Russia, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton discussed on Sean Hannity


Talking specifically about one Podesta where you not. And I was actually correct. Now, I was talking about both Podesta brothers because on July thirty first Peter Schweitzer wrote a devastating monograph called from Russia with money about John and Tony making millions from the guards around Putin and aluminum and our uranium in gas in banking and then on the fourteenth of August. Breitbart published another story by by Schweitzer tying Tony pedestrians in the same Ukrainian political party as as metaphors. So I said the pedestrians time in the barrel would come what I was saying was I intended to get that information on a background basis to a number of reporters any other narrative about what happened there is false. And there was no controversy about my tweet for six weeks until it has alleged that stone was foreshadowing pedestrian emails being stolen. Let me be clear. I never knew the source or the content of any allegedly act. Or allegedly stolen emails that is a lie. I believe I will be vindicated. It's funny to watch pre Bihar on CNN say this is a slam dunk calls me a liar. Here's a guy who a federal judge lash for lying in the William Walton case, you're the liar. Pre. So and then watching reporters jump to conclusions Tucker and say, oh, well, the the the Trump campaign official who directed stone to find out about WikiLeaks was Donald Trump. No, it was not. All right. That was Roger stone who has been speaking out after what happened what five days ago, and that is that in the predawn hours of January twenty fifth seventeen vehicles, including armoured tactical trucks and twenty seven heavily armed well agents federal agents dressed in swat gear surrounded his home, drew their weapons pounded on his door. A guy that's not charged with a violent crime, not a drug kingpin. Not even a flight risk. Does have a passport. They could've looked up. If he has a gun. He does not. Instead, he's indicted on processing violations, again, our friend Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, and a columnist for the national review who's been amazing on all of this from the get go. He had an interesting take on this. Now, remember, he's the former United States attorney for the prestigious southern district of New York, and it was responsible for the prosecution and successful. Prosecution. Little blind shake he's written extensively on the Muller probe and the search for collusion. And now the indictment of Roger stone. And he joins us now. How are you, sir? I'm doing great, Sean. How are you? I'm good. Look this happens. We have a whole list of people that I've been talking about on television, one after another that we know lied to congress that we know lied under oath one of the charges in this particular indictment. It's weird. How we never see. Eric holder. Clapper brennan. Or Lois Lerner or Hillary Clinton? They never get pre dawn raids with armored vehicles and swat teams. But Manafort got it Roger stone got it. And Michael Cohen got it. So what is going on here is this not overkill in your view? Oh, it's totally overkill, Sean. And I think I've been. As wilder complainer. Will maybe not as loud as you. But almost as anyone on the fact that nobody who is objective put everybody's politics aside who looked at the Hillary Clinton Email investigation and looked at the so called Trump Russia investigation. Nobody who looked at those objectively could say the same quality of Justice. According to each side and the only nation for that is politics. I think this is a very politicized investigation. It's got there were a lot of irregularities and the only sensible explanation, I can gather from it is that the people who were in power when Hillary was being investigated favored her side, and they sports figure try to make the case on Trump. The irony of all of it is there was Russian interference. And by the way, people like Devon Nunez for out there warning everybody in two thousand fourteen that the Russians would try to. Disrupt in some way, our elections. They've done it before I never understood how we don't at some point look internally here, you know, if guys like Julian Assange can hack into NASA and the department of defense when they're sixteen years old, and it's forty years later, and we're still getting hacked into why the way WikiLeaks claims, they didn't do what they got the information to be clear, but you know, why we don't have defenses at this point is is is mind boggling to me, this is, you know, top secret information. Sean, and you have to hope that the the that our department Orrin colleges people do a lot of work that we don't see to try to protect us. But the point I make politically is that Russia has been whether it was as the Soviet Union where the the current regime. Russia's thin interfering in politics in the United States and in politics in the west for as long as you know, going back to the Bolsheviks, probably and. Yeah. At some point, it's isn't it. Shame on us. Not shame on you. We should be protecting ourselves. Of course, we should. But the point I would make is that it was a trifle and Obama treated it as a trifle this time around until Trump one. And then he did a warning eighty and ordered the intelligence community to put out over the intelligence agencies to put out a report that would ordinarily have taken over a year to do the way the government works. Obama wanted to report put out while he. Was still president. So he could publicize it the report and don't made a bigger deal than Obama certainly had made about the Russian interference that he knew about during the election. They made sure to say in there that they thought that Putin wanted Trump to win when I think anybody who knows and studies Russia knows that what they were trying to do is. So discord in our society, usually what Russia they don't back to the person they want to win. They back the people they think we're going to lose because that's the best way to sow chaos in percent in a society, but they did this for political reasons because after Clinton law they had to come to grips with an explanation for why she walked, and this is what they came up with. But the thing is is that the very people that were involved and Qomi said under oath, by the way that he did not write an exoneration before we learned later that. In fact, he had again that would be lying the same things that other people get in trouble for so. We don't have equal Justice under the law. But they were writing an exoneration in may before they interviewed Hillary or anybody else on the violation of the espionage act. The top secret classified information that was on the server in the mom and pop shop bathroom closet, but those same people that were responsible for the interview. And the exoneration Peter Struck in particular that out there saying, oh, Hillary should win one hundred million zero. And then we just learned that the dossier the Russian lies that were propagated to the American people that she paid for within the basis of a Pfizer warrant, and now we know according to Bruce horse testimony that everybody in the DOJ and the FBI all warned by Bruce or that still hates Donald Trump that Hillary paid for it. None of it's verified, but they used it as the basis for Faisal warrants. Now, why are in any of these people in trouble? Why is it always just one direction? Why if they're interested in Russia collusion? Why didn't they invest? Gate, the dirty dossier or the uranium one deal? Hope they are investigating it. I mean, you really have to put those questions to the current Justice department. I know why the last Justice department did what it did. I haven't quite figured out what the current Justice department is up to. But I think you're quite right. There were a lot of irregularities. Here. We understand the inspector generals looking into it. Are we were told when Jeff Sessions attorney general that he appointed this guy? John uber. They attorney in Utah to look into all this stuff. I like to think that the reason that we haven't heard much about that investigation is because you shouldn't hear about investigations until the government's ready to charge someone or do something about it. But I must say it's been two years. We haven't heard a peep, we don't seem to get anything from congress in the way of well, we get daily coverage. You yourself have written about the rationale for the Trump Russia investigation that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin cyber espionage operation. Now, we all know, they're bad actors and Putin is a bad actor Russia a bad. They're bad actors on the world. Stage. There's been no evidence. None right. And you look at these indictments these processes crime indictments. And you gotta ask yourself. What are they doing here? Can I just say I think it's actually worse than that. There's no evidence because if you've all the logic of what Muller has proved it's not that. There's no evidence that it didn't happen. What Muller's theory is after all this investigation Russia acted on its own. It didn't want or need help from anybody on the American side, not just Trump, but anybody some of the operations predated Trump's entry into the campaign some of the some of the operations for actually against Trump. And this latest indictment of stone shows that the Trump campaign didn't even know what? Wikileaks had forget about what Russia had their theory is that Russia operated alone and works not into hoots with the Trump administration, which I think is a is a fine conclusion because it seems to be consistent with the evidence. But my question is why haven't they said that why have we labored for two years under this cloud of suspicion at the president is a Russian agent when they're operating. Under an investigative assumption that Russia acted alone. We had the unprecedented move a couple of Fridays ago. When Muller said, the BuzzFeed article isn't true. Wouldn't he at some point one a make the American people aware that we found no evidence of collusion? The president is not a target is not legal jeopardy. Do something to help inform. The American people, you know, we we see the left they're like homing at the mouth at the thought that they can use this to either impeach or get rid of the president ordinarily. They would tell you that you know, the government doesn't talk about investigations. But here they did talk about the investigation. And they quite intentionally told the public in this March seventeenth March twenty seventeen house intelligence committee testimony by then director Komi, which he said was done with the authorization of the Justice department. They quite publicly said that they were investigating Russia and a spread of the investigation was whether the Trump campaign coordinated in Russia's cyber espionage. I think having said that publicly they owe it to the public to correct that Nissim Prussian because that appears to be what it is. I'd love to think that Muller felt obliged to do that. But I I think he really corrected speech story because way BuzzFeed reported it looked like the leak was coming out of bowlers on shop. So I don't think he was looking at defend the president. I think he was looking at defenses on investigation, I understand. But I mean, you know, I watch all this this big huge double standard existing here. And what I see are some very powerful individuals in the FBI the DOJ the Intel community that literally help one candidate avoid what would be certain prosecution for anybody else. So we have a dual Justice system. And then when that person buys Russian lies was supposed to look into Russian interference. They allow it to be used as a Fiso warn. They lied. The FIS of judges. They'll mitt certain information, and they never verify corroborate. If I did that what would happen. I'll gonna let you think about that. When we get back. Hey, listen, don't forget Valentine's Day is right around the corner. I don't care, you know, there are important dates birthdays, anniversaries, and you know, what Valentine's Day matters, by the way for your girlfriend or your wife or mom, grandma. Maybe a daughter. Yeah..

Coming up next