tonight from beautiful tokyo and the "two rooms" bar and grill. we are traveling to kyoto tomorrow so we will join you from there. t we'll back tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. happy wednesday morning from tokyo. sean hannity right now. >> sean: happy wednesday morning. i love this, tucker in japan. hope you're having a great time. great coverage, thank you for being with us, welcome to "hannity" tonight. breaking tonight, it appears one of the world's most powerful companies is clearly hell-bent on stopping donald trump from winning in 2020, or anyone like him from ever winning in the future. it's all on tape. we have a full report coming up later, right here exclusively on this show. you do not want to miss this tape.o first, we do have breaking news on multiple fronts in our quest for equal justice, and of course, to hold those who abusea power, involved in incredible corruption, accountable. as we turn our attention tonight first to judicial watch, they

have filed a brand-new freedom t of information act request with the fbi and former disgraced fbi director andrew mccabe, related to his book, which is filled with deep state revisionist history, in my opinion. according to judicial watch, so far refusing to hand over documents relating to an apparent prepublication review requirement by the fbi and any book by mccabe. what secrets did in the bureau mccabe revealing? comey, strzok, page, they are the driving force behind this attempt to overthrow the results of the 2016 election after many tried to rig it ahead ahead of time. ever since, by the way, mccabe has been trying to rewrite history. remember, he is at the center of this apparent attempt now by many to undermine a duly-elected president. he served as jim comey's right-hand man for years, at the very center of the fbi's witch hunt into so-called, not

provable, four separate investigations, trump-russia collusion. remember, march 16th, 2018, he was fired from the fbi, why? for lying, leaking multiple times, under oath.h. i thought people got put in jail for that. republican. i guess only a few are republican. read that 2018, doj inspector general, that horowitz report, mccabe is mentioned a whopping 800 times, and not in a favorable way. it says he "lacked candor" -- in other words, he lied. and remember, there is so much more evidence we have not even begun to see yet, so much more information. the forthcoming horowitz ig report on fisa abuse, now he is interviewing christopher steele. we talked about six separate, buckets, exculpatory material that will be released. gang of 8 material. the question is not if, it's just a matter of when. there is no stopping this at this point. i am told tonight, the biggest shoe to drop may be coming tomorrow.

what i know is more than i can say, but i will be able to give you a sneak preview with john solomon. we will have more in my opening monologue in just a minute. first, joining us now with this breaking news is judicial watch president tom fitton.it tom, let's talk about this request. great questions. how long are they stonewalling? and this might get to thewa heart -- what are they trying to hide? >> yeah, it's been stonewalling for months.>> the same thing happened with comey's book, we sued and were trying to get documents for the prepublication review process for comey. look, the fbi is very secretive when it comes to text messages. they don't want us to see text messages. they don't want us to see obama's 302, the interview report of his interview by the fbi in the sale of his senate seat. when it comes to allowing comey and mccabe to publish confidences they gained as a result of their work at the fbi, it's a rubber stamp process. so we want to figure out, why

the double standard? secrecy in terms of government accountability, but they're willing to let these guys who have records ofab corruption, as you point out, go out and say whatever they want about meetings with the president and things like that, that typically we would have to sue for under the freedom of information act, and we probably wouldn't get. >> sean: yeah. what is really important is the freedom of information -- last night, the american center for law and justice, what they discovered, my little birdies are telling me that we might get a lot more information as it relates to unmasking, surveillance, all of these things -- all the things we talked about almost from the beginning, march of 2017.gs what do you see on the horizon for you? >> you know, the question is, is the fbi going to continue to stonewall documents about what andrew mccabe was texting about, what strzok and page werel texting about? and the fbi also has been forced by a court to turn over email communications between strzok and page, they haven't been able

to withhold those, and those are coming out almost monthly. this scandal is only deepening because of new information we are learning as a result of the freedom of information actee transparency law. congress is frozen because the house democrats are trying to protect their involvement in this most significant government corruption scandal in american history, so it is up to independent groups on the outside, and reporters, to figure out what really went on. and this is the way to do it through foia, and other reporting that john solomon and sara carter are doing. >> sean: thanks so much, tom fitton, judicial watch. thanks for being with us, we really appreciate it. we are continuing to lift the curtain on what we say is actai two -- remember, the mueller report is over, the attorney general determined, and of course the mueller report determined, no collusion. no obstruction. it's done. he's done.in they've had their time. fourth separate investigation, but the deep state's day of reckoning, it has only begun.

the curtain has come up, as we just mentioned, the american center for law and justice, yesterday providing the most damning evidence yet of the rush by clapper's dni, to, in thest last weeks of the obama administration, totally, completely overhaul, burden the incoming administration with something they would never burden themselves with, the entire intel sharing apparatus, which goes from three agencies sharing information -- oh, to 17? why? to undermine the incoming president. this was happening with a sense of urgency just days before donald trump's inauguration. the dni, the nsa, with the approval t of the attorney general, loretta lynch, they wanted raw intelligence into as many hands inside the deep state as possible. why? clearly to make it harder tord seek out the leakers, harder to trace the information, harder to find out who did what, when, and where? and the obama deep state cabal did not do this for eight years. they would never want to do that to themselves. e and the level of intensity, urgency, and decision to do

this -- remember, this was barack obama's executive order, 12333, in the final moments, drastically expanding the sharing of this raw intel, signal intel, from three agencies to 17, just days before president trump is inaugurated. they were literally scrambling to get it done before -- we've got to get it done before january 20th. the day donald trump became president. using an executive order, as i said, 12333 -- well, as itsum basis, with no input from the incoming administration. of course, this just the latest evidence, now a big piece of the puzzle, of what is the biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal, and yes, abuse of the intelligence weapons that only 1% -- the 99% do incredible work every day to keep us safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, but they cannot turn those powerful tools on the american people. fisa abuse, the dirty dossier, oh, a rigged investigation, clear crimes committed, clear

obstruction of justice. the use of secret informants abroad, unmasking, raw intelligence, all of this, leaking raw intelligence, there was a 350% increase by obamae officials just in the year 2016. why is that? it all now connects, inch by inch, we are moving closer and closer to what is going to be real accountability. big news coming, possibly, likely as soon as tomorrow. it may be the biggest missing piece of the puzzle yet. i am told this will be a nexus that has been missing that is huge. and just breaking moments ago, chairman nadler and schiff announced special counsel mueller will testify pursuant to a subpoena on wednesday, july 17, 2019. we will have more of this in my monologue in just a minute, bute first, joining us now with reaction to all of this is "the hill"'s john solomon.oi i think we have a lot of the same friends. just guessing, you probably know a lot about what is very

possibly going to break tomorrow. one, they let you get without revealing sources, not ready, but it is very clear is coming. it goes back -- if i remember correctly, to this show, and you and sara carter in march of 2017. >> that's exactly right. if you remember, that is when we began reporting on the marked increase in the 2016 election in unmaskings by the obama administration, and eventually we learned that samantha power, the u.n. ambassador, was the unmasker-in-chief, making hundreds of requests to take the names of americans that are supposed to be redacted in intelligence reports, and unmasking the names. tonight, i have these documents, that i'm going through, sean, these are the official emails samantha power, and what i can report is that samantha power has the same sort of anti-trump bias in her government emails that we saw with pete strzok and lisa page at the fbi.

the fbi was investigating trumpt and they were railing against him in their official government emails and text messages. i can tell you that samantha power and her colleagues were t doing the same thing on the official state email system, and when you see her tomorrow, what she was saying about trump at the same time the unmaskings were going on, i'm sure it's going to trouble the american public. >> sean: let's go back to the american center for law and justice yesterday, their report. and get your reaction, how big a piece to the puzzle is that? because executive order 12333, again, on this program, we saw this as a big issue in 2017. now that we have discovered a rigged investigation, we also saw an effort to use a phony russian dossier -- not verified -- to influence an election, leaked by intel people to influence the election, russian disinformation, as "the new york times" suspects, and then it went further in terms of being used as the bulkd of information to spy, not just on carter page, but the trump

campaign, the trump transition, and then the trump presidency. you put all of that together, and now it takes on a whole new level of significance because why would you go in the final weeks of your presidency, sign an order that shares intel with 17 agencies, instead of three, and an urgency to do it for the incoming administration, rules you would never live under. >> it's remarkable. think about this, the u.n. ambassador, who doesn't reallye have an intelligence operation, was unmasking all the time under obama, and then in the final days of the administration,ra after two years of the intelligence community raising concerns about who should have access to this information, after the obama administration went to the fisa court and belatedly disclosed hundreds of violations just before the election, they make the decision that they are going to disseminate sensitive intelligence to more people -- not less people -- expand the universe of people who can gain it and potentially leak it at the beginning of the trump administration. that is the concern, and i think

the documents that jay sekulow's group got yesterday are a significant find, they put into perspective this rushed effort to spread intelligence to people whose jobs did not require it. >> sean: all right, thanks, john solomon, investigative reporter, also vice president -- managing vice president of "the hill." also developing tonight -- it never ends -- the president continues to make clear tehran will be held accountable for any further aggression and any more provocations. it's not going to be tolerated. the day before used the words "they will be obliterated." take a look. >> you have a back-and-forth with iran this morning via l tweet. what message do you want to sent to him? >> there is no message. i will tell you what the message is: when they are ready, they will have to let us know. when they are ready, they will let us know.w. very simple. >> negotiate? >> ready to do whatever. doesn't make any difference. whenever they are ready, i'm ready. it's too bad this is happening, they are living badly right now. their country is not doing well

economically at all. that can be changed very quickly, very easily. but they have to get rid of the hostility from the leadership. >> sean: the president has been very clear, very consistent, as he said in the campaign, he does not believe in these foreign entanglements. he doesn't want boots on the ground, and he has shown a patience and perseverance -- remember, the military computers of tehran got hit hard this weekend, and of course, all options, as the president has said, are on the table. but he understands it ista important, imperative, that this country recalibrate how we fighr wars. president clearly understands an america first foreign policy does mean avoiding unnecessary, endless boots on the ground conflicts. it does mean that america now must develop -- which is why he fought so hard to increase dramatically the defense department budget, this next generation of weaponry. sophisticated weaponry that will outpace any potential enemy, ever. it means continuing to be energy independent.

think about this, the strait of hormuz has never beeno less important to theou united states. we are energy independent because of the president's policies.. for the first time in 75 years, we are now a net exporter of energy. wow, that's important. the strait of hormuz, strategically, prior to this,or was the lifeblood of the world economy. not ours. also tonight, another big story we are following, because breaking tonight, we have some of the clearest evidence yet, efforts by the search giant toof literally meddle in our election to try and stop trump in 2020. an apparent whistle-blower inside of the company google has come forward, speaking to project veritas to expose just how dangerous this radical, liberal silicon valley agenda really is. take a close look at all of this. shocking. >> after donald trump won theth election in 2016, the company

did a complete 180 of what they thought was important. before they thought self-expression and givinge everyone a voice was important, but now they are like, hey, there's a lot of hate, and because there is a lot of hate, misogyny, and racism, that isha why donald trump was elected. so we need to fix that. w s we need to start policing our users because we don't want to have an outcome like that to happen again. >> sean: now think about this. we do have regulations about in-kind contributions. when you think of the massive amount of influence and power google has, and if they are going to use this power to favor one party over another -- it would be incalculable. in terms of the donation, the contribution to the dnc, this new crop of radical, extreme, socialist democrats. and it appears that google is literally training their algorithms to turn out more votes for democrats.

little doubt they have the ability to mold voting behaviors in a major, massive way. google may be creating a far left filter to just try and steal an election. and just let that sink in for just a second, all of that power, because what is clear is just how powerful a tool google is. literally, over a trillion searches a year. project veritas' james o'keefe says more whistle-blowers are coming. he usually goes day one, day two, day three -- we kind of know how james o'keefe works. and we will continue to monitor the story. but first, joining us with reaction to other breaking newsu that we have, robert mueller has agreed to testify pursuant to a subpoena. fox news correspondent at large geraldo rivera, former secret service agent and fox news contributor dan bongino. dan, i don't think we can go back to geraldo on tehran, because i think we both love him so much that we may end up having a brawl the next time we see each other, which is not

true. but in all seriousness, let's start with mueller. mueller was clear, the ag was clear, mueller's report on the issue of collusion, conspiracy -- that was the fourth time we heard no. now the democrats want a fifth bite at the apple. now they are harassing and abusing their power, they are harassing the office of the president. this isn't oversight, this isre now try and harass the president time, and more importantly, the ag said that decision is determined by him, rod rosenstein, and even the office of legal counsel weighed in. no obstruction. so i guess the question here is, mueller has said -- i'm justn going to tell you what is in the report again and again and again, so why? >> well, this may be a golden opportunity. number one, why -- nadler is not really that bright, sean, he screwed this thing up from the start. from bringing in people from the nixon era who proceeded to

humiliate themselves in front of congressional hearings, tove asking hope hicks, calling her mrs. lewandowski. nadler has humiliated himself, and the democrats know it. why are they doing this? because nadler is running it. but here's the key question, this is why it is going to blow up in their face. one republican, i'm sure, is going to ask mueller the key question: when exactly did you know the collusion fairy tale was a hoax? the answer, if mueller is honest, is the day i hireded andrew weissmann, because andrew weissmann, sean, was briefed a year earlier, 2016, on -- >> sean: 2016. his pitbull, number one guy -- >> yes! >> sean: by the way, he was that hillary's victory party. also "license to lie," sidney powell's huge book, exposing all of his corruption, there for the world to read, and i urge people to read it. geraldo, after the nine and a half minute -- well, robert mueller statement, that

then attorney general barr anden the special counsel's office had to clean up badly, and i think frankly, the attorney generalhe threw mueller a lifeline, because didn't remember what he said, or he didn't write it, ore he doesn't know, which is even worse. why do i suspect this is notot going to go well for him at all? >> it isn't. we are going back down memory lane. nadler and schiff remind me of high school athletes, they graduated from high school, and now nobody recognizes them. they are offended that they are outside the mainstream of public consciousness now. nobody knows who they are or what they are doing. they have been forgotten, so they are desperate questing for attention, they're dragging back robert mueller.ra robert mueller has already told them, in no uncertain terms, that his testimony will stick exactly to the mueller report. it is there all in writing, if people are truly interested in it, i'm interested in the conclusion. the conclusion said there is no collusion. that the president of the

united states is not a traitor to the united states. the president of the united states is not a spy for vladimir putin. the president of the united states has been wrongly accused -- for two and a half years, had his administration just so bothered, so harassed by these political operatives -- >> sean: let me ask you this. >> and yet he has managed to be successful. >> sean: let's imagine jim jordan, mark meadows, matt gaetz, doug collins and others have a chance to question mueller.r they want to know when he knew there was no collusion. you had a broad mandate, when did you have time for fara violations a that are never invoked, and taxi medallions, and loan applications, and tax violations -- by the way, always pay your taxes, don't lie on loan applications, we've got ity but with the broad mandate, he didn't look at all into the russian dossier, what

"the new york times" suspects was always russian disinformation? how does he answer, legitimately, that question? because i don't think there is any good answer to that question. >> nor is there a good answer -- i'm sorry, dan. go ahead. >> i just wanted to bring up this point. remember, mueller was hired in may of 2017, sean. in july of 2017, horowitz turns over to mueller's team the peter strzok texts. how does mueller continue his investigation at that point? notice what he does after that, mueller doesn't stop the investigation -- he doubled down. he raids manafort's house in the morning, he goes and picks up papadopoulos at the airport,, has his fbi agents do it. mueller's investigation was a hoax from the beginning. the report is the same. >> sean: i've got another question. geraldo, how does he possiblye. answer the question -- andrew weissmann, his pitbull, okay, he was at hillary's t victory party. andrew weissmann is pitbull, "license to lie" talks about how he withheld exculpatory

evidence, how tens of thousands of americans, lost his job, lost 9-0 in the supreme court, sent four merrill executives that were innocent to jail, that was overturned by the fifth circuit, and also hired hillary's attorney at the clinton foundation, and they were all democrats. he couldn't find one republican? how is mueller going to answer that one? i don't think that is going to be very comfortable forer robert mueller. >> how is he going to answer the question: how dare you ruin the lives of people like general michael flynn? how dare you -- >> sean: bingo! >> when you knew there was no collusion with the russians, you stuck with this thing, you made these people work themselves into perjury traps, you slammed them with these procedural offenses, you wrecked their lives, you distracted the american people. i think that the price that this testimony will cost the democrats will be grievous to them. they will rue the day thatde nadler and schiff let their ambition get ahead of their common sense, their political

sense, and drag this man back into center stage of thehe american public. >> sean: now we know that flynn talks to the deputy fbi director, mccabe, because fbi guys are coming to see him. he asked, do i need a lawyer? oh, no, you don't need a lawyer. okay. then comey is bragging, in his way, oh, i took full advantage of the chaos, something i would never do in the obama or bush administrations.s. i sent my guys in there, what, to screw a 33-year veteran who served in combat, this country? and then there is more to it -- >> and they did it in the white house! they did it in the white house! that's how insane this was! >> don't tell anybody what is going on. >> sean: they knew everything he said, and said you don't need a lawyer. and the fbi still didn't think he lied to him! but he got bankrupt, threatenede his kid and his family, we will take your son down with you, and he fell on the sword like any good father would do.

dan bongino, i know you would do it. geraldo would do it. i would do it. >> yeah, and sean, even worse, you look at peter strzok's texts from the day lindsey graham asked sally yates and of flynn, peter strzok and his texts to lisa page says hey, this unmasking thing is the incorrect narrative. sean, i ask you, what do you think he means by that? is it possible there was a fisa on flynn, too? i think that might be one of the next shoes to drop, stay tuned for that one. >> sean: wait a minute, it was leaked intelligence on flynn,, raw, leaked intelligence, and they told him no lawyer, bragged about setting him -- all right, i've got to let you both go. geraldo, thank you. dan bongino, thank you. now on the phone to react to this breaking news, there is a lot of it, good, mueller has agreed to testify on july 17th., he is the council for the president, president trump's

attorney, jay sekulow, and on with us last night. jay, i have a few questions for mueller that i think guys like jim jordan, mark meadows, and doug collins and matt gaetz would ask, when did he know there was no collusion? why did he have such a broad mandate to focus on violations, taxi medallions, loan applications, years and years and decades-old tax issues? he knew about the dirty russian dossier, how does he answer the question about why he never, ever, you know, looked into that? i don't think there's a good answer for him. >> the first thing he needs to answer is his own conflicts of interest. he was interviewed for the fbibi director's job, didn't get it, and becomes special counsel the next day. f so that is one.di as the president said, he had a business dispute that was long-standing, so you have that one. and then you have -- it was interesting in the last panel, the discussion aboutas peter strzok and lisa page.

i've asked this question: what happened to the evidence that they gathered for over a year on this counterintelligence investigation? so the special counsel is going to have to answer that. what's interesting is bob mueller said my report is my testimony. and what is the report? the whole basis upon which this investigation began was concerns over collusion, conspiracy with the russians and the trump campaign. and what was the conclusion? there was no collusion, conspiracy with the trump campaign. that was the legal conclusion reached by bob mueller. as it relates to obstruction of justice, bill barr said so perfectly correct, legally, no obstructive intent. so those are the two questions. the fact that bob mueller is going to testify, i don't think you are going to see anything different in his testimony than what is in his report. which at the end of the day is no collusion and no obstruction. >> sean: but here's the problem, multiple people --le >> republicans have the right to

ask questions -- hard questions -- about strzok and page. who gave conflicting testimony right now? who fired peter strzok? andrew mccabe said he did. bob mueller's office said he did. one of them did and one of them did not, so somebody is not telling the truth. we will find that out.s that's number one. you put that in the context of everything, it will be an interesting hearing. i don't think the conclusion is going to change anything of what happens here, but people willil hear from bob mueller. i don't think we will get anything different than theng statement he made a couple weeks back, but he's going to answer some real questions, ones that have gone unanswered so far. >> sean: jay, i watched that nine and a half minute press conference, and god bless our media mob, conspiracy theorists, liars, hoaxsters, because for a few hours they thought they had it all. wait a minute, mueller said thed reason he couldn't consider indictment because of doj policy, and constitutional issues.

and then a few hours later, there was a press release. it was from the attorney general barr, and it was from the special counsel's office, and basically said, oh, never mind, we said just the opposite many, many times before. and i thought it was a great embarrassment to robert mueller -- and i will be honest, as i watched him, i got the feeling, watching back, he hadn't either read the statement, was stumbling over the statement, or didn't remember what he said.me >> here is why he was stumbling over that -- the whole report is incoherent. okay? legally incoherent, lets be honest. a legal theory that was absurd, obstruction was a theory out there, that was absurd. complicated by the fact -- we couldn't prove you innocent, therefore we are making allegations. that is not what the law is. everybody forgets the part where he did say, we are not saying the president committed a crime,

because the president did not commit a crime, but we are nottt exonerating him, either. the job of the prosecutor is no, to exonerate. they either bring a case or they do not. they did not, that is whato is important here. bob mueller is going to have to testify that they did not.ng i can't imagine it's going to be any different than his report, but i'm going to say this again, a lot of questions that have to be asked here and have to be answered. in the scope of his testimony, we'll find out what that will be, but i don't expect it to be any different than this report. at the end of the day, what the report finds: no collusion, conspiracy, however you want to phrase it. no obstruction. bill barr said with rod rosenstein that there is no obstructive intent. a lot of the theories floatedio around by the media were, in my view, absurd, but at the end of the day, the case is closed, it's done. now testifying, he will have to answer questions -- and hard questions for him to answer. i've always wanted to know what happened to the evidence -- what happened to peter strzok's

evidence that he gathered -- >> sean: by the way, jay, let me interrupt. remember, remember -- strzok and page's phones to the manufacturer. >> how did peter strzok's phone, when it was turned into the special counsel's office, get wiped out, nobody kept a record of what was on it? how is that even possible? >> sean: mccabe is lying -- >> it's the same thing. this is absurd. in the real world, this is not supposed to happen. how did bob mueller's office allow that to take place, that peter strzok, at that point was fired, phone was put on a shelf, not cataloged. and the whole issue was the messages going back and forth, so there is a lot that has to be answered, but there is another one. i can make a list of a hundred questions, and i'm sure the congressmen can, as well, and will. >> sean: i think you should write a column about how does he justify andrew weissmann and

hillary's victory party, didn't turn out that way. only democrats -- >> you know about that, sean -- >> sean: andrew weissmann's atrocious history -- >> even with all of the staff he had -- listen, hang on a second. the 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, all of this, the basis on the investigation was what? collusion, conspiracy. and what did bob mueller conclude? there was none. even with those people. and i want to know the same thing -- when did you know this was not the case? it had to be early on, because even peter strzok said early on, there is no there there. that was peter strzok's words. of course, they can't show that in his text messages anymore because they let the phone get wiped out when he left. >> sean: jay sekulow -- >> reissued one of the phones to somebody else, because the federal government can't afford an iphone. >> sean: this is not going to work out the way they think, trust me.>> jay sekulow, counsel to the president, also big news yesterday. there is other news coming up

tomorrow that i'm hearing about that is going to take what you were able to get from the freedom of information act request, the aclj has, and take it even further. jay, thank you for being with us. joining us now with more reaction to breaking news, mueller has agreed to testify, is senate judiciary chairmanan lindsey graham. yesterday, by the way, you said the american people must be able to see it all. i agree, and you can make it happen, but it was your key. question to the attorney general that i have played over and over again. i don't have time with all of the news. but i've played it probably, between radio and tv, 60 times. and the question was crucial -- did robert mueller have the resources? did he have the time? then you said, do you care about possibly rigged investigation, fisa abuse? i will let you take it from there.

>> bottom line, after all of the looking, and all the time and money you spent, did trump collude with thene russians? no. do you stand by your report? yes. did you turn it over to the attorney general about obstruction? and the attorney general said i did, and i'm not going to revisit it. so it is case closed for me. they can do anything they want to in the house, and i think it will blow up in their faces. >> sean: i think -- let's go u back to some of the other questions. how do you justify hiring hillary's attorney, onlyow democrats? andrew weissmann? he couldn't find one republican? not one?ts >> it will blow up in theiran face. this will blow up in their face. the conclusions can't change, t there is no collusion, that was with the whole thing was about. nobody on earth could bring the obstruction case based on these facts. the president gave 1.4 million documents to mueller. his lawyer testified for 30 hours, he made everybody available to mueller thatt mueller wanted to talk to, and he submitted -- answered questions in writing.

so this president did nothing to stop mueller from finding the truth. >> sean: if you go back, i mentioned to jay sekulow, the nine and a half minute press conference he did, and boy, the media was so quick, they thought conspiracy theory came back to life. it's serious and significant, though. i watched it, and number one, ii knew he had said the opposite, waiting for people to catch up,n and number two, when you think about -- i thought attorney general barr was being very gracious to the special counsel, threw him a lifeline. they released a joint statement basically saying, i didn't mean what i said for nine and a half minutes. that ought to be very troublesome for robert mueller. >> right. but i hope people understand what you're talking about,t, because when mueller came in to tell barr that he could decide, he couldn't make the decision about obstruction, he was going to leave it to barr, and barr

asked him point blank if ite is because of the doj policy, you don't indict a sitting president?po he said, no, complicated facts and complicated law would not allow him to reach a conclusion. so after two years, x amount of dollars, fbi agents, if he couldn't decide on obstruction of justice, why do you think barr would reach a different conclusion, other than you can't prosecute? >> sean: okay, so let me go -- i want to ask you specifically, because you were the one saying it last week. first of all, i'm very happy you pledged the american people, all of these issues, starting with the rigged investigation into hillary -- and by the way, i don't think destroy the subpoenaed emails, clean the hard drive, i would say that is probably the best case of obstruction of justice i've ever seen, but it only matters if it is donald trump. but you are going to go back to the beginning. tell us what else, specifically, you are interested in that you will get to the bottom of. >> i want to see the horowitz

report about, did the doj and fbi defraud the fisa court? did they lie to the fisa court to get a warrant against carter page? i want to find out why they opened the counterintelligence investigation against trump, and i really do believe the only reason clinton wasn't charged with anything is because if you wanted her to win, how do youar charge her with a crime in the middle of the campaign? >> sean: you know, these arear really good questions, and i think the fisa abuse is the tip of the iceberg. but think about this, we already know what christopher steele is going to say, because he has already said it. so here's the big question. so in january of 2017, there is james comey in trump tower, saying we have this dossier, it is salacious, but it is unverified. january of '17, before he becomes president. october 2016, he signs the first fisa application that we now know, because of steele's testimony, i have no idea if any of it is true, under threat of perjury, that means it's an

unverifiable document. at the top of a fisa warrant, i've been told, i've never seen one, it actually saysat "verified." now the question is, does that sound like a premeditated fraud on the fisa court judges? we know comey lied in october 2016, january 2017, but he had to lie in october 2016 because steele undercuts his story. >> what we know is mccabe said without the dossier, there would be no warrant against carter page. here is the question to ask anybody: is the dossier verified to this day? we now know, steele said i don't know if it's true or not. comey tells the president in january of 2017, salacious, unverified, it's the same document they said was reliable and trustworthy in october. it doesn't add up. the dossier is a bunch of

garbage. i can tell you without any doubt it's a bunch of garbage, and it was used to get a warrant against an american citizen, and somebody is going to be held accountable for that. >> sean: all right, senator graham, great to see you. by the way, trey gowdy said he is going to treat us. >> i will believe that when i see it. >> sean: he's been very reluctant to come on my show. only when jason chaffetz is hosting. i'm a fan of trey gowdy, he's a great guy. >> i will believe it when i see it.n [laughter] >> sean: i think we will all have to pay, because if hannityb pays, there's going to be a controversy somewhere. i will be in trouble. all right, good to see you senator. joining us now, fox news contributor karl rove. i want to look at the magnitude of this through a political prism. we are going to watch this week, because we got a preview, speaking of south carolina, this weekend, of how radical, how extreme this democratic -- new democratic socialist party has

become. but more importantly, they areha all creating a circular firing squad. they are all trying to out-out-out-socialist the nextll one and destroy their opponents. but you add to this, this all happened on biden-obama's watch. you add to this devin nunes warned about this in 2014, the russians would do this. they let it happen. they did nothing to prevent it. >> well, that's not exactly right, because we have president obama saying that he was going to speak sharply toe vladimir putin. i'm sure putin left that meeting with president obama shaking in his boots and asking himself why he ever even thought about trying to interfere in the u.s. elections.hyn i'm obviously being a little sarcastic. president obama now says -- and his defenders -- now say theti reason he did not issue a more public denunciation of the russian efforts was he didn't want to draw attention to it. but look, you are right, this happened on their watch.

i hope, and every indication is the government is going to take firm steps to prevent any foreign actors from interfering in the 2020 presidential election, and i'm sure every american thinks that is wise. >> sean: karl, you're a smart guy, you've been around politics a round or two, maybe longer. like me, you see the democrats, so excited to have mueller, and i'm thinking, i know jim jordan, mark meadows, i've read their closed-door questioning of many people involved in this, it's been fairly -- to be honest -- brutal, and they have exposed a lot. i don't believe in the things we talked about, how does hewe justify hiring hillary's attorney? only democrats? how does he answer the question about the nine and a half minute press conference that he screwed up badly? how does he mention the question they have time for fara, taxi medallions, loan applications, and taxes? a broad mandate that didn't

include a dirty russian dossier paid for by the other candidate? >> well, that is one way to look at it. can i look at it from a different way? since the mueller report came out, two things have happened:? the president's favorables and unfavorables have stabilized, and the percentage of people who say they don't want to go through impeachment and don't think impeachment is justified has risen dramatically. so what has happened with the mueller report is the american people heard all about it, many went out and bought copies of it, many heard about it on cable tv and on the internet, for enormous amount of time, and what they did is they decided, essentially -- unless you are a hardcore democrat, unless you have already condemned donald trump not only to impeachment, but to prison, if you are a normal and ordinary american who doesn't have the strong partisan opinions, the mueller report lead you to say "it's over!" this is a problem for the democrats.it the longer they talk about impeachment, the more they

appear to be bent upon investigating the president and that alone, the more the american people are going to conclude, hey, those people don't have our best interests at heart. and think about this. the number one message of the democrats today is "investigatea and impeach." number two message, growing up, getting close to it, isd bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, democratic presidential candidate message of "free everything." free college, we're going to forgive your debts, guaranteed basic income, thousand dollar check every month for every american, medicare for all, abolish your private insurance,e have the government take it over -- i mean, free everything! guaranteed federal job, all of these lunatic proposals that we hear from the campaign trail. that is the second message. where is the winning message for the democrats in either one of those two things? mueller's appearance before the senate -- before the house, excuse me. i'm sure republicans are going to ask him tough questions, and they deserve answers. the general impression is going to be, this is over. why do we keep talking about it?

>> sean: by the way, he said all he is going to do is repeat that.he >> absolutely. >> sean: do it accurately and i not have the attorney general bail him out in a joint statement later. karl rove, good to see you, thanks for being with us. here with reaction to all of the breaking news -- yeah, robert mueller agreed to testify. former independent counsel -- they changed the special counsel law, ken starr is with us. you worked under a very different -- very different circumstances. you didn't have an option as it relates to testifying. the issue, you are compelled to release this. interestingly, it was people like jerry nadler who didn't want your report to be public, although the law compelled it, and you took a lot of heat, if , recall correctly, mr. starr, fob doing your job. >> that's exactly right, sean. for me, it was the longest day back in november of 1998.

and i think bob mueller is going to now have a very similar experience, and it will be just as it were for me, from the democratic side of the aisle at the time, they are going to be -- as you have been saying,g, and senator graham was saying -- there are going to be very hard questions for bob mueller. and that's right. it's the way it should be. i should have gone up to testify. and bob mueller should go up to testify. i greatly respect senator graham that it is over, but in light of the fact that some 70 democrats in the house of representatives are inclined for impeachment, this is a logical step. and i think it is going to be an important day for the american people. >> sean: well, i do think there are some very, very tough, difficult questions for bob mueller. i don't understand, for the life of me, with that broad mandate, as i've been saying. fara violations, decades-old -- by the way, everyone pay your taxes, don't lie on loan applications. we've got it. don't lie under oath.

but how do you ignore a bought and paid for russian dossier that was leaked to the american people by, we believe, the intelligence community, to impact the election. russian lies. whose own author says he doesn't know if any of it is true, which makes it unverifiable, but becomes the basis to spy on not only carter page, and there was other spying abroad, but the trump campaign, transition, and presidency. now that was all based on something that is unverifiable, based on the own author. how did he ignore that, sir? >> it's a very good question. and i think what bob muellerod will say is, look, this was handed to me, i didn't haveob occasion to go back and look ato how it came to me. just hey, here is the job, now go do the job. as opposed to looking to the background of the job. these are fair questions you are

raising, sean. so many questions about the investigation itself. the why, the wherefore, you have raised some of them here tonight.n i think it is going to be an important day. i keep going back to the concept of accountability, because when bob mueller held his press conference but didn't take questions, i think we should be concerned about that. why won't you respond to questions from the press? and now i think it is most appropriate that he goes over to the people's house, both sides of the aisle -- democrats, republicans -- wanted this. and i'm glad it is going to happen., >> sean: do you think he has a hard time answering the people he appointed? weissmann? how do you appoint hillary clinton's attorney? how do you only appoint democrats, no republicans?in how does he answer that? >> yeah, and i've raised concerns about that, really,

from the get-go. just very briefly, sean, when questions were raised back during my investigation that ohb you are a republican, i reached out specifically to the other side of the aisle because the appearance of fairness and evenhandedness in the administration, it's very, very important. so we brought in sam dash of watergate fame on the democratic side, brought in a deputy, registered democrat, voted for president clinton. it's important to give the public assurances that what you are doing is fair. and it's evenhanded. that is, i think, a very important question for bob mueller to answer. >> sean: i was not impressed with the nine and a half minute, disastrous press conference. this is not going to be what the democrats think, i can tell you that. although bob mueller's people apparently, according to fox news, just breaking, the

subpoena, only stick to the four corners of the report. he's not going to say a thing. when we come back, our top story of the night. f mueller will testify in front of congress, and much more. ♪ -motor? -it's pronounced "mo-tour." for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

compare comcast business to your current provider. my current service provider does not provide half of what you provide. and to know that i could save money?

i'd be thrilled. this sounds like a whole business package, which would be incredible. so what are you guys waiting for? let's do it. (laughs) comcast business gives you a full suite of products with great performance and value. get fast, reliable internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network for less than at&t. that's 120 dollars less a year. better, faster. i mean sign me up. comcast business. beyond fast.

♪ >> sean: all right, more on tonight's big, breaking news.gh we are learning from our own a chad pergram that a mueller subpoena is "a friendly subpoena." the special counsel will stick to the four corners of the report in his july testimony. if he goes awry, and may not work out well, like that press conference. joining us now, former florida attorney general pam bondi, fox news contributor lisa boothe. i laid out my questions i have, and i think he is going to have a very hard time answering them. pam, i want to pick your legal

brain. what are questions you would like to have answered? >> i've been a state prosecutor, and i've also been a special'v prosecutor assigned to cases. first of all, you don't basically kiss and tell. you don't do a report, and then come out and talk about it. his report is his report. and if he wanted to say, the president should have been charged, but for executive privilege, he should have said that. and i think bill barr would be a great person to come in to say he told him otherwise. bill barr said mueller told him flat out that that was not why he was not charging the president, because of executive privilege. there was nothing there, no evidence of collusion. you know what questions i would like to ask him? why did you keep all of these horrible investigators on theal case after you found out that they were totally biased against the president of the united states? i would love to cross examine

mueller.th >> sean: i would like to knowld why he sent strzok and page's phones back to the manufacturer to get cleaned. by the way, did he fire them or was it mccabe? because mccabe says it wasn't mueller. >> he needs to tread very carefully in this hearing, or he is going to be the subject of an investigation. >> sean: let me tell you something, i don't think bill barr can bail him out anymore than he already did, that was my read on it. was that your read? >> sean, i've got a pretty simple question for robert mueller: when did you know there was no collusion, and why did the investigation goio past that point? i think a lot of people want to know the answer. i would also call into question his political motivation. what motivated him to go out and give that press conference if it wasn't just to give more fuel to democrats for impeachment? his report had already been out in the public domain almost in full.n the attorney general and then deputy attorney general rod rosenstein already came to the conclusion that there wasn'e

enough evidence for obstruction of justice, so what motivation did he have going out there, giving a press conference, when all of this information was already out there, if it wasn't politically motivated to help out the democrats? >> sean: that's such a great point. lisa, thank you. great job, by the way, on "the five." >> thanks, sean. >> sean: pam is going to stay with us. breaking news from capitol hill. chad pergram, he's one of these geniuses. i've never been on the fox computers, because, well, i don't want to be on it. thankfully, i have people that help me with that. but he sends out the most detailed, fascinating, play-by-play, everything that goes on on capitol hill -- this guy is so checked into everything. i'm amazed at how well you do. there are a lot of lazy newspeople, they don't do anything. they don't even pick up the phone.

they missed the biggest story in our lifetime, in my view. but you did a great job, i wanted to let our audience know that. what do you got? >> thank you. right now, they're trying tour process what this subpoena means. i'm told in the past couple of minutes from senior sources that this is a friendly subpoena -- in other words, this was before they went in. i'm told bob mueller would only appear if he was subpoenaed, and will stick to the four corners of his report. that is what he said in a statement several weeks ago when they released the report. of course, you can imagine democrats wanting to get at him and see if there was distance between him and william barr, the attorney general. the other question is what republicans are going to ask, they want to know the genesis of the steele dossier, the page and strzok text messages, one source said to me tonight, a republican source, how many informants were on the campaign, and what were they looking at? those are going to be key questions, and if bob mueller sticks to the four corners of that, republicans are going to say he doesn't look very credible. this is the comment from jerry nadler and adam schiff,

they put this together, they said "americans have demanded to hear directly from the special counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined," and that is why they want him to appear. that's very key. and i will tell you, sean, a wee had some explosive hearings on capitol hill before, you thing james comey testifying, jeff sessions, in the senate a couple of years ago. you think about michael cohen in february -- this will dwarf that. the magnitude of this will be off the richter scale, sean. >> sean: you know, it's amazing. it's funny, i talk a lot, and i've actually played on radio and tv, pam, i have a tape recording of real russia collusion.n the cowardly schiff talking to somebody he thinks is a russian to get dirt, to influence our elections. now, i understand the media mob wants to protect the cowardly schiff, but he has lied to the american people. repeatedly, he has pushed conspiracy theories and the hoax. i've offered three hours of radio, one hour of tv, and he

won't come on. i hear that, and i also see that hillary's russian dossier and robert mueller didn't bring up any of that. why? >> i think you answer the question.. he had no intention of bringing that up because he and the people on his team were going after president trump, and they had nothing there. i think another major questionon that mueller is going to have to answer -- i think it is a huge mistake for him to come in and testify, by the way. he is going to have to answer, the second you knew that information about how the fisa warrant was obtained by false information -- and he knew it -- why did you not go back to that court? you have an obligation, as the chief prosecutor on this case, an ethical and moral obligation to take it back to the fisa court, and he did not do that, as far as we know. >> sean: how does he justify that, but he -- violations?o that's a broad mandate.

that's a pretty far stretch. taxi medallions? okay, whatever. that was a broad mandate. but you are not going to deal with the russian dossier that is unverifiable, that was used to spy on, let's see, the opposition party, and then the transition, and then the president of the united states of america? how did he miss that little detail?? >> oh, he didn't miss the detail, in my opinion, he just chose not to bring it out, because it hurt the case. and he is going to have to answer to all of that, and he is going to have some really, really tough questions -- >> sean: did you think when you watched him for the nine and a half minutes, i almost felt he had not read -- i felt he washe reading it for the first time. he was stumbling all over the place. or didn't know what somebody else wrote, i didn't know what to think. what did you think? i only have five seconds, ten seconds. >> i think he thought he was a smart man who was going to get away with it. i used to think he was an ethical man. after all of this, it's very,

very sad, and it is sad how hisa career is perhaps going to end. >> sean: pam bondi, thank you. i had my suspicions from the get-go. we will never be the media mob. let not your heart be troubled, the news continues. laura ingraham, big news for you tonight, as well. >> laura: hannity, we saw in his nine-minute press conference where he was pretty defiant and he was not going to be saying anything else. that was its purity, was going to retreat to private life. i guess, the subpoena flies and he has shown up. so this is going to be interesting. >> sean: to correct a few hours later, i mean, a big correction. >> laura: yeah, well, he made the point at that press conference i think for a reason. the question is, why the roll back in the initial viewpoint that the report stood on its own and you get the sense that theit democrats just want another bite