before you think it will but the upside is you enjoyed it happening. we will be back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and especially groupthink, which is a direct that to you and your family and your right to make your own decisions. we will be back in support of the free speech. good night from washington, "hannity" is next and sitting in for him tonight we are proud to report as judge jeanine pirro. >> judge pirro: good evening and welcome to the "hannity." breaking just moments ago, robert mueller has released a preflynn interview document, the official note from peter strzok and an unnamed age of surrounding their january 2017 interrogation of lieutenant general flynn. we will break this down, this development, coming up.

but first, disgraced former fbi director james comey was back on capitol hill. and it was pretty rattled. take a look. >> another day of clinton's emails and the steel dossier. this is lying about the fbi, attacking the fbi and attacking the rule of country. >> the words of the president matter and the rule of law matters. where are those republicans today? at some point someone has to stand up in the face of fear of fox news, .

>> the fbi reputation has taken a big hit over the last year. do you share any of the responsibility for this? >> no. the fbi's reputation has taken a big hit because the president of the united states with his acolytes has lied about it constantly. >> judge pirro: joining us now with more on what went on during his trip to the hill is catherine harwich. >> after the nearly four hour session, james comey talk to reporters and took none of the lane for damage to the fbi's credibility. >> the fbi's reputation has taken a big hit because the president of the united states with his accolades has lied about it constantly. but that damage has nothing to do with me. >> comey stood with fbi director. he also denied at answering

questions about whether he misclassified information when he shared with his lawyers memos documenting conversations with the president. heading into the nearly six hour session behind closed doors, house republicans focused on flynn. >> for him it's all about jim comey. if you go to last week where he said he got away with not following the rules when he they interviewed mike flynn. >> they brought in the fbi released a heavily redacted memo about the anti-trump dossier. the fbi memo described them as "private clients. >> i think the knowledge of when the fbi and specifically, director comey became aware of the involvement of the dnc and fusion gps as it relates to their hiring of christopher steele. he indicated the other day that he wasn't aware of that until he

read reports long after he was gone. i find that very hard to substantiate based on other evidence. >> democrats at the republican land, could lead an investigation is not designed to find the facts but damage the special counsel. >> they seem to want to play defense counsel with the president and wanted to do everything in their power to bring doubt regarding the mueller investigation. >> the republicans will continue to rake jim comey over the coals as long as they can and it continues to be at the direction of president trump. >> the transcript should be published in the next 24 hours. >> this brings us to a new development surrounding christopher steele's dirty dossier which is a very document to prompt an investigation into all things donald trump.

"the daily caller" recently found that even a "washington post" reporter admits that the dossier contents are flat out unverified. still, to this day. and according to this reporter, not even the fbi or cia believe its key findings. watch this. >> i think that i think people remember the most vividly about the dossier is the idea that there is a tape somewhere but we have seen no evidence. and it's not the lack of trying. there is other material in the dossier and we literally spent weeks and months trying to run it down. there is an assertion in there that michael cohen, trumps a lawyer, withdrew payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. we sent reporters through every hotel and all over the place trying to figure out if he was over there.

and came away empty. we talked to sources at the fbi and cia and elsewhere and they don't believe that ever happened. >> joining us now with reaction is a washington times columnist monica crowley and dan longino. good evening. monica, i will start with you. you have this "washington post" reporter who is -- you know "the washington post" is certainly a liberal newspaper, and at the reporter is saying that there is nothing that they are talking about with respect to michael: cohen and prague. but they are saying he went to prague so he could pay these kremlin related people to get information on the tweets or the dnc information. now clearly, this has never been

verified and we continue to have this dossier be the basis of a fisa court warrant. >> we continue to operate, or at least the left does on the premise that the dossier is the beginning of this investigation. and they cannot verify this. they cannot find any substantial facts to substantiate what was presented to the pfizer court, not just the reporters from "the washington post," we had bob woodward writing books and other reporters doing deep investigative work into this and nobody can substantiate it. step aside from the reporters for a moment, what about what the reporters admitted? they cannot substantiate what is in the dossier and still people are operating under the assumption especially with the

special counsel that there was something there to be investigated. >> and then after two years there has been absolutely no evidence connecting this administration, this president, or anyone with any russia collusion. or i call it, delusion. >> think about where we are right now. everything monica just said is absolutely accurate. despite mounds of resources, international intelligence operations trying to verify to the press that this dossier appears to be one big hoax. but here's the problem. the investigation into donald trump, judge, would not exist without the dossier. don't take my word for it. i get it, the anti-trump crowd, don't trust me, take the number two at the fbi, former number two, andrew mccabe's word for it. they would have actually said they would not have had a case without the dossier. they would spy on the trump team based upon a hoax document that

the number two at the fbi himself said it, they wouldn't have had a case without it. how does that not bother everybody listening right now? >> the amazing part of it, we just saw the reaction and that where he is insulted. it's the president who is a liar. the president and his accolades. when in truth, and one is being recommended for criminal prosecution by the doj and that is the mistake. >> you know, mr. comey is a master of projection. he so good at accusing the president and the republicans exactly what he is guilty of. lawbreaking, lying and corruption being uninterested in the truth. he's deflecting from his own behavior and activities by accusing his the president and

his associates from doing the same thing. james comey is a personification of the deep state, totally worthless, unaccountable, surrounded by accolades and flunkies and, he is, it was assumed that this whole time he was untouchable. now they are being ambushed by history and that's why you are seeing them double down on the aggression in accusing the president and his team of what they themselves are guilty of. >> it certainly is projection. it is jim comey getting away with it? is the fact -- and we all know he is a friend of bob mueller. will he get away with all the things he has done in his corrupt upper echelon of the fbi in terms of standing in front of the cameras right in front of us and trashing fox news? the president and everyone else,

and he and people like peter mccabe who worked for him and they are the ones that clearly tried to turn an election. >> what happened today with his disgraceful trashing of fox new fox news, and sadly he is taking the rest of the fbi down with him, to answer your question, i don't think he's going to get away with it and here's the reason why. let's not forget, there is a very specific verified procedure called the woods procedure to verify information before it goes before the pfizer cohort. we know that dossier was not verified. jim comey at some point i had to have signed off on that verification procedure for a document that we now know was a hoax. it's a paper trail, judge. >> judge pirro: i wish i were as confident as you. i don't hear any judge say i

want investigation. i don't hear anyone saying they need to be held in contempt for bringing this before me, and, he was taken off the case, but there's this dirty deal, going on and nobody is looking at it. >> judge, john huber and bob barr are the last hoax on this one. i can't guarantee anything because i'm not a fortune teller. all i can say is there is a paper trail if you want to look and jim comey's name is all over it. it's been one last word, i only have ten seconds but i don't have a lot of faith in this guy. >> keep in mind that even though democrats are taking control of the house and will shut down this investigation that the republican house had going, we will be getting a new

attorney general in that william barr and i do have faith that this new ag will go after comey, peter strzok, mccabe, and the whole dirty lot of them. >> judge pirro: joining us now now, the author of the russia hoax. gregg jarrett and fox news contributor, sarah carter. i'm excited to be doing this. here, we have just released the new three oh two. we didn't even know if it was a three oh two because on wednesday when judge sullivan ordered it be turned in on friday, we didn't get it on friday. we got it today and it's heavily redacted. the three oh two for the viewers is basically an interview of the individual that is turned into a report of three oh two. it is supposed to be done contemporaneously with the report. now what we have here is, we now have a aversion of the

january 24th interview of michael flynn. signed february, one version in may, and then one version in august. >> you have to look at the very first one. it's usually the most authentic and honest. and these prosecutors, they tried to pull a fast one on this judge and ed sullivan was having none of it. last friday they were supposed to be and they deliberately hid and noticed it. so that puts -- that's a red flag for the judgment puts him on alert during tomorrow's hearing and he may say, why did you hide that document from me. >> not only did they hide it but

they defied his order and did not turn it in on friday. >> if you and i did that we would be in contempt. >> definitely. i will go to you. when mueller withholds the three oh two which is the essence of the statement that flynn made which is the basis of his lying as a fed see it, but they said he wasn't lying. he can vacate the plea, where he can allow the sentence to go through which the prosecution is recommending no time. >> i think judge sullivan is not just going to sit back and allow mueller and the special counsel to walk all over him. i also want to say that judge dineen, they did not turn in the wrong notes. that is the wrong notes from the fbi agent joe panca who was the

agent who interviewed flynn. a lot of times, i was talking to sidney powell about this, a lot of times the raw material or those raw notes are drastically different from the three oh two's. so the judge will want to compare the raw notes of the fbi agents with the three oh two. and remember the three oh two should be done within five days. so why were they done consecutively and so far apart? >> i will give you an example of how it's supposed to be done. hillary clinton was interviewed on july 2nd of 2016. her three oh two was done that day. now we have three, three oh twos that they tried to hide from the judge to which they redacted heavily and we don't know which one is the accurate one. and there's something that stinks in river city. >> and this judge knows it and he has deep experience with prosecutors who lie, deceive, hide exculpatory evidence and

phony up false evidence. it happened in the ted stevens case and this judge was presiding. these are prosecutors who don't care about justice or the truth. mueller's team only cares about getting trump in winning cases. this judge cares about justice and he may turn to the prosecutors and say, wait a minute. >> not only that, the judge has the authority to vacate the place, but what's interesting is that flynn did not make any of these notions. the judge will have to do it on his own, but will he? >> the judge said don't turn this over to defense. i want to see the documents. >> the judge turned to michael

flynn and said, what happened here? if you didn't lie, where you coerced and forced? did mueller and his team threaten your son? did he cause you to essentially go bankrupt and broke? >> in addition to that, you intentionally dissuaded him from bringing in an attorney. there is a nuance here and at the nuance is, when they say you don't need a lawyer, and when they try to talk you out of it, sarah, aren't they in as bad of a place as if they didn't mirandized at all? >> absolutely they are. and if you look at the three oh two itself, the lie is right at the top of this three oh two. they said they notified him of the nature of this interview, and that is inaccurate. they never notified him of the nature of this interview because

i asked him to not bring an attorney. and they are looking at him for possible political purposes and trying in a sense to entrap him because they already knew the conversation that he had and, they were going to him. i think the judge will be looking at all of this and that, remember one thing, there is another fbi agent here. everybody has talked about peter strzok, but nobody has spoken to the other fbi agent. >> and rob rosenstein has refused to make him available notwithstanding congressional demands. what are they hiding? >> they were hiding everything. and i must say, when you talk about the beginning of the three oh two, it says after being advised of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, flynn provided the following information.

you are saying, they said to him we are looking at you to interrogate you regarding your statement. and you are saying that that doesn't happen. you are saying that is not the fact? >> that's a fact. >> do you want to tell from where? >> even over six months ago, when he met with those agents at the white house, he believed he was having a conversation and providing information that was necessary, information that they would need which is the reason why andrew mccabe said, look. you don't even need to have an attorney there anyway. what would happen is i would have to notify the doj on this is just a conversation. there was no way at that point in time according to the sources that i've spoken with that lieutenant michael flynn thought that he would be interrogated. they thought he would have a normal conversation. >> he got on the phone and lied

to flynn about the reason for the interview. then he pushed flynn, you don't need to have a lawyer, and they conspired. they apparently conspired not to tell flynn that they had a transcript of a very legal conversation -- >> but he would already know that. he was speaking to the ambassador, did he know that, sarah? >> and and the phone conversations are being recorde recorded. i don't think they would've thought at any point in time that it was actually being looked at. he didn't believe he had done anything wrong and he didn't believe he had lied.

>> it was such a set up, lied to him over it. they had a plan, let's hurt trump. you heard mueller talking about3 talking about it, and they don't have their lawyers or ducks in a row. it's unconscionable. >> judge pirro: we will see what the judge does tomorrow. coming up, the latest on our showdown at the southern border. a deal on the wall might be close. we will have a live report next, stay with us. ♪ oh!

oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck,

severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

-morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection.

>> judge pirro: at welcome back "hannity." congress faces a midnight friday deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown.

joining us now is garrett tenney. >> the white house is suggesting it might be able to strike a deal with democrats to keep the government open. a number of plans are being discussed and as these negotiations continue, it's starting to look like the white house may be softening its hard line on $5 billion for the brutal walk mike border wall. a source with knowledge of investigations says they will keep the government funded through next year and provide $1.6 billion for border security this is through the section of the southern border. democratic leaders have already said they would be open to such proposal but it's $5 billion less than the president is looking for. earlier he stressed the need for a physical wall. time for us to save billions of dollars per year and have at the

same time far greater safety and control. to get the presidents wall, sources tell john roberts that the white house may seek a legal opinion to see to use the defense budget. and that's another indication that if the president wants a deal to avoid the shutdown, it's likely going to be for far less than the 5 billion that he wants. if the shutdown does drag on, they pointed out that negotiations will likely only get tougher when democrats take control of the house. >> judge pirro: thanks so much. joining us now with the reaction syndicated columnist and author, and i will start with you. the president has made it clear that he has no problem taking responsibility for a partial shutdown.

so he can get the border while he has promised. it seems that he probably won't get more than the 1.6 billion. how does that happen with the republican controlled house and senate? >> well for those of us who have watched republicans in the beltway capitulate over and over again, this is no surprise. and what we are seeing with this border disorder and the continued foot dragging, and kicking the can down the road, this is the dictionary definition judge of border beltway politics as usual. this is the swamped way, and i have to tell you, my readers can follow my immigration reporting over the last 25 years and, they are completely sick of it. they do hope that president trump is true to his word of because if they don't

build the wall, you will fall. 1.6 billion, this is a measly down payment on one of the most fundamental duties to protect the states against invasion. >> you are in charge of gopac, you work with politicians across the country. why are republicans not in sync with the president on this? >> more funding than what the president is asking for. what we have to keep in mind here though is, by not funding border security now, we are going to be paying a bigger price in the future as more money is going to have to go into fighting the illegal drugs in this country, and more of the weapons that criminals bring into the country. we heard last week from the department of homeland security how they stopped 3700 known or suspected terrorists at the

border in 2017. they stopped 17,000 criminals at the border. they stopped over a thousand gang members. so we can pay the price now or we can pay the price down the line in this. now here is the good news. let's say they don't get something done. if the new deal that the president has been able to put together with mexico doesn't have the economic activity that we think it will that projection suggests that well, then there will be new revenue coming in that gives a president a stronger hand to say, now we have the money coming in we should be funding border security. during barack obama's administration, she wanted to pass bills and then find out what was in them. now all of a sudden she has to know everything. >> michelle, what about the idea

of using the department of defense budget? >> i'm in the camp of by any means necessary, and it is certainly true that according to the constitutional mandate, this is a national security crisis. we have these migrant invasions that are coordinated globally, this is sabotage of our sovereignty by i think minuses inside and outside of our country. if this doesn't constitute a presidential prerogative for using our defense budget on our border, then i don't know what does. let's talk about more democrat hypocrisy. because every senate democrat in 2014 voted for $46 billion of border security including reinforced steel borders. including hillary clinton, chuck schumer and joe biden now

claims that we don't need a physical barriers in order to ensure which included 30 feet steel fences and walls. the idea that we don't need physical barriers, at a time when countries around the world can't direct them fast enough, it's laughable and they need to be called out. >> judge pirro: just quickly, how much do you think the president is going to get? >> hopefully he gets 5 billion but it may not come until 2019. >> judge pirro: thanks guys. up next we may be headed for another supreme court showdown over obamacare. we will explain as and "hannity "hannity."

>> judge pirro: walk back to

25. , many of us are wondering what chief justice robert and newly appointed justice kavanaugh will do. today president trump offered to work with democrats on a great replacement if obamacare is scrapped. democrats are already freaking out. here's what senator chuck schumer said yesterday. >> it's an awful ruling. of course it undoes pre-existing conditions and jeopardizes the tens of millions who are getting good health care in the exchange but it goes way beyond that. it would knock out funding for treatment of opioids. it would raise drug prices and close the doughnut hole so seniors would play pay more fog prices. it would eliminate maternal care. it's an awful ruling. we will fight this tooth and

nail. >> judge pirro: when meanwhile democrats are vocal about what they wanted all along, medicare for all. >> eric holder says it's time now to move to some version of medicare for all and somehow end of the nonsense. we need universal health care and there are many ways to get there and that's one of them. >> you have house and senate, the first big domestic policy of legislation is health care. specifically? >> i believe we need medicare for all. >> medicare for all, bursting out of the boxes in -- >> a ceo brian mattila and kaylee mcenaney. congressman matt gates, i will

ask you this first. democrats seem to be excited about the opportunity of fighting for medicare for all. you think they would be depressed about obamacare possibly being unconstitutional but they are pivoting and then right onto the next one. it's actually possible? >> democrats were happy with obamacare but now it seems that they won't be satisfied until they have a complete government takeover of health care. there are americans watching tonight who see that premiums arise. they've seen their deductibles become on affordable and in their jobs they haven't seen the same career opportunities. so now it's my expectation that chief justice will have a second opportunity to do the right thing and rule obamacare unconstitutional. you will remember that his basis initially for writing an opinion to uphold the law is that it was a attacks. now that we have repealed the tax, the foundation for obamacare is crumbling and then

they will be able to do that. >> i want to talk to you about -- how you think the vote is going to go. and what you think -- judge jeanine, what i would say is there is another rocky, and i think sylvester stallone could come out. and, could get -- that's what i'm predicting next june which is when i think this will go to the supreme court verdict decision, upholding. the reason is this, and the congressman alluded to it. he laid out mine and diverse by this baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and that is the individual mandate for the audience. that was the issue here, what they were saying. and the president passed with congress in 2017, that tax bills

set the individual mandate for a zero. justice roberts said it was constitutional because it went to the ability to tax. if we have no tax, it's not constitutional in the whole bill goes away. what we have to think about is, what happens when the supreme court upholds this and where does our health care economy go from there? >> judge pirro: it's all about separability. once that individual mandate, the tax base is gone then the whole thing apparently fails if the judge is thinking is upheld. i want to talk to about what we just heard chuck schumer talking about, and that was that the sky is falling and there will be no money for opioid addiction. but we we know -- it's chicken little, run for the hills. how are the republicans are going to read about that kind of

message? >> by telling the truth. those are scare tactics and obama is staying in place until it is appealed up to likely the supreme court through the fifth circuit. the onus is on democrats to come to the table. we have put forward a very fair-minded plans. if democrats wanted to have a liberal medicare for all a.k.a. socialized medicine system, they could have done it. meanwhile the red states would have had free market solutions and thriving health care which is a fair-minded plan but democrats are not interested in solutions or affordable health care. that's why the average premium has doubled in the only one who has shown an interest is president trump who put in place short-term health care plans and market-based solutions. that is thanks to president trump and the little he can do from the executive side. >> finally, the democrats have

refused to work with the president on just about everything. i suspect, and tell me if i'm wrong, all they will do is have this mantra of medicare for all and they are not going to work to change anything in the run-up to the 2020. >> they have already voted against court reform, buying insurance across state lines and they voted across unlocking innovation at the state level that she just talked about. >> judge pirro: up next, part two of sean's interview with ambassador nikki haley. stay with us. i need a cookbook for my best friend. beginner or advanced? advanced. sweet or savory? both. apple strudle or spicy jammy? strudle! how's this? perfect. how'd you do that? it's what i do.

nobody knows foodies like we do... barnes & noble.

♪ speed when it welcome to "hannity." here now is part two of sean's interview with outgoing u.s. ambassador to the united nations, nikki haley.

take a look. >> sean: my good friend devin nunes, he's actually very smart, and he wrote in 2014, i don't think anybody disagrees that we have and i think all of that is true. i also know that, for decades, we have also been hacked many times within our government, and i am beyond frustrated that we allow that to happen to us. we have the intelligence to stop that and we haven't done that. it's a hostile regime, and how do we manage that. knowing what they try to do to us. >> i think it's very much like the saudi arabia situation.

it's in our interest to have communication and relationship with russia and they have made that very hard. and through the fact that we had to expel the russian diplomats, there have been all these different things that we had to do and for meddling in the elections. but we have to communicate what we will deal with and what we want. once we do that, we develop that relationship. there are times where we have to be very hard on russia. and my answer was it depends on the day. and my goal is, it's not because we are going to be soft on them, it's because i want the relationship back and they are starting to act better. a >> sean: obviously a nuclear armed iran or something the world cannot tolerate because it's too dangerous. but my greater long-term feel would be china and the military buildup has been massive. no doubt about it.

even this past week we've seen that china is moving to get trade concessions for the president on automobiles and soybeans, things that are important to our farmers and manufacturers. but what's interesting is the relationship that the president has because every time he supposed to have a 45 minute meeting, he goes on for four or five hours. there seems to have been a reporter that has been established in the even seem to have been helpful as it relates to north korea. but long-term, i don't know what to make of it. >> i think we always have to be cautious of china but i think what has happened that has become so much better is the president and president xi are actually friends. for that reason it hasn't been as hostile as it could be but at the same time the president is not going to back down and let china have an advantage. and i appreciate the strength that he has shown and i appreciate how he he continues to push hard. they need to know that they

can't steal our intellectual property, and they need to know that we are watching them. i think whether it's cyber or anything else, china is definitely the country to watch and it's definitely a country that we have to decide what that relationship will look like. but i will tell you, we are in a good place because the president has communication with president xi and he has asked used it to express good things and bad things. >> i think mike pompeo has been a rock star. i think eight you had an incredible run for yourself and i only see a lot of progress. i've known you a long time. what is next for ambassador haley? >> i think i'm going to take a few days to sleep in which i'm excited about. >> sean: a few days to sleep in? >> i'm always going to be involved in policy, i will

certainly review support president trump's reelection and it's been eight years of public service for me. i look forward to seeing -- >> have you given thought about running for president? your name is mentioned quite often. >> i have not and i know a lot of people talk about it. but the one thing i've always done is focusing on doing my job and doing it well. i have done that and will do that up until december 31st. but it's not something my husband and i have talked about, it's not anything that we are thinking. just because i think, you can't think too far in the future, you have to make the best of today and prove what you're capable of and then things fall into place after that. >> sean: thank you ambassador, great job on behalf of the country. we will see you soon. >> judge pirro: it coming up, trace gallagher with a live report surrounding the former

green beret who is being charged with murder for killing a suspected taliban involvement . suspected taliban involvement . that's ♪ ve me the chance to work for my degree i'll graduate debt free from a college where character is as important as class work and patriotic education is part of the curriculum we are hard work u and we are working for our american dream

♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup!

hi! this is jamie. we need some help. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

>> judge pirro: welcome back to "hannity." this weekend, president trump said he'd be reviewing the case of major max goldstein. charged with measuring filmic murdering a bomb maker. joins us live with the latest. speak a good evening judge >> it is very unclear if the president is considering a part in. being commander in chief means any involvement could be considered a lawful command, could result in the case being thrown out. major matthew goldstein once awarded the silver star valor for his actions in afghanistan and under consideration for the two distinguished service cross.

in 2014 when goldstein was interviewed with the cia and taking a polygraph, he acknowledged killing and alleged caliban bomb maker suspected of killing two marines. the bomb maker had been detained under strict rules of engagement. army was forced to release him. instead of letting him go, major goldstein tracked them down and killed him. the after his admission, the military launched an investigation be closed without filing charges for then he said this in 2016 of "special report." watch. >> did you kill the talon ban bomb maker? >> yes. >> you willingly offered up these details with the cia. >> that's correct. >> that's when it's all started. >> very much. >> the army has reopened the investigation and president trump is supporting goldstein sweden, quote, he

could be facing the death penalty after he admitted to killing a terrorist bomb maker while overseas. the pentagon causes a law enforcement matter and would respect the integrity of the process. >> judge pirro: unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening for the christmas season is here, if you're looking for a perfect gift, pick up a copy of my book. thank you for being with us. i will be back filling in for sean tomorrow night. "the ingraham angle" is up next. >> laura: judge jeanine, thank you so much. this is "the ingraham angle" from washington, d.c., today. does nancy pelosi care more about the plight of immigrant children than american children tonight? one angel mom says yes, she's here to tell us why. and proposing radical climate changes that could affect every aspect of your life. i had, we debate the