in the room, Mr Hannity. Nobody wants to talk about. Why are these people are willing to risk their lives and lose their children, in fact that most mothers. Why do you think that is? Well, the silent claims or garbage, in large part because that's already been documented by Sextor Nielsen yesterday. The asylum claims are largely fraudulent. These same people are also transiting Mexico, and Mexico does not pose a threat to them and their individual liberty or their rights. So what they should be doing is staying in Mexico closer to their their country of origin, instead of all making a dash for the border. Hopefully the message will get out, as it has before, you're not welcome unless you come here lawfully, So don't bother coming or you're gonna stuffer the consequences. Well, they changed that solemn laws right now, legislation right now. We all agree they're antiquated, and they're they're impractical in its application. So we're just trying to put Scott's tape on the on the leak. It's not gonna fix. It's not Scott's tape. You know, looks and even you and I have agreed on a bill. I mean you. You the President offered DACA an exchange for the money, the financing to build the wall with a couple of other chain migration and merit based migration. And here's the problem. Your your friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. They don't want a solution to this. They want to they want to political politicize this, and they want to use it as a wedge foren which is what they're doing. Can pass it in the House. And if you're afraid of philippuster, they left the Democrats filibuster. Let them do it. Why are you afraid? It's a Republican majority. Put put the proposal on the table and voted up or down. At least we know where everybody stand. You gotta stand. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not disagreeing with you. We'll take a break, we'll come back more with Chris Farrell's Francisco Hernandez eight hundred nine for one. Sean told free telephone number. You want to be a part of the program, your calls coming up at the bottom of the hour. Right as we continue our debate over immigration. Francisco Hernandez is with US immigration attorney based out of Texas. Chris Farrell is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch. UM. We also have a systemic abuse of our asylum system. And you know, people come in and they say they're seeking asylum and really all they want to entry into the United States. I'm not sure how you ever get to the bottom of all of that. I think the end of the day, it's really gonna come down to America has to control its borders, Francisco. And once we control the borders, then those people that are in true need of asylum, those people that that you know, for the number of people that we can allow into the country, we will will create a better process. Certainly for that we should certainly expedite that process. Nobody wants families separated, but we have. But in many ways, in many ways, we're not going to be able to do any of this until the wall is built. The walls, the wall is not gonna keep people from coming. We got to a drift. The thing at the source. By the time these folks make it to the border, each one of them has already paid a smuggler about ten thousand dollars each. The exploitation is horrible, no turning back, there is no turning back, and it is it is a criminal element. We know smuggling, well, we know what we know. How Mexico treats illegal immigrants from mel Salvador and Central America, Nicaragua, and they don't treat them, well, what do they do, Chris? They throw them out of the country or they put them in jail, including people. Guess what happens when you subsidize something. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you're gonna pour all sorts of blood, sweat and tears taxpayer dollars into keeping this, uh, this loophole open and encouraging people to exploit children as a border crossing bargaining chips, and and that that's what they're minimized and trivialized too by these criminal gangs. They use these children as a as a chip, as a as a as a way to get into the border. When you subsidize that, when you promote it, guess what you get more of and so the idea that oh, well will just be nice for now, uh is actually a really soft form of cruelty that further exploits children. You can't you can't say oh well, give them a break, knowing it's going to encourage more of this. And then if it's simultaneously simultaneously claim that you're trying to protect children and families, it doesn't work that way. You are killing me softly. You don't like the asylum laws, don't call him loopholes, change the law. It's the law. It's just, but there's still judges and as this is political gamesmanship and double talk, the reality is are indanger and talking about a Capitol Hill process mired in money from the American Chamber of Commerce and for all sorts of other folks who who want cheap labor. That's a political process that is separate and apart from the actual exploitation day by day of young children and families who use the kids as a chip, as a as A, as a TOLSA. You're saying that these lobbyists, these interests, these private interests have every Republican vote in their pocket or enough to kill any legislation. Is that what you're telling us that all the Republicans and pockets and interest figure out what happens in the end. Maybe this is that I have to end it there. Thank you both for being one of us. Francisco Hernandez, chrisp Arrol eight hundred nine for one, Shawn or toll free telephone number when we come back wide open phones. Final half hour. As we continue on a Tuesday, we have an amazing Hannity Tonight ninetiester on the Fox News Channel. I'll tell you about that in the next half hour. Alright now till the top of the hour, toll free number eight nine one, Shawn, if you want to join us. UM many of you have asked on this program, well where's Jamie Dupree, And we've explained it a number of times, but I know that people aren't listening the full three hours of every day and we need to take more attendance obviously. Uh. Jamie has been a reporter on this program, is a big part of our team here on the show, and he is on the ground in Washington doing his thing every single day and digging up all the stories, news information, newsmakers and he just sends it email. Now because Jamie had as I've described in the past, he lost his voice, which for a guy in radio is a very hard, painful and difficult thing to go through. He has been through countless doctors and specialists. I mean, they have tried basically everything they can possibly try, and um even botox believe it or not, on his vocal cords at one particular point that was giving him some hope. He has a condition. It's diagnosed his tongue protrusion uh dystonia. It's extraordinarily rare, and Jamie just never gave up working. He just wasn't able to do his reports live and his voice on our many Cox Media Group stations and markets like Atlanta and Orlando and Jacksonville and Tulson, Dayton. And he's always been such a good friend. We saw Jamie all throughout the the primaries and into the general election. Anyway, for a long time now, they've been working on a way to try and help Jamie get his voice back, if you will, and anyway, Cox Media Group has been working with him the entire time. They found a company in Scotland and they've been working on a project actually bring Jamie's voice back for short news reports. And what they have developed developed, if you will, as a prosthetic voice that he's going to be able to use again and file news for radio, and the voice will become become known as sort of like Jamie dupre two point oh. Anyway, it made its debut I believe was it Monday yesterday on our affiliate in Atlanta, wsp UM and then and and we just have a sampling of it. You can go to Jamie's blog Jamie Dupree blog uh and find out more about it yourself. But I'm supposed to play a little bit of this Jamie two point oh. I'm Jamie Dupree in Washington. This will not be just a photo of as President Donald Trump gets ready for this History Summit meeting, I think I'm very well prepared to. The President says his goal is simple. They have to d nuke. If they don't denuclearize, that will not be accept to vote. For more go to my blog at WUSB radio dot com. I mean it is I've known one of the person in radio that has gone through this. And when you do radio and you lose your voice, it is usually a career death sentence. But let me tell you why this is not the case with Jamie Duprete. Number one. He's one of the hardest working men in radio. He's one of the great reporters in d C. And he it's just every single person that ever has come into contact with this man loves this guy. Everybody has wanted and been cheering on the sidelines and hoping that they would be able to get that voice back and fix the condition. And for him personally, it's been really really tough. I'd see him and I'd ask him and how you're doing, and and it's it's just been a very long road for him. And it's just as a tribute to the people that he works for a Cox Radio and Media group, and uh, we just loved him here on this program and we just wanted to give a shout out to him and wish him all the best now as he begins his new voice of his it's what we're calling it, Jamie dupre two point oh. And now he's going to be doing reports that way on our affiliate stations, as I said, in Atlanta and Jacksonville and Dayton and Tulsa and elsewhere. Um, And it's just we couldn't be happier for him or prouder of him and the hard work that he's continued to do and the contributions he continues to make on this show every day, even though I'd kind of misgiven him the hard time that I used to give him um by calling him out and trying to sway him one way politically or another. And he just had this incredible way about him where he would be able to navigate and thread the needle and get the report out and shut me up at the same time. But Jamie is is back. It's Jamie two point oh. You can read more about it on his blog. Will link it to my website, Hannity dot com. It's Jamie dupree dot blog if you want to go there and learn more about this incredible process and this long, courageous journey that he's taken. All Right, as promise, we're gonna get to the phones as we start here with Mike's in Santa Barbara, California, my old stomping grounds when I was totally poor and bankrupt. What's up, Mike? How are you? Yeah? Yes, and we miss you, Thank you, thank you. I just have a couple. By the way, you remember a guy named Adrian Vans who used to be a big radio guy and caller and then did a show in Santa Barbara for a time. Remember him, Yes, I recently got in touch with him. He's still very good friends with Barry Farber and we've been communicating again. Although now he lives in northern California. Wow wow, Yeah, I haven't heard him down here for a while, so I figured he had moved on. So so what's going on. Well, I had a couple of quick points. I wanted to make. The second one about the doscier and what I think is the real reason it was made up. But the first is I think you've been a little too generous with the media in regard to the busted up blackberries and the bleach bid advice. I don't think that was an oversight. I don't think that was a mistake they made. I think that was intentionally done to try to number one, get you off the air and number two get you mixed up with the more investigation. Oh no, no, you're right a thousand percent that them. In other words, you're saying that they're not stupid. They knew that I was. They knew that I wasn't giving the advice. They knew it was parodies satire. They knew that I will said it's not going to work out for you, it's a bad idea, and that I wouldn't do it, and you know, ha ha kidding, and uh, if I were to tell them, I I used my words very carefully, and you're saying they understood completely, but they wanted to get me. They wanted to use it as an opportunity to attack me. Yeah, but they still exposed themselves Mike in the process. Because if they're all outraged at the idea that I jokingly, sarcastically would tell people, you know that Robert Mueller wants their phones, and I said this maybe Mueller's witnesses. I don't know. If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's lead to lead all your emails and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on the new phones, then take your phones and bash him with a hammer too little, it's bits, he pieces, use bleach bit, remove the SIM cards and then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, Hillary, Rodham, Quinton Clinton, this is equal justice under the law. How do you think that would work out for everybody who Mueller's demanding their phones of tonight and all their wants, everyone's cell phones. My advice to them, not really kidding, bad advice, would be follow Hillary's you know lead, acid wash them, bust them up, take out the SIM cards and say here little pieces. Here, Mr Muller, here, I'm following Hillary's lead. Now, I think you're right, but I think it's both. I think some were stupid. I think some of these people are that dumb um because let me play some of the media reaction to it. But it's very revealing that they would be upset at the idea. I said it was a bad idea. Pay close attention. Words matter, and the idea that I would have ever suggested that to anybody that Robert Mueller had demanded their phones of would threw them over the top. And they're forgetting she did it all. She did every bit of it. It's incontrovertible, evidence overwhelming. It's not in dispute, it's irrefutable. Here's the reaction. Sean Hannity is now literally telling potential witnesses and subjects in the Miller probe to destroy the evidence and hammer their phones into pieces. Handy's defenders may call that sarcasm or poetic license. But words are words. Sean Handy lives off his words, and we all know they have a huge impact. If anyone actually does what Sean Hannity says there, they'd be committing a crime. What Sean Hannity admitted to and actually was enticing people to do and asking to do was to destroy evidence, which is a violation of the witness tampering statute. No responsible person on television, no responsible so called journalists, should be advocating for people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. I don't think that we'll see him prosecuted. Federal prosecutors give people a very wide berth on First Amendment related conduct, and so unless there's something more specific to to link it up, I think that this will be what we often categorize as awful but lawful conduct. Listen, if he's out there advocating for mother's witnesses to obstruct justice, then maybe the mothers to speak to him and ask him where the idea comes from. Have he spoken to the President about this? Did the President tell you to say this? Knowing Mueller, I think he's not going to light that fire under someone who who gets free airtime every day but one angle. One angle would be to say, yeah, look I'm going to I'm going to a judge and I'm gonna have you see. I'm gonna have you see and assist this activity on national television. Secondly, I want to talk to you and see if if Trump has gotten this idea from you or vice versa. Now, number one, look at the words they use here, Mike. They said I would be advocating people to commit a crime, that I'm telling people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. It's it's awful, but maybe lawful. And then uh, they go on to say, you know, maybe Mueller needs to ask him where did he get the idea from. Well, I got the idea from me. It was all my idea. And no, I didn't tell the president about it at all at any point. I don't even know if he heard about it. But the point is simple is that they thought this was a crime, destroying evidence in a serious federal investigation. All happened. Hillary did it all. So I think there's a level of stupidity on their part and gullibility on their part. But yeah, is there a part they want me off the air? Uh, Mike, you have no idea, how badly they want me off there. They're spending millions to destroy the show. Millions. Yeah, I think I think they definitely knew that you were kidding, and they just wanted to make trouble for you. But anyway, I had a second point about the dossier and why that came about. I believe because they made the dossier. But the but the thing is this, they thought they had the election in the bank. They didn't need that dossier for the election by any stretch of the imagination. They figured, number one, they didn't like Trump and his crowds chanting lock her up. And they figured that once the election was over and they won, they were going to use that dossier to arrest Trump. And because they had control over the Justice Apartment and the FBI, no one would be the wiser. Look, I can tell you that everybody thought they were getting away with this. You know, all this two goes into another crime that she committed, and that is, you know, if if Russia collusion is part of it, I'm look at where the money came from Hillary, and the d n C controlled Hillary, she Hillary controlled their finances. They funnel the money through a law firm. Law firm then uses the money, so they're hiding it in terms of reporting. Uses the money. Then higher Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hires a foreign national, a foreign national then uses Russian sources, even government sources, and puts together a dossier. Then of course Fusion GPS pedals it to the gullible news media. Nobody verifies, nobody corroborates it, and then Christopher Steele has to, under threat of perjury, admit that he never corroborated it, that maybe it's fifty fifty true. Who knows fifty fifty I don't. I don't know, because he was facing a possible perjury charge if he said otherwise. And then of course we to affise a court that we didn't present. We presented it as gospel truth. They used to up a person authentification here by using Michael Izikoff, who same source was Christopher Steele, and they presented it as they were independent sources. And then the judges were never told Hilly were repaid for it, and they were never told the FBI didn't verify or corroborated. You know, all of this happened. All of these things are outrageous and far worse than anything that's even ever been alleged as it relates to Trump and your news meeting has been Philly feeding you a diet of lies now for going on eighteen months. You know, why do you think another reason why they're all focused on immigration is because they don't want to dare go near the Inspector General report because that proves they were wrong from the beginning on Hillary and that they never ever did their journalistic work in terms of following that story. So why would they want to highlight that? All right, Mike, thank you for a good call, my friend. We appreciated eight hundred nine four one, Shawn, if you want to be a part of the program. Gary is in Sacramento. What's up? Gary? How are you? How are you doing? My Irish American brother from what's up? My friend? How are you back? Could we've been at the Irish and you can tell just twenty five years I've been out of Ireland actually every weekend talking to the family. I believe it. But yeah, I think President Trump is an absolute genius. I think President Trump is just doing an absolute fantastic job. Keeps going, don't stop? All right, Well, we're gonna try, I promise and you know, we're trying to get to the truth unpeeled the onion, and we've gotten far. But this is really only the beginning of the processes I've been saying. And now now we're going to corroborate all this. Now we're gonna now the people that have can have have shown this bias, abused their power, that involved in the corruption. Now they've got to answer questions and potentially be facing some legal jeopardy themselves. Interesting that the way they treat Hillary, she gets the kid glove treatment and I meanwhile him gets the sledge hammer treatment. Every day over nothing. Alright, Hannedy. Tonight, we have an amazing show, explosive hearings. I know probably most of you working you didn't get a chance to see it. Will highlight all of it tonight at nine we'll show you Trey Goudy and Jim Jordan's and Bob Goodluck and others. We get reaction. We have Rudy Giuliani is on tonight, Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Carter, also Greg Jared joins us tonight and uh Wheel debate immigration and this d v R. Hannity nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. We'll see you then. Thanks for being with us back here tomorrow.