lying, pomposity, smugness, and group think. good night from washington, d.c., a poignant end to a happy hour. but good news at the end, sean hannity stands by from new york city, the largest city in north america to take over. soip a bigger swamp than your swamp. we pay more taxes here. all right, tucker, great show. thank you. welcome to anti. tonight, the democratic psychotic mindless anti-trump rage psychosis sinking to new depths of depravity in what was a disastrous day for them as they pursue trump every second, minute, hour of every day, they're hurting the country, they're ripping this country apart, just for a cheap, baseless, political head job. and after today's total bs, if you want to call it, impeachment hearing on capitol hill, your blood should be boiling but you have the answer in 335 days now instead of presenting actual evidence, democrats thought we, the stupid, smelly, trump

supporting walmart shoppers that believe in god of america need to be educated on the virtues of impeachment. so, to educate, we, the people, the masses of people, they hauled in three hyperpartisan, far left, holier than thou sanctimonious self-righteous ivory tower law school professors to teach us about the institution. the really good news tonight is to their credit, republican, they were united. they fought back in a big and effective way. congressman collins, jordan, and, yep, matt gates, rock stars today along with others, and the gop sole witness constitutional scholar, jonathan tuturley, a democrat, he voted for trump, didn't vote for obama, also voted for the clintons, ran circles around the liberal professors sitting next to him. maybe that's because his judgment wasn't clouded by as he discussed rage and hate and hysteria.

the democrats' three witnesses on the other hand were clearly suffering from stage four, a case of massive trump der rangement syndrome disconnected from all troupe truth and reality, unc law professor worked for the clintons in their administration, al gore's senate campaign, a month ago, he offered an impassioned piece in the atlantic. and the fellow witnesses, harvard law professor, noah feldman, he's been looking for ways to impeach trump since 2017. a few weeks after the president was sworn in, that guy felt president trump could be impeached or his use of the term, "fake news," i kid you not. the perfect ivory tower law professor, seemingly hating free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and cannot be counted on to seek truth and justice. days later, the president claimed the president could be impeached because of an ad for

maralargo. and not to be outdone, feldman wrote he could be impeached over his tweets about wiretapping. his der ranged anti-trump bias pales in comparison of the third witness, ivory tower professor is her name, the devout liberal, donated thousands of dollars to hillary clinton, barack obama, and in june, wow, who is she supporting for president? another $1,000 for that socialist. yes, $new green deal, elizabeth warren. and once appeared at a podcast called versus trump where she trashed conservatives. her insane rage against all things trump is so extreme she refuses to even walk on the same side of the street, not making this up, as a trump hotel. we've got the videotape. let's go to it. >> i came in from the airport yesterday and i got off of the

bus from dulles down at the plaza. and as i was walking past what used to be the old post office building is now the trump hotel, it's just -- across the street, of course, but -- >> are you staying there? >> god no, never, never. soip another great witness. imagine, carrying around that much hatred, that much resentment and anger every day of your life. pretty sad, pretty pathetic. not good for the country. frankly, house democrats look really, really stupid. i didn't think he could out do the schiff show. they did. for hauling that psychotic individual before congress. case in point, after today's hearings, she made a disgusting, repulsive joke about the president and melania trump's 13-year-old son. watch this. >> what comparisons can we make between kings, that the framers were afraid of, and the president's conduct today? >> so kings could do no wrong

because the kings word was law. and contrary to what president trump has said, article ii does not give him the power to do anything he wants. i'll give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. so, while the president can name his son, baron, he cannot make him a baron. >> sean: shortly after the remark, melania trump responded with this statement, quote, a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela carolan, you should be ashamed of your angry and biassed public pandering and using a child to do it. during the hearing, congressman matt gates on his game, also rebuked the democrat star witness right to her face. great moment for him. take a look. >> when you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and cluster and conservatives don't want to be

around each other and they have to spread out, it makes people -- you may not see this from the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes actual people in this country -- >> the president -- >> you don't get to interrupt me on this time. now, let me also suggest that when you invoke the president's son's name here, when you try to make a little note out of referencing baron trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean, it makes you look like you're attacking someone's family, the minor child is the president of the united states. >> key word, minor child. the professor issued a halfhearted apology, make no mistake, it was an unmitigated disaster. this is worse than the schiff show. how stupid do they think we are. they bring in three liberal professors who live and work in their ivory towers trying to convince us that the president's wrongdoing with no evidence. not only do they have a clear established political bias and hatred, but they witnessed nothing. the only fact witness in this

entire charade only one, testified when he asked president trump what he wanted from ukraine, nothing. no quid pro quo, just be honorable. that's it. those professors' opinions, they don't matter. conjecture, that doesn't matter. opinion witnesses, they don't matter. up in of the testimony matters. the facts have not changed. jim jordan often points out, the facts are not on the democratic -- the democrat side or the mob in the media side. take a look. >> let me just cut to the chase -- the reason it's been unfair is the facts are not on their side. the facts on the president's side. four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change. we have the transcript. there was no quid pro quo in the transcript. the two guys on the call, president trump and president zelinsky said no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. the ukrainian third didn't know the aid was held up at the time

of the phone call. and most important, ukraine never started, never promised to start, never announced an investigation at the time the aid was paused. never once. >> sean: those four facts as congressman jordan always says, they never change. irrefutable facts on the trump ukraine phone call in question, aid was never ever once discussed. now add to that. five subsequent high-level meetings including one with the vice president of the united states and the president of ukraine, all five with the president of ukraine. this is after the phone call. aid was never tied to anything at any one of the five meeting, never brought up in any way. by the way, so what did ukraine do? well, before trump released the money, nothing. and they still got the money. that would be no quid, pro, or quo like joe. and don't forget the transcripts of the president's phone call with him shows -- remember, it talks about i want you to do us a favor, us, plural.

he mentioned it. he was saying do us a favor, talking about both countries. the 2016 election interference by ukraine nothing to do with the bidens. by the way, everyone keeps saying conservatives believe that if ukraine was responsible for election and interference in 2016 and not russia, it's a conspiracy theory. no, i never said that. we pointed out many times on this program, russia is a hostile regime led by a hostile actor, vladimir putin, who we're not going to have more flexibility with, ever. i have zero doubt they meddled in the 2016 elections, i'm certain they did. devin nunez was warning obama in 2014 it would happen. they did nothing. by the way, the dirty russian dossier that hillary bought and paid for. according to "the new york times" late in the game, likely russian disinformation from the beginning. and, yes, russia interfered on the 2016 elections. they have done it before. they're going to try to do it again. every indication is also, though, separate and apart.

ukraine interfered in our elections as well. and i have no doubt, others. the january 11, 2017 politico reports in detail, the ukrainian court also ruled their country interfered in our 2016 elections to help hillary. it's not mutually exclusive. how many countries hacked in a hillary server? they probably interfered also. and look at this, on the same phone call, the president expressed concern. the brand new president of ukraine was surrounding himself with some of the same corrupt officials as the last president. that's not smart. you better not do that. president is reiterated many times, he did you want want to give away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without knowing who it is going to and how it is going to be used. that would be called due diligence. it is the president's sworn duty. and by the way, also, faithfully executing the laws finding out, oh, did they interfere? that's good for america to know so we can prevent it in the future. both democrats cared for foreign

election interference, they don't. if they're on a fact-finding mission, they wouldn't have invited three known anti-trump left wing ivory tower lunatics to give their biassed opinions. the judiciary committee's ranking member doug collins summed it up perfectly. he was on his game today. he should have been announced as the next senator from georgia. he wasn't. thanks, governor kemp. >> the president said it a second ago. he said we're scared of the elections next year. we're scared the election, we'll lose again. withe have to do it now. the clock and the calendar, not the facts. to some way insinuate that the founding fathers would have found president trump guilty is just simply malpractice in this -- with these facts before us. it's simply pandering to a camera. it's simply not right. it's not an impeachment, it's a simple railroad job. and today is a waste of time. and this is where we're at.

i close today with this. it didn't start with mueller or the phone call, you know where it started? it started with tears in brooklyn on november of 2016. >> sean: great point. because of the real facts and the complete lack. there's no direct evidence, no testimony. constitutional scholar jonathan turley who is no supporter of president trump made clear he didn't vote for president trump, he made the clear and compelling argument against the democrats' sham impeachment coup attempt. take a look. >> i'm not a supporter of president trump, i voted against him. my personal views of president trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. this would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view, not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime. second is the abbreviated period of this investigation which is

problematic and puzzling. this is a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. >> sean: jonathan turley is very calm, logical way. he took a sledge hammer to the left's phony narrative. one of the most powerful moments in the hearing, turley flipped the script on the house democrats. i'm sure they didn't like this moment. take a look. >> president trump has gone to congress -- to the courts. he's allowed to do that. we have three branches, not two. i can't emphasize this enough and i'll say it one more time, if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. you're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches.

and what comes out of there, and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy. >> the first phase of the democrats' impeachment coup attempt, the schiff show, a disaster. today, even a bigger disaster. it's clear that the nutty nadler circus won't be better, it's worse. reaction of two of the stars of today's hearing, ohio congressman jim jordan and house judiciary ranking member, should be the senator elect of the great state of georgia in my humble opinion, dumb decision by the governor of the state of georgia, a lot of friends there, he did a great job today. ranking member collins, i will theear if to your rank here. no fact witnesses. three people that hate donald trump, they expressed their opinions repeatedly, radical viewpoints. why were they even there. >> they were there because jerry nadler had to figure out something to do. he has no plan. as i said today, the clock and the calendar, not the facts are

driving this, sean. and, look, we showed it today. jim jordan, john radcliffe, withe blew holes in it because it's so easy. we have the facts on our side. all they have is hatred of president trump. all they had is not liking a man who came to office to do what he said he was going to do and he's doing. if you have facts and truth on your side, it will win every time. >> sean: you're probably glad that congressman collins didn't get the promotion to the upper chamber. >> i'm glad he's where he's at as well. >> four facts never change, jim jordan. not only that, five meetings after the four facts. i don't think anybody could do it as well as you do it. explain? >> you're kind. but i loved your monologue because the disdain that these people that they brought in today -- these professors have for us regular americans who voted for president trump, never forget, sean, 17 days ago, the speaker of the house on a sunday show called the president of the united states an imposter.

the guy who had 63 million people vote for him, the guy who won by landslide, the speaker of the house calling the president of the united states an imposter, that was the attitude on display from the three witnesses that the democrats called in. they had to call them in. they didn't want to talk about the four facts you just talked about. they didn't want to talk about the five meetings where zelinsky met with senior officials in the time the aid was pause and not in one of those meetings did linking aid to any type of investigation come up. not once. they got no case, no facts. that i have to bring in the elites to look down their nose and say the things that the professor said today about the first family. >> despicable. we'll get to more on that. this is the key. there are very key moments in the schiff show. and the schiff show, one moment when one of your colleagues actually said, you know, went through the entire issue, no fact witnesses. matt gates did a great job on that today also.

not every -- not one fact witness except ambassador sondlan, what do you want? nothing, no quid pro quo. you followed it up, when did they make the announcement? and sondland -- explain? >> when did it happen? he said they weren't going to get a call, a meeting, the money, unless there was an announcement made by the president saying they were going to investigate biden. guess what? they got the call, the meeting, the money, and there was never ever an announcement. and the only thing ever said direct evidence was when ambassador sondland asked the president, what did the president say. i want nothing, no quid pro quo. i want this new guy, the new guy that ran on anti-corruption platform, i want to do what he said because i'm talking about the hard earned tax dollars of the american people. that's what happened. the democrats have been out to get this guy from even before the election when they launched the trump-russia investigation in the summer of 2016.

>> sean: last word, do we have any idea where this goes? is jerry nadler giving you a heads up of what's next? >> no, this is sad, the american people tuth be outraged with the waste of taxpayer dollars, time, with the schiff show, the nadler circus, we have no idea. i gave him an opportunity in his closing to say, where are we going from here? what is your plan? instead of bringing these academics who don't have anything to do with the show, have fact witnesses, people who would be able to testify, that is not what we've got going on. sean, it's a joke, it's a circus, it's off of the tracks and we need to make sure that the american people know that. and by the way, i'm going to put in one more plug, adam schiff needs to come out of hiding, get courage and backbone, come to the committee and testify. if he doesn't, he has no voracity in anything that he's written. >> sean: senator collins and jonathan jordan. i think the acc will write

something about this before the show is over. joining us, harvard law professor, alan derschowiz. a powerful case he makes as it relates to the epstein case. put that up in a second. legal analyst, greg jarrett. congrats on the book. i don't want to go up against you in a court of law when facts are against everybody. what would you have said, professor, if you were brought in to testify, what would you have said? >> i would have said you cannot make the constitution say what you want it to say. the constitution says criteria, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, the framers rejected all of the criteria that the democrats put forward -- bad behavior, corruption, abuse of office. and yet all three of these democratic scholars were going back to what the framers rejected. if you want to change the criteria, you amend the constitution. we did that in the amendment.

nothing about when the president becomes incapacitated. they amended it. if you want to make sure presidents can't have conversations with foreign leaders about corruption, pass a statute that makes that a crime. but you can't just make it up as you go along. and i think all three of the republicans -- the democrats made it up. now, i thought turley did a great job, but i don't think he went far enough. he basically agreed with the democrats that you can impeach if you have a case of massive abuse of power. that's just not in the constitution. you need to have one of those four criteria. and i think the president and his people ought to stick to that argument. there are no constitutional criteria met and according to alexander hamilton, if congress acts inconsistent with the constitution, their action is void. and the president need not accept it. >> you talk greg jarrett, our democrats, impeachment-obsessed, ignore logic and law, explain.

>> if adam schiff's hearings were an lalapalooza of hearsay and opinion, this, today, but truly theater of the absurd. three liberal law professors who wore their visceral i had rhett of trump on their sleeves. and turley was the loan voice of reason who warned these democratic congressmen, if this is impeachment driven by rage, not reason, if you continue, if you persist, this will do enormous damage not just to the nation but future presidents, one-by-one, he went through all of the allegations from bribery, extortion, obstruction, to campaign finance, and he disassembled all of them. but it doesn't matter. democrats won't listen because law and logic to them is irrelevant. >> he did so well, turley, is to make it clear that these experts don't pass the shoe on the other foot test. if this were hillary clinton

being impeached, these experts would say exactly the opposite of what they're saying. this is trying to find impeachable conduct against a candidate they don't like. and once you establish a precedent like this, it can be used against the next democrat who gets elected. and it will just destroy the importance of impeachment as a check and balance. if you give congress the power just to willy nilly impeach anybody they don't like because they don't think he's abusing office, that would apply to almost any president that a majority of the people in the house disagree. that's what hamilton said was the greatest danger of the impeachment provision. >> sean: well said. professor derschowiz book out, guilt by accusation. i read it. he makes a strong and compelling case. i would like to see that debate. when we come back, john solomon, breaking news. what the top ten things he believes will be in the fisa report out monday. and newt gingrich reacts to the

impeachment circus today. and how he impacts 2020. we're glad you're with us on this busy news day. glad you're with us. man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

soip in other breaking news we're following tonight with the fisa report set to be released on monday. our own john solomon laid out what's the ten most important revelations to expect from the findings. he joins us now. i was given by two very good sources of mine tonight coming on the air tonight, john, very important aspects. that what if everything is reading now, pay no attention. >> that's right. >> sean: only one person saw this report. and it would be the attorney general. his remarks are damning. he's the only one. no one else.

>> i think everyone reporting on it now is conjecturing or fragments to give people a motive to get ahead of the story. there's going to be six to 12 findings of wrongdoing, malfeasance, mistakes that were made in the fisa process. i've been able to confirm that. and i think you're going to be able to see all of the things we talked about on the show, the omission of exculpatory evidence, the omission of derogatory evidence. i think one thing you'll hear about in the report is that the fbi very early on interviewed one of christopher steele's sub sources or sources and he disowned or made clear to the fbi that what he told steele reported were not the same. that's a red flag warning that never got passed on to the court. and i think when we're done, we're going to see sweeping recommendations about things that need to be changed in the fisa process within the fbi, changing the threshold when you spy on candidates or investigate candidates during a campaign. this is going to be a very, very

powerful road map and it's going to lead to months of debate and additional action including discipline and possible prosecution. this is a beginning, the start line for a very long sprint. >> sean: everybody forgets the previous reports and that would be, for example, let's see, referrals, lying, comey, mccabe, paige, struck, if i recall correctly. so, nothing has happened with those referrals. what we have to know is, the person after this report comes out, premeditated fraud, fisa court, numerous warnings, kathleen cadillac, bruce or other, it's unverifiable, says on the top of the warrant, verified. they couldn't verify it. steele never stood behind it. hillary paid for it. that should have been highlightled. anything they used from that dirty dossier matters. but i will tell you that the referrals have already been made on key names. i would imagine it gets deeper.

and then it will be handed over to john doram. he can convene a grand jury and make charges, and he can prosecute. so i think it will be the first step in what will hopefully be a criminal referral for those that abuse power. >> looking at five steps -- the release of the report, the release of whatever durham is going to do, the moment of accountability both discipline and prosecution, then a moment of inflection. how do we fix these things so it never happens to another president or candidate. >> we better have fisa in some capacity. we have enemies foreign enemies in particular, and i will tell you that we need this, but we can't turn those weapons on the american people. >> that's right. >> monday is coming fast. thank you. more reaction in today's hearing and how this impacts 2020. author of the best seller, trump versus china, former speaker of the house, fox news contributor, newt gingrich. i want to get your take on this.

it's brilliant, but also seen through the prism of how does it impact the political race? everything you afforded bill clinton and his attorneys, 2 1/2 weeks notice, you get to decide what date is convenient to you. the right to call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, present evidence. none of that is allowed the rebe uns in this case. >> sure, the democrats have an extraordinarily weak hand. they've tried to balance it by cheating on every possible level, making absurd demands, having the intelligence committee report come out in the evening and they -- the judiciary committee meet the next day. all things, it's absurd. but if i were the republicans, i would say jonathan turley's devastating comments today starting with his own statement that he had voted against trump, he was not there as a pro-trump person. and he just took apart the

entire process. and i would take and cut that into a five commercials and i would drown the country in them. because if every american understood how much turley, a constitutional expert, was destroying the democrat kraltic case, it would collapse overnight. he was one of the most effective witnesses i've ever seen. i thought it was devastating what he said. >> mr. speaker, we have had ideologues today who are known trump haters. that's what they brought in. with the exception of jonathan turley. then the schiff show, you've got hearsay, inadmissible, opinion witnesses, not admissible evidence if this goes to the senate. one fact witness so far, ambassador sondland. ambassador, you've given your conjecture, 2 plus 2, you even given your opinion. what facts do you know? you asked the president?

yes, i did. what does he want with the release of the funds? i want nothing. i don't want a quid pro quo. i want to get rid of the corruption. that would seem exculpatory to me, sir. game over, case closed, the opposite of hunter and joe, quid pro quo, joe. >> i think the fact is that this entire case is about hatred and pathology and emotions that are so deep, and we saw it with the three democratic witnesses, let's see if we can find three left wing college professors who hate trump and bring them in to pretend they're experts and they destroyed themselves in the depth of their hostility to president trump. that's what we're up against. the left wing of the democratic party would not tolerate nancy pelosi not moving forward on impeachment. that's why she moved. the pressure from her left was so horrendous, she had to cave. >> sean: prediction, how does

this impact 2020? >> well, my prediction is this may, in fact, collapse. and as i said, they ran turley's words on television for the next week, you might see democratic districts, the large number of the 31 districts that voted for trump and have a democrat, you run turley in those 31 districts, you uh might collapse the whole effort. i think the election next fall is going to be a disaster for the democrats. they're a left wing party of haters. and i think the country is tired of it. and i have a hunch that the average american is going to say, i don't particularly want to elect guys who don't get anything done on health care, don't get anything done on transportation, don't get anything done on education, all you guys do is attack the president. i think it's a really weak base for the democrats next fall. >> sean: all right, mr. speaker, good to see you again, great analysis. we'll turn the tables on the congenital liar, adam schiff, and congressman kevin mccarthy.

the house minority leader, he's up next. ville her, scalese, and the attack against baron trump, when is enough enough? straight ahead. developing, ton

more shady behavior from the congenital liar adam schiff because in his sham impeachment report released yesterday was revealed he possibly spied on congressman devin nunez by obtaining the phone records and they includes call logs. where's the outrage from the media? reaction to that, house minority leader kevin mccarthy, number one, i have to give you a lot of credit. it was a shrewd, smart move moving jim jordan over to the schiff committee. he did a great job.

doug collins did a great job. your whole team is fighting back this injustice. and obviously you're leading him in that direction. and i think the cooperation i'm seeing an energy in the republican house of representatives, it's been missing for a long time, congressman. >> thank you. and i think this team has worked so well together. from every single person who's part of this conference. and everybody comes together. one thing you have to know, sean, not just the committee, because there's six different committees. we all come together as one. remember, the rules are against us, all advantage to the democrats. but the one thing we found in this hearing, the hearing was so boring today, even nadler fell asleep. the thing you have to remember, they have no proof so they turned to professors. and these professors are liberal democrat donors. it's unbelievable. but i think turley said it best, at the end of the day -- and remember, he's a constitutional expert. the only abuse of power is what they're doing. if they move forward on this,

that's the constitutional crisis. the abuse of power that you just mentioned that adam schiff is doing, but more importantly, what the democrats are doing, trying to bring the president forward on impeachment, with an idea that he has a constitutional right. >> congressman, no due process. everything that you offered bill clinton when he was speaker at the time, we talked at length about that. i guess you know your democratic colleagues pretty well. this has been falling apart in front of their eyes, one fact witness that is exculpatory for the president, where do they go from here? and you think every democrat is going to jump off of the cliff with schiff and pelosi and nadler? >> not sure. i had a few democrats turn to me. i had one particular one turn to me and say if they follow through on this, you guys will become the majority. they are nervous. you found democrats in safe seats talking to moving to censure. but their base will never allow them to do this. it proves they already had this written out. then they came back to try to

find if they could find something. adam schiff dislikes this president so much he will do anything. he will lie, he'll use his power beyond control. anything he can do -- remember what he did, remember how he went up to see cohen, he had proof beyond circumstantial evidence. remember, he wished he knew who that whistleblower was that he met with, he'll lie to the american public time and again. he'll go after anybody if they stand up to him. this is what they wanted to do to devin, but they did it to susan collins with kavanaugh, they tried to do it with stepanek. we'll stand for the constitution and that's why we're united and the only bipartisan vote inside of this house has been to stop this impeachment. >> sean: hope senator mcconnell can do the same in the senate without a single defection. good job and leader kevin mccarthy. here now with more deputy congressman steve scalese. louis, good to see you. congressman scalese, to see this

unfold the way it is, do we even know what's coming next? have they decided what's coming next? is there any real witness that we'll ever hear from, except for opinion, hearsay, you know, ivory tower professors that have left wing agendas? >> look, sean, it's -- it's -- i mean, they have no idea where they want to go with it. they thought it was going to be the mueller report that was going to give them impeachable charges that they can go and bring. there's nothing this president has done wrong. ultimately it ended today. jim jordan said it best with the four facts. the bottom line is, president zalenski and trump were on the phone call. neither had a problem with the phone call. he was thankful to president trump for selling him the missile so he could stand up to russia, something obama and joe biden wouldn't do. no one in the media wants to add that. every witness, matt gates said did any one of you raise your hand if you've seen anything wrong, not anybody on the

witness, the intelligence, or here today on the judiciary, no witness can tell anything that the president did illegal. the disdain that the law professors had for donald trump and the fact he got elected in 2016 was clear i thought was disgraceful what stanford law professor or whatever she's a professor of, she owes an apology, unequivocal apology. i don't know if she supports bullying, but to pick ohhen a minor child to make yourself look cute in front of colleagues, it's disgraceful. i hope stanford doesn't stand for that. >> sean: a great point. with a liberal university, all of the political correctness, how are they going to react to attacking a 13-year-old kid. louis gomer, you've been around in this business for a long time. i've never seen anything quite this bad. but you know your democratic colleague, where do they go with this? >> that's such a great question. put an exclamation point on what steve was saying. we were trying to find out

today, are we going to have a hearing on monday? we might. we're not sure. what about wednesday? well, we might. well, what would be the -- what would be the topic of those hearings, well, we don't know. who would be the witness? we don't know. but we're -- we probably will have something but we don't know. i mean, this is outrageous. this is what kafka wrote about in the trial. you don't get to know the charges, the witnesses, but we're going keep changing the charges is what they've done. i have some respect on some people who went to harvard law school or taught at harvard law school. you had alan derschowiz on again tonight. he's terrific. but i couldn't believe the way you have harvard guy sitting there saying, well, i was reluctant, you know, approaching any kind of impeachment, well, somebody's gotten ahold of his twitter account and making him look like an idiot. so, anyway, couldn't believe it. it's outrageous. but we're going to keep fighting

because truth, justice, the american way has got to prevail. >> sean: thank you both. willie gomer, steve scalese. when we come back, the first lady, melania trump furious that her son, baron, brought up in today's hearing. hillary clinton went on howard stern's show. uh-oh, you won't believe what they talked about, straight ahead. my parents never taught me anything about managing money.

the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be.

i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪ >> sean: melania trump furious after the democrats' star witness, ivory tower stanford professor brought up her son, baron, in today's hearing. she offered a halfhearted apology, a sad attempt at one, take a look. >> i want to apologize for what i said earlier about the president's son. it was wrong of me to do that.

i wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong. but i do regret having said that. >> sean: all right, we do regret having said that. all right. also tonight in news, hillary clinton, a guest on howard stern's radio program. okay, only on howard's show. take a look. >> he was so handsome. he was really handsome. >> really? >> looks like a greek god. he was really handsome. >> no kidding, greek god? >> yeah, very attractive. >> listen to you. >> well, contrary to what you may hear, i actually like men. >> oh, right, yeah. that's the other thing. >> that's the other thing. >> yeah. >> raise your right hand. you never had a lesbian affair. >> never, never, never. never even been tempted. >> unbelievable. >> actually, only on howard's show. and by the way, she brought it up. it was weird.

now, also, stern asking -- this is a little ironic, did lindsey graham sell his soul? the guy i grew up listening to howard stern to me would have supported donald trump, not hillary clinton and probably wouldn't have been at hamptons polo matches and parties. take a listen. >> there are those who have fallen off of the edge and have so changed their personality in my view, their politics. >> like lindsey graham. >> like a lindsey graham. >> has he sold his soul to the devil? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think that's a fair question, however. >> sean: not sure why howard hates trump and loves her. makes no sense. that's not the guy i grew up listening to. fox news contributor sara carter, tammy bruce. i don't know where to start with this, tammy. i'll throw it at you, first. >> well, thank you. i mean, look, the fact that she's even going on howard stern considering the nature of what we've learned about her in the past year that harvey winestein

was as farrow called him, an inner circle advisor, she tried to punish him and stop him from investigating this predator of women and goes on the howard stern show. the daily mail report that she and bill clinton would visit the jeffrey epstein ranch. now, the clintons previously defied he wept to any of his residences. and her own husband's history. so maybe howard stern is where she belongs but she clearly is not being asked about those things, which is what i find to be kind of shocking. and then for her to make comments about that about lindsey graham. but for her to bring that up, you're right. he was asking -- she was talking about, i guess her first boyfriend in that opening clip. but have her bring up that dynamic. and it's a shame. because then have to say the use of that kind of puts women and her in a position of using that as a salacious thing to bring up, when, in fact, the right answer, if you will, for a woman

of power with her background is to not give it any credence or to say it doesn't even matter. but it's unfortunate. and the reason it's even asked, i have to be honest, is because nobody knows who the real hillary clinton is. we see her associating with these predators, if you will, and then she wants to be an advocate for women and says none of it makes sense. >> sean: i don't care -- i love the fact that howard will say anything. we should have more people saying anything they want to say. i just -- i grew up listening to him, sara, and that's the guy that would have supported the disrupter, iconoclast hard-hitting donald trump that says what's on his mind. >> i remember him that way too. i would haven't asked those questions, i don't care. i do care about the e-mails that she tried to destroy. i would have asked her about that or using a private server to send the e-mails. there's a lot of questions howard could ask. he was trying to be funny. of course, she joked around and she was gracious about those questions. but there's so much more that i

would have loved to have asked hillary clinton. and howard would have been the perfect place to do it on the howard stern show. so, he missed out on that opportunity. >> sean: i wish everybody had the freedom he had. i really do. even bill maher who i hate says whatever he wants and i'm glad he does say it. we should all be able to just say it without everybody acting like they're so upset all the time. good to see you both. thank you. rush limbaugh reacting to world leaders being caught on hot mics talking about trump, awesome, straight ahead.

♪ >> sean: justin trudeau along with a few other world leaders caught on hot mic talking about trump, because he took a lot of questions about the press. the media said they were mocking him. rush limbaugh had a great take on that. take a look. >> i don't think they were mocking trump. i think they are sitting there in disbelief that he spends so

much time in the media, including being late to one of these boring receptions that they have to go to. >> sean: and he called them all out. pay more. we will never be the media mob. let not your heart be troubled. laura, how are you? >> laura: all i can say is if people are actually thinking about a career in the law or going to law school they might want to think twice after watching this thing today. oh, my gosh. >> sean: you were a lawyer. some people may not know, but i know. you have that background. you even went to dartmouth but you were a rabble-rouser and a troublemaker. >> laura: pam garland loved me. she was a professor at uva law school and i'm sure -- yeah. she was very popular but extremely left-wing and i think we saw that on display. it did a great job analyzing it all. >> sean: great