by the way, you can dvr this show. we encourage you every night to do that so you can figure out how, please dvr. good night from washington. from new york city right now, ladies and gentlemen, sean hannity. >> sean: the great tucker carlson, thank you, sir. buckle up, welcome to "hannity." so much breaking news that i promise you won't get anywhere else.do i want to start tonight, though, with a thank you, to h you, the viewers of of the show and his network. you continue to make the a show not only possible, but number one in all of cable news. now going on our third year, we do not ever take it for granted. one of the things we promise you, unlike the heat trump media mob, we are working hard every single day with a great ensemble cast year to bring you truth every single night, every single week. we will continue to do so.
thank you for all your support. but we can report tonight, act one is over, in spite of the noise. robert mueller is out. the witch hunt has been dissolved. he said nothing today that already set in the mueller report. so act two, which is surrounding the deep states i unprecedented abuse of power and corruption, that is now only beginning. that means jim comey, clapper, john brennan, and others, they are terrified. they know they are in big trouble. we'll have a lot on those throughout the hour tonight. but first, at this hour, what you are hearing from the democrats, they are pet parrot in the media mob, nothing more than dumb, idiotic noise, only noise, per usual, ongoing hysteria, not about truth coming out about facts. you've had two years of lies and hoaxes in conspiracy theories
petaled every second, every hour of every day. it is just one more round of lying tinfoil thought conspiracy theories, trump bashing over a narrative that is totally dead end because tonight, welcome of the fact remains, there was no trump-russia collusion. there was no obstruction. nothing has changed. mueller spent 25 plus million dollars investigating a hoax and now for the fourth time, we have a conclusion. no collect on my collusion, no conspiracy. today he officially resigned from the office of special counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already knew on this program, his partisan hack true colors, if you well. you have a career bureaucrat, nothing more than a trump-hating partisan, who is now all but
cheering for impeachment based on nothing. we will write the entire time. watch this. >> if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. we did not, however, make a determination as to whether thev president did commit a crime. the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. >> sean: number one, mr. mueller doesn't know the law. he's basically full ofne, crap. the special counsel's regulations are very clear. according to the law, remember, got rid of the independent counsel act because people like jerrold nadler didn't want the can starr report starr report with 11 specific felonies listed, made public. so they changed the law. that means the attorney general of the united states, under nadler and company's new law, he has the final say. we already know his answer.
the attorney general bar, the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the nonpartisan office of legal counsel, all crystal clear on this matter. they all concluded the president did not obstruct justice, not because of some justice department rule or guideline or some constitutional restriction, they actually were very clear on this point. but because there was no crime, period, so make no mistake. this is no cover up. according to a statement from the doj tonight, despite the special counsel's rhetoric, there is no conflict between barr and mueller about this matter. in america, we live in a country where their burden of proof is always on the state. now i know we live in a world tewhere a media will convict a 16-year-old kid and not even make-y a phone call to get to ay of the facts but the reality is, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.
it is a fundamental, basic constitutional right. it as a presidential stated on twitter, "nothing changes from the mueller report. insufficient i evidence. therefore, in our country, a a person is innocent, the case is closed." the public sphere of the duly elected president, been charged with no crime, completely unethical and immoral. we'll describe this in detail. mueller's actions have nothing to do with justice, everything to do with politics, and his presser today served one purpose, and that was to help the democrats, yet give them another political bone to chew on. the bone has no meat. there is no underlying crime. there is no evidence of guilt. just more innuendo, more speculation, surrounding what we now know was a total conspiracy theory. compare that to the starr report which i mentioned earlier under the independent counsel statute.
independent counsel ken starr, he actually outlined 11 -- look right there -- specific crimes committed by then president bill clinton. five counts of lying under oath, four counts of obstruction, one count of witness tampering, one count of abusive constitutional authority. president clinton lost his law license. he was impeached and he had to pay paula jones w nearly $1 million because of the specific crimes uncovered by ken starr. yet today, we see a much different picture. mueller is now just cheering for the president impeachment over phantom obstruction of justice with no intent, no underlying crime, and these same people screaming all over television today are not the people that would ever say hillary violated 18 usc 793, the espionage act. then when she deleted the 33,000 subpoenaed emails, yeah, and then she bleach but the hard drive, and she had a need bust
up the devices and pull out some cards, oh, the intention was clear, which was to destroy the evidence of the underlying crim crime. why don't anybody -- why doesn't anybody in the media ever point that out? if you were wondering whether or not mueller is open to transparency, accountability, and his deeply flawed investigation, think again. stwatch this. >> i do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of theab justice department before congress. it is for that reason i will wind wind off retaking questions today as well. >> sean: oh, bob mueller does not want to answer questions of jim jordan, mark meadows, matt gaetz, other republicans, have to answer for why he hired only democratic donors, big time donors. why, for example, did robert mueller -- i would like to see him answer this question -- why, in an investigation, would you have hired hillary clinton's former
attorney for the clinton foundation, jeannie rhee? why did you hire a man named andrew weissmann, your pit bull according to "the new york times," who has nothing but a long track record, oh,, license to lie, sidney powell, withholding of exculpatory evidence of losing tens of thousands of americans' jobs in the enron case, being beaten down 9-0 and the u.s. supreme court, putting four merrill executives in jail for a year and that was overturned by the fifth circuit. how did you hire that guy? by the way, he also attended andrew weissmann, hillary clinton's victory party. on election night, 2016. not one republican donor. by the way, hillary clinton's super fanhe investigating her political rival. why didn't mueller hire any republican donors? when did mueller determine there was no collusion? i would like that question answered! why was he more interested in
taxi medallions and loan applications and taxes that he was about a dirty russian dossier with russian disinformation that an opposition party candidate paid for and then was used to spy on the opposition party that, oh, people that you hire to said should win 100 million to zero, that trump was loathes them and they had an insurance policy, just in case donald trump wins. why did you hire him, mr. mueller? why did you hire peter strzok and lisa page? why did it take michael horowitz to reveal the texts because you didn't do it and you wipe their phones clean! how many months to the special counsel pursue a perjury trap, obstruction charges, after the president was cleared of all underlying crimes? how did you have time to get into a fara violation, medallions, loan applications? yet at no time did you,
mr. mueller, dare to investigate the very root of this entire hoax, hillary clinton's dirty russian dossier put together by a foreign spy that is not supposed influence our elections, who, by the way, doesn't stand by his own dossier. "the new york times" is suggestingme, likely russian disinformation. isn't that closer to the original mandate that rod rosenstein gave you? did you even care that hillary clinton paid a foreign spy to interfere in our election? and use russian lies. did you even care that your buddy james, used hillary's russian dossier to spy, not only on an american citizen, and they spied in other ways also, but to go before a fisa court and lie by omission and not tell the court that hillary paid for those lies, also not verify what was in the dossier, we now know it was unverifiable because the guy that wrote the dossier doesn't stand by it and says he has no idea if any of it is
true. we, the american people, deserve answers to these questions. i want to mueller under oath! i want him held accountable! i want him answering those questions! it is now more important than ever.s. senator lindsey graham send it up perfectly. act i is over. the mueller witch hunt is done, complete, whether they like it or not. but now act two, the curtain is rising. take a look. >> do you share my concerns about the fisa warrant process? >> >> yes. >> do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation and how it was open and why it was opened? >> yes. >> do you share my concerns with the professional -- lack of professionalism and a clinton email investigation is something we should all look at? >> yes. >> do you expect to change youra mind about the bottom-line conclusions of the mueller apart? >> no. >> do you think the president's campaign in 2016 was thoroughly
looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the russians? >> yes. >> and the answer is no, according to bob mueller. >> that's right. >> he could not decide about obstruction. you did. is that correct? >> that's right. >> do you feel good about your decision? >> absolutely. >> sean: despite to spend with you to democrats just can't let go of their twolu years of lyin, two years of a hoax, two years of conspiracy theories, nor can their best friends in the media mob and robert mueller's speech today was frankly just another spark to reinvigorate one more final time what is an impeachment fantasy. without a doubt, the radical, extreme democratic socialist party, they are clamoring for impeachment more than ever before. here is my message to them tonight. go for it. go for it. i want you to reach for the stars. i want you to stay on your new green deal that gets rid of oil, gas, the combustion engine, cows and planes, and everything is
free, and whether you are willing or unwilling to work, and i want you to stay on impeachment. just stay right there and don't solve any problems for the american people or serve the people that put you in orwashington. because i know most on the left, you're probably not smart enough to realize that theis on the wa. if you think november 2016 was bad, if you think this mueller report was bad and you can't handle that truth, well, your quest for impeachment is political suicide. i'm going to kind of enjoy watching you take the hole deeper every day. because of democrats pursue this sick dream of theirs, the election is going to be for donald trump in a landslide. he will win easily a second term and the parter of fdr come people like scoop jackson and joe lieberman, will forever be marginalized as a radical group of socialist extremists that
don't care about the american people or making us more safer and more secure and more prosperous. so my advice to speaker pelosi, speaker and name all the the: n to the temptation. given to the ocasio-cortez wing of the party. frankly, i think you are going to because you know otherwise they will kick you out the door. really, we know the real speakers radical freshmen lawmakers who will stop at nothing to rip this country apart at its core. no matter what happens in the democratic party tonight, whether they in the media want to face simple, basic, fundamental truths, the russia hoax is dead. mueller's issues are dead and the truth is on the march. with the declassification last week, i'm going to sit back and enjoy every night saying, "as we've been telling you for the last ten months, here's the evidence." it's all coming out. a president, all of it, the fisa
applications, 302s, gang of eight, exculpatory evidence. it's all coming out. there is no stopping it. it's not if, it's when. here are theom reaction, to mueller's big speech is the president's attorney, jay sekulow. by the way, full disclosure, he has sadly had the horrible dishonor of working for me in the past. >> [laughs] >> sean: jay, i will throw it to you. you your analysis of the events today? >> what you had today was the investigation is over. of course we knew that when the report was issued. there was nothing that robert mueller said today that is any different than what was in that report. there was no conspiracy, no collusion, there is no obstruction, they made no determination on obstruction. the department of justice said there is no obstructive conduct. now bob mueller today closed his tape. closer's office. no one is going to forget what started this. this investigation has been
corrupted since it started, from the dossier to the fisa warrant, we just went through the list. what we have to be very clear, the legal aspect of this is over. politically, okay, i'm with you. if they want to go for it, good luck. the truth of the matter is -- i think this is where everybody should be focusing -- you now have had multiple lawyers and set up the government say there is no they are there. nothing there that would warrant a prosecution. nothing there that would warrant an impeachment. no crime violated and bob mueller, again, conflates the issue, where he talks about it, there was clear and compelling evidence of exoneration, we would do that. that is not their job. that was never their job. you know what that tells you? that this was fixed since the moment it started. but the end result of it is exactly where it started. no collusion, no obstruction.
the matter is legally closed. now we are going to find out how this started and he was responsible for it and i think that is where you are going to see -- you talk about active two, this is phase two, and this is going to be serious, and i think the reaction you are seeing from left of center on this is exactly that. so you know what is coming, they are going to try to make something out of a nonstatement today from bob mueller. it was a known statement, sean, because nothing was different than what you said ins that report released well over a month and a half ago. >> sean: jay, knowing the things that i have reported about the five buckets, as we call them, which include the fisa applications, now in the hands of the attorney general. the answer is the attorney general gave that he is finalizing his decision on mueller, but now they rigged investigation into hillary, fisa abuse, committing fraud against
a fisa court, then, of course, an insurance policy to bludgeon a president based on what is now an unverifiable, pretty much brush and lies, that nobody ever verified but they still signed for fisa warrants, when you see and you hear that and you look at the actions of these deep state actors, do you see crimes? >> i think -- look. multiple. i think the whole fisa process, we've ignored in this conversation today -- i know you've covered up a four -- the whole nellie ohr-bruce ohr-fusion gps connection. you mention the peter strzok and lisa page. whatever happened to the evidence that they gathered when they first started? you ask another question, if, in fact, they knew, and they didn't know, that there was no collusion, no conspiracy with the russians, why do they continue the inquiry? we know the reason why. like you said, that was the insurance policy.
here, at the end of the day, sean, it's very important for the american people to understand that there was no there there. nothing that was concluded violated the law. i think at the end of the day, what was done today, and the i statement between the department of justice and the statement between the special counsel, they are saying there is no difference into what they are saying the same thing, and i thinkk the reality is, sean, ths mess that was posted up upon the american people is closed. and done. that is what we need to remember. >> sean: jay sekulow, councils of the president, thank you, sir, for being with us. in the wake of mueller's political speech earlier today, famed harvard attorney alan dershowitz just ripped apart the special counsel writing this, "by putting his thumb, indeed, has elbow on the scale of judges in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, mueller has revealed his partisan
values." fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett, also sharp criticism for mueller, writing that "mueller's actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to the president." joining us now, fox news contributor sara carter, author of "the russia hoax: the illicit scheme to clearly clinton, frame donald trump, fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett, and the author of "an introduction to the mueller report," harvard law professor alan dershowitz. i will start with you. i read your calm, almost read the whole thing on radio. you have tried up until today, and we had much disagreement, to defend mueller. to respect the process. even though we all know that an article two, the president always have the authority to fire him for conflicts. he just would have been replaced.rce very few people seem to point that out. what did you see the day that changed her mind?
>> what i thought today was him putting his thumb, his elbow on the scale when he said, "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." that was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. it was worse than anything that comey said when he exonerated hillary clinton and then said, but she engaged in an extremely careless conduct. everybody condemned that. this is much, much worse. it doesn't show that he had a motive to help the democrats here. there is no other possible motive why he would have gone say that bradyto could t have easily said the opposite. if we had confidence that the president didn't commit a crime, we would have said it. if we had confidence that he i committed a crime, we would have said it. but no, he emphasized on the possibility the president might have committed a crime. that went well beyond his authority as special counsel. it also showed we never should have had a special counsel.
we should have had an objective, neutral, nonpartisan investigative commission looking into the entire effort of russia, to intrude itself into the park should be 16 election and continuing to the '20 election, and proposing efforts to ameliorate that in the future, a special counsel was a terrible, terrible mistake. i think mueller statement today proves that beyond any doubt. >> sean: gregg, you wrote a powerful calm yourself, the two faces a robert mueller. i will say, i was steadfast in my analysis from the beginning. it only democratic donors. andrew weissmann at the victory party. the pit bull, the atrocious record. jeannie rhee, he could not find one republican donor, not one? >> what struck me today is that 's peddling two stories. he tells the american people that he could not bring an obstruction case against the president because of an office of legal counsel opinion --
which by the way, the advisory is not mandatory -- and he told william barr, the attorney general, not once, not twice, but three times, something completely different. >> sean: by the way, there were witnesses to this. >> he said the opinion had nothing whatsoever to do with my nondecision decision.o so who's telling the truth here? 's core argument, this man's core argument that you see on the screen is, we cannot approve the president did not commit obstruction of justice. think about what that means. that is a double negative. he is reversing the burden of proof and inverting the presumption of innocence. prosecutors are not of the business of exonerating people. he is tainting and smearing the president and forcing them to prove he didn't do something wrong. that has never been, for more than 200 years, the standard in american justice. it's not only a clever maneuver, it's a devious maneuver by a
devious man, bob mueller. >> sean: let me go to you, sara carter. why were his statements, mueller statements, intended tose hurt trump and we all know that prosecutors, if they don't reach a standard of indictment, they don't leave a cloud. there is a reasonrd for that. that is, you don't have the right to say, i don't have the evidence, but maybe something happened. that is what he diddo today. >> yes, he did. it is shameful, actually, what robert mueller dead. it's also very devious as gregg said. i agree 100% with alan dershowitz on this. he did leave a dark cloud. he intended to do so. i think of what senator chuck schumer said last year in october when he said to president trump, when you go after the intelligence community, they have six ways to sunday to getting back at you.
think about this, think about mueller'ss relationship with comey, how close they are, how tight theybo are, what was going on here? what was the intention of mueller making the statement? the only reason mueller did what he did today was to presumably put that dark cloud over president trump. i've got something else to tell him. based on what i'm hearing, the department of justice and others are investigating thoroughly, including john durham, what happened at the very beginning of the investigation into the russia election -- into the election in 2016 where they triedd to basically create a situation where they would find somebody within the trump campaign that they could say colluded with russia. there has been no evidence of that. there's been no collusion, there's been no obstruction, and now they are going to the very beginning of the investigation and they are going to find out what happened. they are going to find out who did what and the false alarms that were placed in the dossier,
and how they utilized those lies to create it as information campaign against the president of the united states. >> sean: how overwhelming is the evidence that the president now is declassified and put in the hands of the attorney general of united states? we've always talked about five buckets, talk about exculpatory evidence, gang of eight, the fisa applications themselves, which we know, because the top of this patent application says "verified," was unverifiable but the bulk of information that was used, all of four times,ve dealt with hillary's bought and paid for russian disinformation dossier put together by foreign national. >> that's absolutely true. when we look at it, it is christopher steele, the foreign national, who patiently basically got his information from the russians. he was paid for by an opposition political party, which was hillary clinton's campaign, and the democratic national committee. now we see that the democrats are trying to gear up for impeachment, for about? there is absolutely no evidence,
first of all, that the president or anyone in his campaign or any american for that matter, and that is coming from mueller's report, committed any crime. you can't obstruct if there was no to commit. >> sean:ri into the rivers, professor? you were a great defense attorney. but if you don't have the evidence to indict, isn't it the reverse of what should happen in terms of creating a cloud of suspicion in spite of lack of evidence? >> absolutely. first of all, no prosecutor could ever say that a person is guilty. becauserose prosecutors only her one side of the case.so they don't have their evidence close examined. there is no defense lawyer. there is no opportunity to challenge. there is no due process. all a prosecutor can ever say is that there is sufficient evidence to indict. let's move it to the next step, which is a trial with all the adversarial defendants, and then we can determine whether a crime was committed. he could never have said there was a crime.
>> sean: remember, people like nadler wanted out ofe the independent counsel statute, they got it.te the person in charge or to the special counsel statute would be the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, office of legal counsel. they were giving the past by mueller to make the decision, they made it despite whatever department procedures and rules might have been in place are constitutional issues regarding whether or whether or not you can indict a sitting president. it did not factor in and they were very clear. >> one point that is clear that is if you cannot indict a sitting president, why do you have a special counsel to investigate a sitting president? special counsel are not supposed to just make history, write for the future. they are supposed to decide where an issue. is there sufficient evidence to indict or is not there? he said that is a moot issue. he should've ended the investigation the day they determined there was noo evidene of collusion and he continued it on and on and on and that was a
mistake. >> sean: almost out of time. >> this is such a canard. he tried to blame it on the office of legal counsel.on it says you cannot indict or prosecute a sitting president, if he had the evidence, he could have said, there is sufficient evidence to bring an obstruction charge. that is not a prosecution. it is not an indictment. he would leave it to the attorney general. he didn't do that. because he doesn't have the evidence and the professor's right, that is exactly what ken started. so, to put it in blunt terms, mueller was just lying to the american people, both in his report and today. >> sean: thank you all for your insight, observations. great analysis that you cannot get anywhere else because everyone else'ss insane. just one of those moments in life. thank you, all. also breaking tonight, according to investigative b reporter at
"the hill," john solomon, witnesses told congress that just a week before president trump's inauguration, that the british issued a dire warning to michael flynn about christopher steele's credibility. here with more on that, investigative report, johnor solomon. this is huge, if they were warned, and they were, and i understand there might be a note in a safe. little birdies are telling me things. it's because that is what they are looking for. a grand hunt is underway to find this memo that came from the british national security advisor to the incoming national security advisor, michael flynn, and the trump administration.at the date is believed to be january 12th, 8 days before the inauguration. actually the same day that the fisa, the first fisa renewal on carter page. they held was noted in their hand, saw it two years ago, the british said they do not have confidence in their reliability oror credibility of chris chrise donna christopher steele's
evidence of the russia case. this is huge. this is a former man. he was in mi6 man before he was a hillary clinton hit man. i think in this case, if the brits did communicate this, and this now can be found, there are several questions. one, when did the fbi get that warning from the british authorities? wind of the obama administration get that warning? there is no chance that the brits told this to my client and did not tell the obama administration. that is not how outgoing and incoming governments work. third, who held this document in a safe and kept it from the congressional oversight committees that did two years of investigations on russia? those are the questions that will be asked by thehe president is going to great britain this weekend. he'll have a chance if he wants to raise the question himself with british leaders. >> sean: quick reaction, 30 seconds to mueller today. >> i thought i was watching a scenario where a star baseball pitcher assigned to a team from a big contract, pages all year, the star game comes up in the world series, pulls lame with at play in the big game and then two months later, called a press
conference and says, if i played gin the game, this is what woud happen. it was a letdown, violation of the attorney general guidelines. prosecutors are not supposed to do inne the court of public opinion what they can do in a court of law.'t i think bob mueller let us down. >> sean: john solomon, great report. i tweeted it out. joining us now with more reaction, all the breaking news, republican congressman jim jordan. jim, you watched the events unfold today. you just heard john's report. your reaction? >> the first thing is, bob mueller -- if the report speaks for itself, why did you have to do a press conference? what did we learn in the 9 minutes and 39 seconds of this press conference? we learned there was no collusion, no obstruction, after after, watt, 22 months, $30 million, 19 lawyers, 500 witnesses, 2800 subpoenas. it was the same drawn conclusion. that, to me, with the take aways if the report speaks for itself, why did you have to do a nine
minute 392nd press conference where you took no questions from the press? >> sean: jim jordan, maybe i have done too many of the closed-door press conferences, now that congressman dad doug collins release the closed-door hearings, they were poignant, they were relevant, and they got to the facts. i don't think bob mueller would want to go before you. i have a lot of questions about -- for bob mueller. when did he know there was no collusion? i would like to know how he was interested in fara and loan applications but he didn't seem too interested in a russian dossier put together by a foreign national that was full of lies, that was disseminated to the public by leaks to the press, , and also used to spy on an opposition party campaign based on russian lies. i would like those answers. >> you are right. i think there are three takeaways from today. no new information, no collusion, no obstruction.
the second thing was, he resigned, stepping down. third, i think he does not want to testify. if he comes to jerry nadler, there are lots of questions to ask, and the key ones i think are where you were just out, sean. this dossier, because before they went to the fisa court in octobero of 2016, they knew all kinds of things about the author of that dossier, christopher steele. they knew he was desperate.do this was communicated by bruce ohr to the fbi. he was desperate to stop trump. they did not tell the court that information. do not tell the court who paid for the document, namely, the clinton campaign. those are key questions that we need answers to. the good news is, bill barr is doing an investigation and i think is going to get the answers. >> sean: we know that between the inspector general, between now mr. jerome, now the attorney general, and others, te avalanches coming. you know it more than i do. i wish he would sneak the information to me but you kind of -- you are like marco. you don't give me what i want to know. thank you so much, jim jordan. when we come back, the great one, mark levin.
he is chomping at the bit about what happened today, and the democrats and what they are planning. he will join us next on this busy breaking news night. stay with us. ♪ and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.
of the joy in her voice. just one hearing test is all it took for him to hear more of her laugh... and less of the background noise around him. for helen, just one visit to her local miracle-ear is all it took to learn how she can share more moments with her daughter. just one free hearing test could help you hear more... laughter...music...life... call now for your free hearing test from an industry leader: miracle-ear.
because when others take rain checks... we take the wheel. run with us. search "john deere gator" for more. ♪ >> sean: democrats, they reached new heights of hysteria, breathless reporting again today, after mueller's nine minute statement. the push for impeachment is on. like i said earlier today, go right ahead. joining us now with reaction, get this, you see this book? it is now for two weeks and running, the number one book on all of amazon.com, and a special congratulations to the great one, mark levin, because his book debuts number one on the number one best seller list.
the outcome of eating out, howard stern and other known authors.t, number one host, 10:00 at night, sunday nights on fox news -- fox news channel. "life, liberty, and levin." this is in your wheelhouse. you were the first person to tell me about justice department guidelines as it relates to a sitting president but it was not relevant at all as the attorney the attorney general barr told us at the time. >> i watched mueller today. you know what crossed my mind, sean? he sounds quite feeble. i'm serious about this. alex len why that matters. so the question is, why did mueller speak today? why did mueller speak today? i will tell you why i think he spoke today, because the democrats were unhappy with the report. so they wanted mueller to push the edge of the envelope on collusion, which today he tried to do. ethey wanted him to be more emphatic about the issue of
obstruction, where he contradicts the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, which he did today, they have the narrative that they want, and that is why nadler does not want to call him to testify. they have their narrative. let me ask you a question. why doesn't mueller want to testify? reason is simple. there is thousand and one questions to ask this man. who he hired them, why they hired him, the hillary clinton, the dossier comes the real russians. here's a man today who said that he is not going to pass judgment -- i wrote this down -- on the russians who were indicted for their guilt or innocence, but he passes judgment on the president of the united states? his guilt and innocence? it is such a huge abomination. i think this whole thing was orchestrated. i think he didn't want to testify. i think nadler said, give us some of the information we want in terms of propaganda. he gives the propaganda. it's interesting, he says, i'm not going to answer the press,o not going to talk to congress.
is this the same guy who odemanded the president sit down for an interview on obstruction? i want to get into a few questions i have, sean. i want to challenge some of mueller's premises today, which is one of the reasons he does not want to be questions. did mueller say he had evidence of a crime that met the probable cause standard but could not indict? he never says that. he doesn't sayay today, it's not in his report.no he doesn't say he has probable cause. ever. number two, did he say that we had to question the president aboutt obstruction, therefore, found others who had actually obstructed and charged them? no. who are these other people? there aren't other people because the president didn't obstruct. nobody else, who was not immune, was charged with obstruction for trying to cover up this investigation. then there'sp this. why did mueller leave it to the attorney general to decide
obstruction? rather than wait a a couple of years andst see whether the president wins reelection and if he doesn't, then indict him in 2020. notice he didn't do that. the answer is, there were no crimes. he had no case. there was no probable cause. and yet by mueller writing volume two and giving his little spiel today -- and he was very feeble. i'm serious about this. this is not a man who would do well under seven, eight, nine, ten hours of questioning with republicans honing in on so many issues. so the question is, why did he do this today? why did he do this today? listen to the democrats today. they are thrilled with this man. they were not thrilled with him yesterday. they are w thrilled with him toy because they think -- and they are wrong -- that he delivered them new information. the problem with the media is this: i just went through some basic lawyering. as he mentioned that he could have charged because he has probable cause? no, he didn't. who are these other people who obstructed justice, that they
are interested in? there weren't any, there wasn't any. why didn't he wait a couple of years? what is he in a hurry for? nobody bothers him. he is noble, he's better than everybody else. rather than toss it to the attorney general. why didn't he wait a few years? because he didn't have anything. i want to remind mr. mueller of something that a first year law student knows. the fifth amendment. it is called due process. the sixth amendment. it is called a right to a jury trial. the fifth, sixth, and 14th amendments, presumption of innocence. you burned every one of those amendments, mr. mueller, just because you can't indict a sitting president. i heard somebody say, sure, he can indict a sitting president. it's just that the attorney general can reverse course. that is not with the memo's essay. it says you cannot mandate a sitting president. i was explaining this from day one. that is why i never understood this obstruction investigation, i never understood the appointment of a special counsel. you don't have any predicate
crime. this whole thing has been a set up against this president, and it is still republicans -- you drag this man in front of the house judiciary committee if you can, you demanded every time, and you question him. lindsey graham, you are chairman of the senate judiciary committee. you get him in front of your committee and you question him, and you asking the questions. who is behind this report? why did he write this report? has he been communicating with the democrats on capitol hill? who have the week to two, if a leak to anybody else? you asked for documents! you asked for emails! you give mueller the trauma treatment and see how that ends! >> sean: well said, great one. by the way, debuting that broker broker must be 27, number one, "new york times," two weeks, am, hannity.com. the reason your books do so well is the research and substance. well done.
thank you. "life, liberty, and levin" ," number one show, 10:00 p.m., fox. the hatred media mob, they could not contain their excitement after mueller read his statement today. we'll show you all the despicable, yet predictable, coverage. we get reaction from mike huckabee, joe concha, straight ahead. ♪ (male announcer) check out bass pro shops and cabela's for huge savings on great gifts during our father's day sale! like your choice of a cabela's multi-tool or small folding knife-- two for $10. and save $200 on a traeger lil' tex elite pellet grill. plus get a free cover.
offers hundreds of auctions every day. all auctions start at $0 and everything must go. and don't forget, we offer a full 90 day money back guarantee on your first bid pack purchase. i won these bluetooth headphones for $20. i got these three suitcases for less than $40. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com today and see how much you can save. there are auctions going on right now, so
what are you waiting for? ♪ >> sean: it would be reasonable to say the mueller presser was nothing more than a media spectacle. of course, the heat trump media mob, predictably, made sure to get their last bit of mileage out of the conspiracy theories, they are lies, and their hopes for two years. take a look at them all down. >> we seem to be moving toward a
place where impeachment may be inevitable. the dam really seems to be breaking wide open. >> this obstruction point is also impossible to look away from because i think what he was really singing his that congress has a job to do. >> they now have the green light if they wanted, from mueller's statement, the ball is in their court. now they have to pick it up and run with it and do the right thing. >> every single day that the president to sit in that office, he is obstructing justice. >> because if he spoke in plain language, what he would've said, anyone who read my report and said, no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration, is a big fat liar. that is what he would've said. in english. >> if he had your potty mouth. [laughter] >> sean: these are two of the dumbest people on tv. it's funny. after two years of lies, hoaxes, conspiracy theories, they just can't let it go. wait until the avalanche comes because of the declassifications. it's going to be entertaining.
joining us with reaction, "the hill"'s joe concha, fox news contributor, former arkansas governor, mike huckabee. you've watched this now for two years. we know thereu was nothing. the same media that ignored hillary's espionage act violation, 18 usc 793, any intent, what she did with the subpoenaed emails, 33,000, notice, they never look at that, just like they care about kavanaugh and high school but they don't carry about the lieutenant governor of the commonwealth of virginia and they don't care about russia, especially with hillary's phony botton paid for dossier. >> let's be real clear. the democrats and the media, which is in the same thing, they are like little kids who are still hunting easter eggs in the fourth of july. this thing is over and they just can't quit running around with their basket looking for the eggs that aren't there.
today was a great indication. you are going to toss into jerrold nadler? this is a guy who can't find his own rear end with both hands and a flashlight because he's been looking and looking and he can't find anything. so it's over, sean. it's just flat over. >> sean: listen, politically, this is suicide for them. they want to dig a hole deeper, keep going. joe, from the media perspective, this is what you do, that is what you analyze. i've yet to see an apology about false reporting, lying, anonymous sources, conspiracy theories. i guess i better not hold my breath. >> don't hold your breath. today, by the way, was recycled news because robert mueller didn't tell us anything that wasn't already in the report. the problem is, most members in the media, and most lawmakers, even on the democratic side, have not read this report. by the way, robert mueller, who is an unelected official with a limited power, a limited time, these two years, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 witnesses interviewed, 40 fbi
agents, and after all that time, two and half years, he does not take one question after what was called a press conference today, press conferences mean the press is there, they actually get to ask questions. >> sean: please, jerrold nadler, don't bring me before congress, i don't want to face jim jordan or mark meadows. governor, mark levin raised all the important questions. when did he know there was no conspiracy? why did he hire this abusively biased team? and why did he ignore the dirty dossier? russian dossier? >> he did all that because there was an agenda, and the agenda was not to find the truth. the agenda was to go after donald trump, and that is why attorney general barr has got to take this to ground, for the sake of the country. this is no longer about donald trump. this is about america and its future. >> "wall street journal"-nbc news"w poll, 19% of independents want to see impeachment proceedingso
we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free.
>> sean: before we go, we bring in our special friend of laura ingraham. i know your legal background and i think that factors into today. what's your take? >> laura: it was utterly unpredictable on the other, but he didn't need to come out in front of the cameras. and i will get into this in the next hour, but why did he? why did he feel it was necessary? c it's been one answer your own question. i think it's him sending a statement saying, don't call me
before congress. >> laura: and he's honestly petrified about going before congress, and he wants this to be his last word but come up with this report was compiled. i think the idea that thehe american people don't get to see more from him, it's a bit arrogant for someone who has had this storied legal career and as someone who was sold to us as a consummate professional. it was kind of a bizarre, almost defeated performance today. he looked like a man that was out of steam frankly. >> i agree with that too but professor dershowitz was so dead on accurate, that's only one side of the story. they don't go to the other side. we have both been reporting