in an abundant supply here in washington in case you didn't notice. 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 so. sir. buckle up, welcome to "hannity." i want to start with a thank you, to you, the viewers of the show and this network. you continue to make the show not only possible but number one in all of cable news. now going on our third year, we don't ever take it for granted. we are working hard but the great ensemble cast here to
bring you the truth. every single night, every single week. we can report tonight, act number one is over in spite of the noise. robert mueller is out, he has said nothing today that hasn't already been in the report. so act number two which is surrounding the deep states, the president and abuse of power and corruption, that is only beginning. that means jim comey, james clapper, john brennan and others. they are terrified. they know they are in big trouble and we will have allowed on this throughout the hour. period what we are hearing from the democrats, pet parrots in the media mob is nothing more, idiotic noise. only noise per usual, ongoing hysteria. not about truths or facts. you've had two years of lies and
hoaxes and conspiracy theories petaled every second of every minute of every hour of every day. it's just one more round of lying tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and tromped bashing over a conspiracy theory. there was no trump russia collusion. there was no obstruction, nothing has changed. mueller has spent 25 plus million dollars investigating a hoax and now for the fourth time we have a conclusion. no coercion and no conspiracy. today he officially resigned from the office of special counsel but not before showing the world of course what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors if you well.
who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing. and it, they were right the entire time. >> if we had had the confidence that the president had not committed the crime, we would have said so. we did not however make a determination as to whether the president committed 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. mr. mueller doesn't know the law. according to the law, we got rid of the independent counsel because people like jerrold nadler didn't want the cannon starr report with 11 specific felonies listed, even made public. so they change the law. that means the attorney general of the united states under nadler and companies, we already
know the answer. attorney general barr, 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 crying. theorists is no cover-up. and according to a statement from the doj, there is no conflict between them about this matter. in america we live in a country where the burden of proof is always on the state. i know that we live in a world where media will convict a 16-year-old kid and not even make a phone call to get to any of the facts but the reality is, in this country we are innocent
until proven guilty. it's a fundamental basic constitutional right. as the president just stated on twitter "nothing changes from the mueller report. it was insufficient evidence and therefore in our country a person is innocent, this case is closed. thank you. mueller's continued public smear of a duly elected president has been charged with no crime is completely unethical and immoral. we will explain all of this in detail. and mueller's actions have nothing to do it justice, everything to do with justice and his presser today served one purpose and that was to help the democrats, yet give them another political bone to chew on. that bone has no meat. there is no underlying crime, no evidence of guilt. just more anyone innuendo. compare that to under the
independent counsel statute. ken starr 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 and one count of abusive constitutional authority. president clinton lost his law license and he was impeached, he had to pay paula jones nearly a million dollars because of the specific crimes uncovered by star. yet today we see a much different picture. mueller is now just cheering for the president's impeachment with no intent, no underlying crime, and the same people screaming all over television today are not the people that would ever say, hillary violated 18 usc 1793, the espionage act. and then when she deleted the subpoenaed emails and then she
bleach bit's the hard drive, the intention was clear, to destroy the evidence of the underlying crime. why doesn't anybody in the media ever point that out? if you were wondering whether or not mueller is open to the transparency and accountability in this deeply flawed investigation, think again, watch this. >> i do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or comment on the actions of the justice department or congress. and for that reason i will not be taking questions today as well. >> sean: bob mueller does not want to answer questions of jim jordan, mark meadows, matt gaetz and other republicans and have to answer for why he hired only democratic donors, big-time donors. why, for example, did robert mueller, why would you have
hired hillary clinton's former attorney for the clinton foundation? why did you have hired a man named andrew weissmann, your pit bull according to "the new york times" who has nothing but a long track record? license to lie, sidney powell, withholding exculpatory evidence, of losing tens of thousands of americans jobs in the enron case. it being beaten down 9-0 in the u.s. supreme court, putting for 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 hillary clinton's victory party on election night 2016. not one republican donor. by the way, a hillary clinton super fan investigating her political rival. why didn't mueller hire any republican donors? when did he determine there was no collusion?
i'd like that question answered. why was he more interested in fair and taxi medallions and loan application than he was about a dirty brush an dossier russian disinformation that i opposition party candidate paid for and then was used to spy on the opposition party? that, people you hired said should win 100000000-0 that trump was loathsome. and they had an insurance policy just in case donald trump wins? why did you hire him, mr. mueller? why did you hired peter strzok and lisa page? because you didn't do it and wiped 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 pair of violation and medallions and loan applications?
at no time did you, mr. mueller, they are to investigate the very root of this entire hoax? hillary clinton's dirty russian dossier put together by a foreign spy that's not supposed to influence our elections, who by the way doesn't stand by his own dossier? "the new york times" is suggesting likely russian disinformation. did you even care that hillary clinton paid a foreign spy to interfere in in their election, and use russian lies? did you even care that your buddy james comey 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 lied by omission and not tell the court that hillary paid for those lies, and also not verify what was in the dossier we now know that was unverifiable because the guy that wrote the dossier doesn't stand by it and
says he doesn't have any idea if any of its true? i want mueller under oath. i want him held accountable. i want him answering those questions. it's now more important than ever. senator graham summed it up perfectly. it's over. the mueller witch hunt is done, complete, whether they like it or not. but now, acts two, the curtain is rising. take a look. >> do you share my concerns about the phis warrant process? >> yes. >> do you have my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation? >> yes. >> do you share my concerns about the lack of professionalism in the email of investigation is something we should all look at? >> yes. >> do you expect to change her mind about the bottom-line conclusions of the mueller report? >> known.
speak of the president's campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the russians. >> yes. >> the answer is, no, according to bob mueller. he couldn't decide about obstruction, you did it, is that correct? >> that's right. >> do you feel good about your conclusion? >> absolutely. >> sean: democrats just can't let go of their two years of lying, two years of hoax, two years of conspiracy theories, nor can their best friends in the media mob. and it robert mueller speech today was frankly just another spark to reinvigorate one more time what is just an impeachment fantasy. they are clamoring for impeachment more than ever before. here is my message to them tonight. 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, and everything is free. and i want you to stay on impeachment. stay right there and don't solve any more problems or serve the people who put him in washington. i know most on the left, you are probably not going to realize that the handwriting is on the wall. your request for impeachment is kind of a suicide. if 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 at the party of fdr, for people like scoop jackson and joe lieberman will forever be marginalized a radical group of
socialist extremists that don't care about the american people, or making us more safe, more secure and more prosperous. so my advice to speaker pelosi who is speaker in name only, given to the temptation, given to the alexandria ocasio-cortez wing of the party, and i think you will because otherwise they will kick you out the door. we know the real speaker is a radical freshman lawmakers. whether they face fundamental truths, the russia hoax is dead. mueller's issues is dead and the truth is in the marks. i'm going to sit back and enjoy every night saying, as we've been telling you for the last two years, here is the evidence because it's all coming out. the president, all of it.
the phis applications, that three oh twos, the gang of eight, the exculpatory evidence, it's all coming out. big speech, he sadly had the horrible dishonor of working for me in the past. jay, i will just throw it to yo you. you your analysis of the events today? >> what you had today is the investigation is over. there's nothing that robert mueller said today that was any different than what was in that report. the department of justice did and said there is no obstructive conduct. bob mueller today closed his case, closed his office. but no one will forget what
started it. this investigation has been correct since it started, from the dossier to the phis a warrant. the legal aspect of this is over. if they want to go for it, good luck. there is no there there. nothing there that would warrant a prosecution. nothing there that would warrant an impeachment. and bob mueller again can play the issue. when he talks about it there is clear and compelling evidence of exoneration and we would do that. but that isn't their job, that was never their job. you know what that tells you? this was fixed the moment it started but the end result was exactly where it started.
no collusion and no obstruction. the matter is legally closed. now, we will find out how this started and who's responsible for it and, that is where we will stay. you talk about acts two, this is phase two and they know what's coming because they are trying to make something out of a nonstatement. it is a nonstatement because nothing was different than that report. >> sean: knowing the things that i've reported. including the phis applications in the hands of the attorney general. the answer is the attorney general gave his he has finalized his decision on mueller but now, the rigged investigation to hillary, phis
abuse, committing fraud against the fisa court, then of course, an insurance policy to bludgeon a president based on what is now an unverifiable, pretty much, russian lies that nobody ever verified but, they still sign the phis a warrant. when you look at these actions, do you see crimes? >> multiple. but i think -- we've ignored in this conversation today, although i know you've covered it today, the whole nellie ohr and bruce ohr connection. whatever happened to that evidence together for the two months they were there when this began? and then you asked another question. there was no collusion, no conspiracy with the russians. why did they continue this conspiracy?
that was the insurance policy. at the end of the day, i think it's important for the american people to understand that there was no there there. nothing that was concluded was violating the law. at the end of the day -- and what was interesting tonight, the statement between the department of justice and the difference between the special counsel -- they are saying there is no difference and i think reality has said it is closed and done. >> sean: thank you for being with us tonight. 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 his elbow on the impeachment,
mueller has revealed has partisan bias." fox news journalist gregg jarrett also sharply criticized writing "mueller's actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to the president." joining us now is sara carter, author of "the russia hoax." fox news legal analyst at gregg jarrett and the author of "an introduction to them mueller report," alan dershowitz. professor, let's start with you. you have tried we have much disagreement on this to defend a mueller to respect the process, even if we all know that under article to the president always had the authority to fire him for conflicts, et cetera. very few people seem to point out up. what did you see today that
changed her mind. >> when i saw today was him putting his thumb, as elbow on the scale. when he was confident that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. it was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. and he said, she engaged in extremely careless conduct. this is much, much worse. it does show that he had a motive to help the democrats here. there is no other possible motive. why he would have gone out of his way to say that, he could have 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 committed a crime, we would have said it. but we emphasized only the possibility that the president may have committed a crime. it also shows 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 16 election and continuing to the 20 election. and proposing efforts to ameliorate that in the future. a special counsel was a terrible mistake and i think mueller's statement proves that beyond a doubt. i will say i was steadfast in my analysis in the beginning, only democratic donors, wiseman the pitbull with an atrocious record. jeanie ray, he couldn't find one republican donor. >> no. and what struck me today was, he's peddling two stories.
and by the way this is advisory, not mandatory. not once, not twice, but three times as something completely different. he said the llc had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my decision, decision. so who is telling the truth? this man's core argument is, we can't prove that president did not commit obstruction of justice. he is tainting and smearing the president and forcing him to prove that he didn't do something wrong and that has never been for 200 years the standard in american justice. and it's not only a coin
maneuver but a devious maneuver. >> sean: why were these statements, mueller's statements intended to hurt trump. and we all know that prosecutors, if they don't reach a standard of indictment, they don't leave a cloud. there's a reason for that. you don't have a right to say, i don't have the evidence, but maybe something happened. and that's what he did today. >> yes he did. it's shameful actually. i agree 100% with alan dershowitz as well, he did leave a dark cloud and he intended to do so. chuck schumer said last year in october, 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's relationship with comey. what was the intention of mueller even making this statement? the only reason he did what he did today was to presumably put that cloud over president trump. but 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, and 2016. to basically create a situation where they would find a somebody in the trump campaign. there has been no evidence of that, no collusion and no obstruction, and now they are going to the very beginning of the obstruction and they will find out what happened.
and how they utilized those lies to create a disinformation campaign against the president of the united states. and that's what they are afraid of. it's been one of the president has declassified and put in the hands of diet the turning of the united states. we talked about at the exculpatory evidence, and the phis applications themselves, which we know, because the top of the phis applications is verified, was unverifiable. but the bulk of information that was used all four times dealt with hillary is bought and paid for information. >> that's absolutely true. and when we look at it, it's christopher steele who basically got his information from the russians. that was paid for by the opposition political party and the democratic national committee. now we see the democrats are trying to gear up for
impeachment. there's absolutely no evidence. first of all that the president or anyone in his campaign or any american committed any crime. and you can't obstruct if there was no crime to commit. >> sean: isn't it the reverse professor? you are a great defense attorney. but if you have the evidence to indict, isn't that the reverse of what should happen in terms of creating a cloud of suspicion despite the lack of evidence? >> absolutely. first of all no prosecutor could ever say that a person is guilty because prosecutors only hear one side of the case. you don't have their cross examine, there no defense number, they ask if there is sufficient evidence to indict. let's move it to the next step. then we can determine whether a crime was committed. >> sean: remember, people like
nadler wanted out of the independent counsel statute. they got it. the person in charge was the attorney general. they were giving the pass by mueller to make the decision and they made it, despite whatever department procedures and rules might have been in place for 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, if you can't indict a sitting president, why do you have a special counsel to indict a sitting president? they are supposed to decide, and they should have ended this investigation. the day they determined there was no evidence of collusion and
continued it on and on, and that was a serious mistake. >> this was such a canard that he pedaled today. he tried to blame it on the office of legal counsel. remember what that opinion says, he says you can't indict or prosecute a sitting president. if he had the evidence, and he didn't, he could have said there was sufficient evidence. it's not a prosecution, it's 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 is right, that's exactly what ken starr did. so to put it in blunt terms, president was lying to the american people both in his report and today. >> sean: thank you for your insight and observations, a great analysis that you can't get anywhere else. also breaking tonight, according
to investigative reporter at the hill john solomon, witnesses told congress that just weeks before the inauguration, the british issued a dire warning to michael flynn about christopher steele's credibility. here with more on that investigative report, john solomon. this is huge. if they were warned, and they were, i understand there might be a note in a safe. little birdies are telling me things. >> that's what they are looking for, a grand hunt is underway to find this memo that came from the british national security advisor, and the date it is believed to be january 12th, 8 days before the inauguration. the same day that the first phis a renewal occurred on carter page. they saw it two years ago. british said they didn't have confidence in the reliability or credibility of christopher
steele's evidence in the russia case and that is huge. this is their former man. i think in this case of the brits did communicate this and the note can be found when did the obama administration get that warning? there's no chance that the brits told this to mike flynn and didn't also tell the obama administration. that's not how they work. they did two years of investigation on russia. the president is going to great britain this weekend and he will have a chance if he wants to raise the question himself to british leaders. >> sean: quick reaction, 30 seconds, to mueller today? >> i thought i was watching a scenario where a star baseball player signed a big contract. the star game comes up in the series, he pulls lame and too
much later and calls a press conference and says, if i had pitched the game this is what would've happened. it was a real let down and a violation of the attorney general guidelines. prosecutors are not supposed to do in the court of public opinion what they can't do in the court of law and i think bob mueller let us down. >> sean: john solomon, great report. i tweeted it out. joining us now with more reaction, republican congressman jim jordan. he watched the events unfold today and you just heard john's report. your reaction? >> the first thing is if the report speaks for itself, why not do a press conference? and in the 9 minutes and nine seconds, we learned there was no collusion and no obstruction after 22 months, 19 lawyers, 500 witnesses, 2800 subpoenas, it was the same darn conclusion so that to me was a big take away. if the report speaks for itself,
why did you do a nine minute 92nd press conference? >> sean: may be i read too many of the closed-door testimony to see what people like yourself and mark meadows were doing behind the scenes. now congressman doug collins released the closed-door testimony. the question that you and others would ask, they were poignant and relevant and i got to the facts. i don't think bob mueller would want to go before you. and he didn't seem too interested in a russian dossier, that was full of lies and disseminated by the public to leaks in the press. i like those answers. >> i think there were three takeaways from today.
and third, i think he doesn't want to testify. it's up to jerry nadler but there are lots of questions to ask and the key one was where you were just out. this dossier. before they went to the pfizer report, they were talking all kinds of things about the author of that dossier, christopher steele. he was desperate to stop trump and he didn't tell the court that information or -- those were questions. i think he's going to get the answers. the one i know between the inspector general, mr. durham and the attorney general and others, the avalanche is coming. you know more than i do. you don't give me what i want to know. thank you so much jim jordan.
when we come back, he's chomping at the bit about what happened today and that the democrats and what they are planning, he will join us next on this busy breaking news night. stay with us. from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear.
has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family 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. i'm so hungry. (photographers) look here!hers) ♪ candace! charlie! candace, starkist creations come in over 20 flavors-- right: chicken, salmon, or tuna will mmm-- and go! starkist tuna, chicken, and salmon creations. bravo! will
♪ >> sean: reached new heights of hysteria after mueller's nine minute statement, and the push for impeachment is on. and as i said earlier today, go right ahead. joining us now with reaction, get his book, it is now for two weeks and running the number one book on all of amazon.com. in a special congratulations to the great one, marked to live in, because his book davie is
number one on "the new york times" best selle. beating out howard stern and other known authors. the number one host, 10:00 at night sunday night on the fox news channel, the life and liberty of mark levine. you were the first person to tell me about justice department guidelines, as it relates to a sitting president. but it wasn't relevant in this case at all as the attorney general told us at the time. >> you know i watched mueller today and you know what crossed my mind? he sounds quite feeble. and i will explain why that matters. the question is, why did mueller speak today? i will tell you why i think he spoke today. because democrats were unhappy with the report. they wanted mueller to push the edge of the envelope on collusion which today he tried to do. they wanted him to be more
emphatic about the issue of obstruction where he contradicts the deputy attorney general which he did today. and that is why nadler doesn't want to call him to testify. they have their narrative. why doesn't mueller want to testify? there's a thousand and one questions to ask this man, from who he hired, why he hired him, why he hired hillary clinton, the dossier on the real russians. he said he's not going to pass judgment, on the russians who are indicted, their guilt or innocence. it's such a huge abomination, i think this whole thing was orchestrated. i think he didn't want to testify and i think nadler said, give us information we want in terms of propaganda. i'm not going to answer the
press and i'm not going to talk to congress. is this the same guy that demanded the president of the united states sit down for an interview on obstruction? let me get into a few questions i have. i want a challenge of mueller's premises today which is one of the reasons why he didn't want to be questioned. he had evidence of a crime that met the probable cause standard but could not indict, he never says that. he doesn't say it today and it's not in his report. it doesn't say he has probable cause ever. number two. did he say we had to question the president about obstruction and therefore found others who had actually obstructed and charged him? no. who are these other people? so nobody else was not immune was charged with obstruction for trying to cover up this investigation. and then, there is this. why did mueller leave it to the
attorney general to decide obstruction rather than wait a couple years and see if the president wins reelection? and if he doesn't, indict him in 2,020? noticing to do that. the answer is there were no crimes, he had no taste, there was no probable cause. and yet, writing volume number two and giving his little spiel today -- and he was very feeble. i'm serious about this. he would not do under seven, eight, nine hours of questioning, with the republicans honing in on so many issues. so the question is, why did he do this today? the democrats were thrilled with this manner. they were not thrilled with him yesterday but they are thrilled with him today because he they think, and they are wrong, that he delivered new information. the problem with the media is this. i just went through some basic lawyering. did he mentioned that he could have caused?
there weren't any, there wasn't any. why didn't he wait a couple of years? what's he in a hurry for, nobody bothers him. he's noble and 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 everything. i want to remind mueller something. the fifth amendment, it's called due process. the sixth amendment as a right to a jury trial. the presumption of innocence. you burned every amendment just because you can't indict a sitting president. i heard somebody say, he can indicted by a sitting president but the attorney general can reverse course. that's not what the memo say. i was explaining this from day one. that's why i never understood the obstruction investigation, i never understood the appointment
of a special counsel or you don't have any predicate crime. this whole thing has been a set up against this president and it still. republicans, you drag this man in front of the house judiciary committee, you demanded every time and you question him. lindsey graham, you drag him in front of your committee and you question him. and you ask him the questions. who is behind this report? why did he write this report? has he been communicate and with the democrats on capitol hill? who had they linked to? you asked for documents, you asked for emails and you give mueller the trump treatment and you see how that ends. >> sean: well said. that book is premiering in two weeks, and the reason your books do so well is, the research and substance. it is exhaustive.
well done. sunday night, the number one show, on cable. coming up, the hate trump media mob that couldn't their excitement after mueller read his statement today. we will show you all the despicable yet predictable coverage that we get coming up straight ahead. musical ♪ a hampton for my sister and her kids. that's a lot of syrup and the waldorf astoria beverly hills for me. but i thought your family vacation was in miami? it is. i hear they're having a great time. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay.
>> we seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment may be inevitable, the dam seems to be breaking wide open. >> the obstruction point is also impossible to look away from because what he has releasing as congress has a job to do. >> they have the green light if they wanted from the statement, the ball is in their court and now they have to pick it up and run with it and do the right thing. >> every single day the president sits in that office, he's obstructing justice. >> if he had spoken in plain language what he would have said today was, anyone who read my report and said no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration is a big fat liar, that's what he would have said. >> if he had my potty mouth, or yours. [laughs] >> sean: this like two of the dumbest people on tv. it's funny. after two years of lies and hoaxes in conspiracy theories, they can't let go.
wait until it comes because of declassification. joining us, fox news contributor and former arkansas governor mike huckabee. you watch this now for two years. we know there was nothing, the same media that ignored hillary's espionage act violations, 18 usc 793, and the intent and what she did the subpoena emails, 33,000. notice they never look at that just like they care about kavanaugh in high school but they don't care about the lieutenant governor of the commonwealth of virginia and they don't care about russia especially with the phone he bought and paid for dossier? >> let's be really clear. the democrats and the media which is the same thing, they are like little kids still hunting easter eggs on 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. if you're going to toss it to jerrold nadler? this is a guy that can't find his own rear end with his own hands and a flashlight because he's been looking and looking at can't find anything. it's over. just flat over. >> sean: politically this is suicide for them. from the media perspective, this is what you do, this is what you analyze. i have yet to see an apology about false reporting, lying, anonymous sources and conspiracy theory. i guess i better not hold my breath. >> don't hold your breath. and 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 of the media and most lawmakers haven't read this report. by the way, robert mueller who is an unelected official with unlimited power and unlimited time, these two years. 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses
interviewed, 40 fbi agents, and after all that time he doesn't take one question after what was called a press conference today, press conferences mean the press is there and it actually -- they get to ask questions. >> sean: please, don't bring me before congress, i don't want to face that jim jordan guy or mark meadows. and governor mark levine raised all the important questions. did you know there was no conspiracy? why did he hire this abusively biased team and why did he ignore the dirty dossier? the russian dossier? >> well, he did 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 bar has got to take this to ground for the sake of the country. it's about america and its future. >> sean: that "wall street journal" and nbc news poll from two weeks
ago. 19% of independents want to see impeachment proceedings commenced. that is not how you win elections in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania. >> sean: when we come back, laura ingraham will give her reaction to today's events, straight ahead. [ laughter ] -everyone acts like their parents. -you have a tattoo. -yes. -fun. do you not work? -so, what kind of mower you got, seth? -i don't know. some kid comes over. we pay him to do it. -but it's not all bad. someone even showed us how we can save money by bundling home and auto with progressive. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto. run with us
>> sean: before we go we bring in our special friend of laura ingraham. i know your legal background, 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? it's been one answer your own
question. i think it's him sending a 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 the american people don't get to see more than from hi, 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. the one 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 extensively, now