which in this case happens to be the competition - since they don't offer the same amount of cameras as the silverado. literally in the rear-view. where they should be. ♪ 8:00 p.m. sean hannity is next. ♪ >> sean: hi, welcome to hannity, so the schiff show is back in action. the circus remains in town. today, another national disgrace. what we saw, again, every american needs to see this a b.s. pathetic show trial, zero substance, zero facts, zero -- get, this first-hand knowledge. nothing. zero. zip. nada. and, of course, no due process. we got a judge, jury, and executioner, his highness, we got the compromised, corrupt, coward, congenital liar, adam schiff, oh, he was in rare form today. take a look. >> ms. stefanik. >> thank you, mr. nunes. ambassador yovanovitch, thank you. >> the ja gentle woman would

extend. >> what is the interruption for this time. >> the gentle woman would extend. you are nau not allowed to yield time except for minority. >> member yielded time. >> you are gagging the gentle woman from new york. >> will suspend not recognized. >> this is the fifth time have you interrupted members of congress. >> woman, not recognized. the gentle woman will suspend. >> sean: welcome to the witch trial led by the congenital liar. by the way, what's he so afraid of? oh, that's right. the truth. that's what is he terrified of. and that's why we didn't hear from an actual fact witness again. she knew nothing. devin nunes says why was she even there? we just get more testimony, more testimony, yes, another self-important very narcissist diplomat snowflake who can't take minor, tiny baby criticism, a witness to nothing. she had no reason to be

there she witnessed no wrongdoing, knew nothing about what we are discussing, no direct evidence of any misconduct whatsoever, no contact with the president, no contact with his chief of staff, no contact with anybody that really knew the president, no knowledge of anything being alleged by the democrats. you cannot make this up. this is how sick washington has become. >> were you involved in the july 25th trump zelensky phone call or preparations for the call? >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the deliberations about the pause in military sales to ukraine as the trump administration reviewed newly elected president zelensky's commitment to corruption reforms? >> for the delay. >> for the pause? >> the pause? >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the proposed trump zelensky later pence zelensky meetings in warsaw, poland on september 1st? >> no, i was not. >> did you ever talk to

president trump in 2019? >> no, i have not. >> mic mulvaney? >> no, i have not. thank you, ambassador. >> sean: yeah, then he says why the hell was she even there? oh, and that's right, she was fired her feelings were hurt. she has expressed that a lot. and she had a lot of not nice things to say about the president. by the way, president obama got rid of ambassadors, too. this whole entire charade, none of it is about truth or justice. it is about a never ending three-year smear of this president at all cost because they cannot accept the results in 2016. and as a consequence, well, the house democrats, they have done nothing. oh, and government fund something set to expire next week. funding for our military set to expire next week. an important trade agreement with canada and mexico is yet to be approved. these do nothing democrats have done nothing for three years, are ignoring really

serious issues. let's see, peace and safety and security and prosperity and job creation. why? because of this psychotic rage at the mere mention of donald trump. and all ambassadors, she even admitted, they serve at the pleasure of the president of the united states. and president obama. he fired dozens of ambassador holdovers from the bush administration. and he did it for political reasons. nobody criticized him. the president has the right to fire or hire any ambassador for any reason or no reason at all. as a matter of fact, there was good reason to want today's star witness removed from her post. look at these interviews conducted by john solomon and the "new york times" a top ukrainian prosecutor has repeatedly claimed she gave him a do not prosecute list in 2016. now, the former ambassador denies the accusation. there was one paper, i believe, in ukraine that said he rescinded those

remarks. we will ask john solomon about it in a second. i do know who is telling the truth? no, i do not. how does any of this apply to impeaching a president duly elected president of the united states? it doesn't. anyway, joining us now, fox news contributor, investigative reporter john solomon. now, you printed an article this week, two issues that i sees a it relates to the ambassador. i knew nothing about until my name and your name came up in the audition hearings. nobody saw. and what it comes down to is she didn't like that you reported on the fact that the prosecutor general, and my understanding is correct, that would be the equivalent of our attorney general, had said she handed her a list of people not to prosecute. now, people are saying that he has recanted that you are saying no, he has not. what's the truth? >> names this week he stood by what he said, that meeting with the ambassador she applied pressure and gave him names of ukrainian

nationals she did not want to see prosecute you had. let's take it away from yovanovitch. he said, she said. the witnesses that adam schiff has called from the state department have testified affirmatively, that the u.s. under yovanovitch applied pressure, multiple time to ukraine prosecutors to drop prosecutions of people that the u.s. embassy. these were ukrainian nationals and ukrainian prosecution decisions. and our embassy was applying pressure, interfering in those law enforcement matters. that is no longer in dispute. it's under oath by her own deputies and aides confirming that that pressure was applied in 2016. >> sean: okay, in your column this week, you talk about the convention geneva cons it relates to ambassadors particularly not getting involved in the country, for example, she is a u.s. ambassador to ukraine. >> that's right. >> sean: not as a u.s. ambassador. she is not supposed to get involved in anything political or electionwise.

you put in your article a link to a speech. tell us, did she get involved in ukrainian politics? >> well, certainly the ukrainians thought. so and how do we know? because they began asking quells of her bosses within a couple days. the first time i ever heard maria yovanovitch's march 5th she called for the removal of a prosecutor three or four weeks before the end of the very contested ukraine presidential election. all of a sudden i heard from career diplomats you won't bleeble believe what our career diplomat did kerfluffle because geneva convention doesn't get involved in election stuff and she gave a speech. two days later her boss goes to ukraine. one of the first questions he gets why did you mettle in those election with our comments. he defended her and said this and her words speak for themself. i'm not going to say anything more about them. this same issue came up in the hearing today because the democrats want to pretend ukraine didn't interfere in our election. but the ambassador acknowledged she knew in

august 2016, ukrainian ambassador to the united states wrote an op-ed slamming donald trump just before election day. so, two good examples of where both countries have a gripe where they believe they saw political interference by ambassadors, despite what the convention says. >> sean: john solomon, thank you for your reporting tonight. we appreciate it. i have to tell you something, the very basis of america law constitutional order, due process, presumption of innocence, equal application of our laws, equal justice under the law, are in jeopardy. that means the fundamental constitutional rights in this country are at risk. that is a very dangerous situation. we don't have equal justice, that is now missing in action. we have one set of rules for democrats and entirely different set of rules for republicans and the rest of us. we, the people. because we know just hours ago. look at the conviction, roger stone was found guilty of seven process crimes. and he could face decades in prison. paul manafort might spend the rest of his life behind bars because of loan

applications and tax issues. the u.s. house of representatives is now spending every waking moment trying to impeach this president over no identifiable crime. and if you don't have any real witnesses. hearsay witnesses. and meanwhile we have got deep state actors. we have got trump haters, andrew mccabe, oh, he is enjoying his katyushay job cusht fake news cnn. he has faced zero charges. remember, he was accused of repeatedly lying to the fbi. the office of the inspector general. well, they found that mccabe showed, quote: a lack of candor with then director comey on or around october 31st, 2016. a lack of candor in an interview under oath with agents on may 9th, 2017. inspector general found a lack of candor in an interview under oath with the office of inspector general investigators on

july 28th, 2017. a lack of candor in an interview under oath with the office of the inspector general on november 29th, 2017. not to be left out, his boss, mr. super patriot, former fbi director comey, who took advantage to go after our 33 year veteran, a guy that the fbi agents didn't think was lying, general flynn, yeah, he was the subject, also, of a scathing office of inspector general report. criminal charges were actually recommended because comey leaked confidential material about the president of the united states. now, in that case, the inspector general determined, i will quote him: comey set a dangerous example for all fbi employees but is comey, is he facing any charges? nope. did hillary clinton face charges when she mishandled classified, top secret material on a secret server? no. did she face any charges for literally taking subpoenaed

emails, deleting them, acid washing the hard drive with bleach bit. busting up devices with hammer or having an aide do it. removing sim cards in there is a three year investigation over the collusion and her dirty russian dossier. no. no problems whatsoever. has anybody faced any charges for committing premeditated fraud on a fisa court which we now know happened? has anyone faced charges for spying on the trump campaign, his transition team. no single person. no one in the obama administration faced any charges for what was rampant, unmasking of americans during a 2016 election. that hasn't happened either. what about the bidens? we have sleepy crazy uncle joe 33330 bragging about his quid pro quo. by the way even the democrats' star witness today had to acknowledge this blatant misconduct. got to give her credit. take a look. >> out of thousands of companies in the ukraine, the only one that you recall

the obama biden state department precinct to answer questions about was the one where the vice president's son was on the board. is that fair? >> yes. >> as he testified in his statement, that in february of 2015, i raised my concern that hunter biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest. did you ever -- do you agree with that? >> yeah. >> that it was a legitimate concern to raise? >> i think that it would raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> sean: imagine that. a billion dollars if you fire the guy, you don't fire him, you don't get the billion. investigating his son being paid millions with zero experience. here now, author of the best-selling book "new york times" witch-hunt, fox news legal analyst and senior legal advisor to the trump 2020 campaign jenna ellis. gregg, let's again with you.

let's get your thoughts on all of this. another hearsay witness. nothing to add whatsoever. nothing. but here we go again and, yet, did have to admit that about hunter and joe. >> yeah. you know, sean, the president said it so well today in his tweet when he said this is a double standard like the country has never seen talking about roger stone but then, also, when he fairly commented on what was going on in the hearing, this is the president who doesn't have his legal will counsel able to be present. he is not getting due process, he simply is fairly commenting. yet, the democrats try to attack that. this is absolutely ridiculous and incredulous. this is a fight for our country. for our constitution. this is an attack like the country has never seen. this president deserves absolutely the moment that he came down that escalator in 2015. he solidified himself in history as standing among the founding fathers who pledged their very lives, fortune in their sacred

honor. president trump is hated because he loves this country and he loves america. >> sean: gregg, i agree with jenna. there is very, very serious side of this. you look at the inspector general comments about mccabe, comey, you look at the conduct of hillary, you look at premeditated fraud on the fisa court. outsourcing spying. weaponizing the powerful tools of intelligence. this is crossroads, in my view. i think jenna is right, for this country. your reaction? >> unequal enforcement of the law. selective prosecution. and still going on right now in this impeachment inquiry which is really a vaudvilleian act with charlie chaplain at the helm aka adam schiff. republicans can't call witnesses. the president has no ability to defend himself. so he goes over everybody's head, to the american people in social media and issues a tweet. it is not witness

intimidation. that's absurd. that's clearly defined under american law, one of three things, physically harming a witness, bribing a witness, or coercing a witness to lie. simply pleading your case under the first amendment and criticizing a witness who is leveling false accusations based on multiple hearsay is not witness intimidation for god's sakes. the president was right to tweet it. he has no other choice. >> sean: also, jenna, gregg, thank you. the president released his very first telephone call with ukrainian counterpart president zelensky showing that he agreed to meet him without any preconditions. wow, another example. here with reaction white house press secretary stephanie grisham is with us. stephanie, you know, the interesting thing is you can bring in all the interesting people you want. hearsay, i say, you say, grandma's, nephews, uncles, sons, brothers, cousins,

neighbor actually told me this and that's why i believed it. at the end of the day, you have the transcript. at the end of the day it's all there. it was never any mention of money. that fact doesn't change. they did nothing to get the money. so, it's a little bewildering to me that we actually are in this insane position. >> well, sadly, it's not bewildering to me after watching schiff and pelosi and their antics. but, again, they have been trying to undo this presidency since he won in 2016. you are right. he released the transcript today of the first call. he released the transcript of the second call. he is being so transparent in this process because he did absolutely nothing wrong. there was no quid pro quo. i guess i'm not allowed to say quid pro quo though because the dems have done some polling and bribery is the better word to use apparently. again, the president did nothing wrong. that's why the white house continues to release documents, which is unprecedented. >> sean: all right. so what the president being put in this horrible

position, i will be honest, i read the tweet, i'm like okay, well, he didn't like this particular ambassador. it was about as innocuous a statement that i think the president could ever tweet out, you know, almost -- he could have tweeted out what the general prosecutor said. he could have tweeted out some other issues that john solomon has brought up about her, but he didn't. he was pretty innocuous. >> yeah. the president, he was telling people why he was unhappy with that ambassador, which is every president's right. there is no -- this couldn't be witness tampering or intimidation because this is not a trial. this is note a legal trial. this is just a political side show. and the president went around schiff because he -- we are given no rights. and he went ahead and tweeted it. i would also like to remind people that obama fired every bush appointed ambassador the day he was elected office. every president has the right to have people representing them in foreign countries that he trusts.

i would also like to actually point out that she was only recalled three months before her term was supposed to end. and she is still employed at the state department. so, something to think about. >> sean: stephanie grisham white house press secretary. thank you for being with us. when we come back, jason chaffetz, congressman steve scalise and the great one mark levin. i just got off the phone with him. he has a lot to say tonight. that's all coming up on this busy breaking news edition of hannity. ♪ ♪

>> mob has a conspiracy theory the. >> the witness: intimidation by tweeting during today's hearing. that was innocuous.

moments ago the president respond to the absolute hysteria again. >> in the history of our country, there has never been a disgrace like what's going on right now. so you know what? , i have the right to speak. i have free speech just as other people do. but they have taken away the republicans' rights and i watched today as certain very talented people wanted to ask questions they weren't allowed to ask questions. republicans. they weren't allowed to ask questions. it's a very sad thing. >> sean: joining us now author of the best-selling book "power grab" fox news contributor jason chaffetz' along with house minority whip steve scalise and our own ed henry host of a brand new show every saturday and sunday at noon right here on the fox news channel. all right. let me go to you congressman jason chaffetz because you have all over this in a hundred different ways. this was the most innocuous we did the and in all the years that in reading trump's tweets, oh, kind of trouble followed her wherever she went.

she wouldn't have even known about it had schiff not read the stupid thing. >> yeah, goingen during the hearing. she wouldn't have heard about it. let's also remember that barack obama in the middle of investigations that we were conducting in to the irs, benghazi, other things, president obama weighed in regularly. did he intimidate witnesses by saying there wasn't even a smidgen of corruption? when we had people within the irs that i think would have testified otherwise? come on, the media is going to play this one out, they have to roll it all the way out. what the president did today was not inappropriate. he stated a fact. he is entitled to his opinion. and if this is what they left the hearing with this is the big thing that they had, they had nothing with the ambassador today, nothing. >> sean: steve scalise, that's the point. i mean, devin nunes captured it perfectly. why are you even here? you know nothing? she had absolutely nothing add to this. republican makes a point of

order, no, no, no. just like this document in the inquiry. well, we are going to have full fairness at the discretion of the compromise congenital liar adam schiff. we will allow witnesses at the request of the schiff, judge, jury, executioner, i have never seen anything this corrupt. >> it is a soviet style impeachment process. when you look, here we have another day, sean, and another star witness for the democrats who admitted under oath that the president didn't do anything wrong. today, chris stewart asked yovanovitch did you see any crimes? did you see any bribery? she said no. we had john ratcliffe two days ago asking the two democrat star witnesses on day one. can you name a single impeachable offense? not one, sean. and, yet, they still want to go forward with impeaching the president. >> sean: the funny thing, ed henry, you probably know better than i, because i know more democrats will talk to you than me, but i am -- i'm hearing from a lot of my friends on capitol hill, that the democrats see

this is a major blow up, screw up. there are a lot of nervous democrats and sources on capitol hill. what are your sourcing telling you. >> my sources told me heading into today. where i have to disagree with you a bit i think democrats felt a lot better about what happened today in terms of the tweet. i know you are going to say look, the president has a first amendment right and he is not necessarily getting a fair shake. he doesn't have a defense witness there at the table. so he certainly has a right to speak out on twitter. you have someone like ken starr, the former independent counsel saying today on fox this was injurious to the president's case and poor judgment to get involved like that and sort of play into the democrats' hands, that is where take issue. >> sean: ed, tell me what was so bad about the tweet. >> ken starr said this could be perceived to be witness intimidation. maybe he is wrong. maybe this will play out and it will be a whole lot of nothing is my point. the president was having a

relatively good day. congressman scalise, the leader, is right that, in fact, yovanovitch testified not only that the president, this president, president trump helped ukraine more than president obama, also she testified something else, sean, that he has the right as president to fire her. which san important point. so the democrats did not advance their impeachment cause but the president might have injured himself a bit. >> sean: ed henry, thank you. and mark levin, all right. so i just talked to mark levin. he's really fired up and he is calling out these corrupt democrats for trying to say this was intimidating a witness. it's ridiculous. he will join us. and later, ken starr will explain what he meant about trump's tweet as we continue. straight ahead. ♪

- in the last year, there were three victims of cybercrime every second. when a criminal has your personal information, they can do all sorts of things in your name. criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your social security number.

- [announcer] that's why norton and lifelock are now part of one company, providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection, device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. and if you have an identity theft problem, we'll work to fix it with our million dollar protection package. - there are new cyber threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isn't a one time job, it's an ongoing need. now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. don't wait. - [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. use promo code get25 to save 25% off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. call now to start your membership or visit lifelock.com/tv

>> sean: welcome back to hannity. today we saw once again another hearing in the schiff show as you want to call it. radical democrats, by the way, this impeachment circus we have been showing you. joining us now with reaction he is the number one best-selling author with his latest book unfreedom of the press. i call him the great one, nationally syndicated radio show life, liberty and levin new time 8:00 p.m. every sunday night. number one show here on the fox news channel and all of cable news. sir, really, the president tweets out a mild tweet, basically saying, yeah, you know what? this didn't work out very well and look -- oh, this is intimidation? no, mark, look at the law. it's not. >> you know, sean, this is amazing. i hope the american people know what you are witnessing is tyranny. can you have tyranny of the legislature. can you tyranny of the executive branch. you are witnessing tyranny

in the house of representatives in the intelligence committee that doesn't do intelligence work anymore. this is an outrageous violation of the constitution. here's the constitution. how often is the constitution read during these hearings? never. never. and it's never going to be. because they are destroying the constitution of the united states. they are fun undermining franchise. by they i mean not only the democrats on this committee, i mean the media. to listen to the media analysis of what's taking place in these hearings is absurd. it's disgraceful. they talk about russia. they sound like the russian media. the democrat party and the media are like this. that's why i wrote the book. they are like this. so the president is never going to get a break from the media. so he tweets. so due process. even though it's not a criminal case. even though it's not a civil case. due process. western civilization believes in due process. due process even before the

bill of rights does not apply to the president. because congress can do whatever it wants. is what the constitution says? is that what that says? no, that's not what that says. the president is not allowed to tweet to them themselves. themselves he can't defend himself. name one news room, really calling it straight here? none of them. none of them. not picking on any of them. i'm saying none of them. the president's tweet today, not a single news room that i watched put the tweet up there in full, in full, here's what the president tweeted, america. everywhere maria yovanovitch went, turned bad. she started off in somalia. how did that go? then -- and that's pretty much what he said. no it's not. according to adam schiff it is. then fast forward to ukraine, where the new ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. this woman is intimidated by

this? told 33 years in the state department where they have the most brutal bureaucrats on the face o of the earth. she was facing down dictators. oh my god. this tweet intimidated her. now how could the tweet intimidate her as i posted early on and everybody repeated, she didn't even know about the tweet until commissary adam schiff read the tweet and he didn't even read the full tweet. he read part of the tweet. let's talk about what's going on here. here is an article for the 50th time, politico, january 2017, ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfire. now, other news outlets, this is conspiracy theory, written in left wing politico, repeated in left wing "new york times." it's not conspiracy theory, it's a fact. ukrainian government officials tried to help hillary clinton and undermine trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. it goes on. it's incredible detail.

this ambassador wasn't all that familiar with it. did she do anything about it? no. they have this great leader over there that everybody loves in ukraine was trash, the president on social media. did she call him? no. no. that's okay. but, you know, the poor thing was smeared by rudy giuliani. let me tell you what a smear is. a smear is when you go after somebody's tax returns. a smear is when you go after somebody's bank records. a smear is when you go over somebody -- after somebody's children. a smear is when you try to dig up dirt about their past personal lives. a smear is this, this, this clown show, i mean it was precious to hear them oh, i'm sorry, poor madam ambassador that you were smeared and that rudy giuliani, i'm sorry. while they are smearing the president of the united states. while they are undermining these values that we believe n western sizzles. and in our united states constitution. and here's the thing. everybody knows. trump gave military aid to the ukraine. state department proposed it. other departments proposed it. he gave it.

2017, 2018, 2019 he says oh, we have a new government. let me take a look. you are not allowed to do that, mr. president. meanwhile, obama withheld military aid from the ukrainians when they really needed it. russia invaded ukraine on his watch. did he give them the military stuff they needed? no. who do you think the ukrainians lied o. liked better as the american president? donald trump? or barack obama? i could tell you i'm sure it's donald trump. who do you think the russians liked better as president? barack obama? you know, we will work this out after the election. or trump who has put the harshest, most severe penalties of putin and his people in modern american history. who do you think putin wants as president of the united states? let me tell you something, this committee is a rogue, tyrannical committee with a rogue tyrannical chairman. whatever the constitution requires, he does the opposite. whatever justice and fairness requires, he does the opposite. he is literally withholding transcripts from witnesses

who have already testified in their below ground scif because he doesn't want those witnesses who have testified differently than the show horse witnesses have you seen to be questioned. he doesn't want their narrative to be challenged. he doesn't want his narrative to be challenged. so -- and then i hear the media, if the president would just stop tweeting, we could fix this. let me tell you something about the american media. it sucks. there is nothing free about it. it is part and parcel of the left, of the democrat party. and these legal analysts, who know nothing about the constitution and the rule of law and american history, let alone western history, they are pathetic. and the american people are being horribly disserved. i would tell the american people this: there is only one way to fix this on election day. only one way to fix this, on election day. by the way, at least they admitted today that the president of the united states, he's the one who gets to set foreign policy.

it is the state department that is resisting this president. that is the irregular channel. and if they want to attack rudy giuliani, then have a different hearing about rudy giuliani and we will get all the facts out on that. but the president of the united states a, did nothing wrong. b, did not bribe, c, did not extort. d, no quid pro quo, e, gave them their money. f, that's the end of it. >> sean: all right. that's why we call him the great one. mark levin, don't forget, life, liberty levin new time spot 8:00 p.m. eastern time on sunday right here on fox. when we come back, ken starr and charlie hurt will react to the schiff show circus all coming

>> sean: left's hypocrisy and madness on display all week throughout this schiff show impeachment circus. joining us now with reaction "washington times" fox news contributor charlie hurt solicitor general, independent counsel and independent investigation ken starr. ken, let me go to you. i know you made some news with your comments earlier today and you are also saying that there is nothing impeachable for the president. i'm going to read to you the president's tweets. i want you to tell this audience exactly what was so horrible they call it serving at the pleasure of the president. the u.s. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than preceding administrations. it is called quite simply america first. with all of that however, i have done far more for ukraine than obama, which,

by the way, each the former ambassador admitted. and when you look at the second one, everywhere maria yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia, how did that go? then fast forward to ukraine, where the new ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. it is a president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors which she even acknowledged. now, ken starr, i have known you a long time you have to tell this audience what so so harmful and bad about that because you didn't make any sense to me today. none whatsoever. >> well, sean, you and i have known each other a long time. i have a different perspective. you don't attack a public servant in the middle of her testimony, period, full stop. let others do the work for you. >> sean: what's the attack?

tell me what the attack is. >> let's put it more gentlely the criticism of her public service. i think it's a mistake. laugh all you will. she is in the chair. >> sean: have we become a nation of total snowflakes? this is the most inknock colliculus thing in the world. bring in a chemotherapy dog for me. >> you are convincing me. sean, here's the situation. >> sean: i need hot cocoa. go ahead. [laughter] >> all right. let me respond ever so briefly. i'm not going to convince you. i think it's poor form. i think the president serves himself well when he simply says, hey, here are the problems. identifies some of the problems.

unfairness of the procedures. those are very fair criticisms. don't criticize the witness in the middle of her testimony. i just think what you are saying and it's can be interpreted. this is the way it's being interpreted. if you testify, i'm going to hammer you, i think that is -- it's not a crime. it's not impeachable. i think it's unwise. i think we want people to like our president. because, look at how successful -- hey, come on, the country is very successful right now. >> sean: yes. he is kicking ass. do you know what? he is a disrupter. do you know what? he speaks his mind. charlie, here's the thing for me. i honestly he could have talked, about for example, how the ukrainian president hated her guts and wanted her out he could have talked about what the prosecutor general said about her. whether that's disputed or not that's in dispute still. john solomon says the prosecutor general stands by that she handed him a list of names.

but i don't know what the truth is. the president could have gone after a lot of other stuff let me bring in my pet therapy dog. i'm getting too hot. i have got to calm down. >> no doubt one of president trump's milder tweets. judge starr is probably right it. probably would have been a whole lot simpler if trump had shut up and not gotten involved. that's not who president trump is. of course he is going to get involved. he always defends himself. of course, if this offends adam schiff so much and he doesn't want president trump getting on twitter to defend himself. of course, adam schiff could have allowed the president, i don't know, to have an attorney there cross-examining and defending trump for him. that is not permitted. the thing that reveals how unfair this whole process is. yet again, like the obstruction of justice charge. when the underlying charge or accusations against the

president, they always fall apart. they always become ridiculous. they have to go to second tier allegations like obstruction of justice or impeaching a witness who has nothing impeachable to say. >> sean: would any of this be admissible in any court of law? >> not until they have proven a conspiracy and they haven't come close. >> sean: i mean, okay. i'm going to send over the dog. >> thank you. i love dogs. [laughter] >> sean: thank you, both. all right, when you come back, rush limbaugh on fire today about what's going on in washington. that's next. ♪ ♪ these folks don't have time to go to the post office

they use stamps.com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

>> sean: at the end of the week of the radical dem's phony show trial and the vicious

dishonest attacks on america's duly elected president, here is rush limbaugh explaining exactly why his support for president trump has never been greater, and i believe he speaks for a lot of us. take a look. >> my support for donald trump has never been greater than it is right now. it is paramount lee obvious watching this. these people have to go. you like to donald trump to drain the swamp? well, dismissing people like maria jovanovich looks like th that. dismissing people like kent, dismissing people like taylor, dismissing everybody involved from the obama hold over trying to undermine trump, getting rid of those people, this is what it looks like peter was never going to be clean, they were never going to sit by idly and just allow trump to do this. >> sean: we will have more on this madness. take a deep breath and enjoy your weekend and watch football. we will be back monday, we will never be the medium mild which hates trump. let not your heart be troubled

here and why? because laura ingraham angle is next. have a great weekend. ♪ we'll see you then tomorrow li live. >> juan: hello, i'm juan williams along with kennedy, stephanie it's 5:00 in new york city. this is "the five." >> even told you with extra time. >> i appreciate it. >> my indulgence wore out with you a long time ago. i have to say that. >> i'm about to gamble you down. >> juan: another testy day on capitol hill. democrats and republicans clashing during the second public hearings, over the four ambassador