is even questioning what you did much less trying to prosecute you for it. mark mccloskey, godspeed, appreciate you coming on tonight, thank you. >> thank you, tucker tuck. >> tucker: >> we're back on tomorrow, the show that the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think. sean hannity on now. >> hannity: glad you're following up on that case, tucker. good show. welcome to "hannity" tonight. we're tracking multiple breaking stories, these are huge including day three of the senate's impeachment ship-charade show they have going on. we have tonight just breaking, a brand-new scandal rocking the never-trump group called the lincoln project. oh, wait until we follow the money and the cover-up. that is straight ahead. but first breaking tonight, even bigger news, new york governor andrew cuomo has been caught in what is a massive undeniable nursing home cover-up. look at this according to an absolutely bombshell piece, just

breaking moments ago in the "new york post." governor cuomo's top aid now publicly speaking, privately apologizing to democratic lawmakers for willfully withholding the state's nursing home death toll from covid-19 telling them, "we've froze out of fear the true numbers would be used against us by federal prosecutors." in other words, people that were investigating -- people that we're investigating. make no mistake, this is now officially an obstruction of justice case. new york congresswoman alysse stepanic is calling for the governor to be prosecuted immediately by the state of new york and the new york state attorney general and the u.s. department of justice. the shocking new report confirms what we have documented on this show for nearly a year. remember governor cuomo ordered the nursing homes to accept the patients infected with covid-19 to clear space in the hospitals

for incoming patients. now, that caused a massive outbreak in long-term care facilities of covid-19. among the most vulnerable population. now, sadly, he did all of this and 80% of the largest hospital built by donald trump, manned by donald trump converted to covid-19 capabilities by donald trump all while refusing to use 80% of that hospital and only using 20% of the navy hospital ship -- again, the president manned that, all the ppp that you'd ever need, everything needed for the -- not the paycheck protection plan -- all the protective gear you needed, manned it and operated it for him. that remained -- there was no reason to ever send these patients into nursing homes and nursing home owners were screaming, "we can't handle this!" now "the post" reporting shows a full-blown cover-up with a new identifiable whistle-blower has

been brewing inside of the governor's mansion for months. here to react to all of this is fox news janis. she lost her mother-in-law and father-in-law to covid after the virus ravaged their long-term care facility in new york. janis, thank you for being with us. you know, i've been following your story on "fox & friends." my heart breaks for you and your family. the thing that drives me crazy in all of this is that we had thousands of beds that remained empty. we had the personnel, we had the masks, the shields, the gloves, everything there, and they put them back in the nursing home. your thoughts on tonight. >> absolutely. that's why i want a full investigation into this governor. we knew he was hiding the numbers. now, the numbers are trickling out. over 15,000 of our loved ones in new york died in new york nursing homes.

those that died in the hospital were not counted by this governor and those were the numbers he was covering up and we just found out tonight that over 9,000 infected patients were put into those vulnerable nursing homes like fire through dry grass. by the way, that's what the governor said when he first started out talking about covid in nursing homes, and the question i've never heard him answer is why didn't you use the federal government's makeshift hospitals? including the comfort ship, the javits center and other buildings that were put in place with doctors and nurses to handle the overflow of covid-positive patients? i want all of those answers for all of our families that don't have our loved ones anymore. >> hannity: you know, janis, one of the things i've noticed at different times you were going to testify. you wanted to bring the issue to light. you were denied that opportunity. you've been attacked personally,

um, and -- i mean, these are our loved ones. we knew early on they got a lot wrong. all the models were wrong. all the predictions were wrong. i'm not blame something people. i think they really tried their best. no one really knew what they were dealing with but at the end of the day, this was a conscious decision that was made here and one thing that remained constant was older people, compromised immune systems, underlying conditions most vulnerable. we knew that very early. that is safe to say. >> we did. he knew that as well, and he blamed everyone else, sean. he blamed the nursing home residents themselves for being old. he blamed the people who took care of them. he blamed the president. he blamed the cdc. he blamed god, mother nature, "new york post" and fox news. he blamed everyone else for the person that -- everyone else

except for the person that signed the mandate to put 9,000 infected patients into nursing homes where they were sitting ducks and we had no idea. >> hannity: he wrote a book about leadership on this, janice. isn't he getting an emmy award or some kind of award? >> that was the other thing that was just horrifying! with his brother on cnn doing the comedy routine with the big cotton swab, the night before i went on tucker carlson to tell my story and then, of course, he's got the covid mountain poster showing how he flattened the curve and all the favorite things he loved about himself on that and he sold that poster and then he wrote the book, the book about leadership in the middle of the pandemic. i'm not a political person, but i will tell you i'm not dumb. if this guy was a republican, he would probably be in jail right now. >> hannity: wow, um, now he was the governor. he had the facts.

i don't want to implicate in any innocent -- any innocent familymembers about what they knew or didn't know but we know about this. janice, you, your family or any family that loved a -- that lost a loved one in a nursing home, our thoughts and prayers to your family and to the many other families here. we'll get to the bottom of it. thank you. now, we turn to another developing scandal from the anti-trump group. you've heard it. it's called the lincoln project. that's the organization founded to smear all things, everything donald trump. that group now facing disturbing abuse allegations against its co-founder. remember that guy? john weaver? i recall he was -- john kasich -- i think he worked with mccain, too, allegedly exploiting young men. also tonight breaking, it appears that the lincoln project was little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for their founders. a report tonight out says they paid themselves reportedly $50 million out of the

$90 million raised. only spent $27 million on commercials. we'll have more updates and a lot more on this coming up with tammy bruce. but in other breaking news tonight, we have day three of the senate ship-show charade. it's officially in the books. democrats are running out of things to now talk about. tomorrow, former president trump's legal team, they will present their defense. we're told by our sources, it's going to be quick. they don't need 16 hours. they need maybe two or three, maximum four. then the question of whether witnesses will be called or not. i have my hannity list. they want witnesses, oh do i have a great list! and president trump ultimately will be acquitted. it's a predetermined outcome. the whole time, it's been political theater, nothing but a show, a bunch of politicians grandstanding and acting, not a real trial with a real judge. no, he had a judge in this case that declared that the person that he was presiding over is guilty. not exactly a courtroom you'd

expect in the united states of america and this will mercifully come to an end. and according to the single article of impeachment, the democrats claim that trump should be removed from an office he no longer holds even though it wouldn't have jurisdiction from my point of view. he told his supporters on january 6th, this was collectively edited out. he did say -- selectively edited out. he did say "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore." and they wrote the words, "insighted an insurrection. -- incited an insurrection." no, that's not what the president said or did. we know this is bogus for many reasons that we've laid out in on this show in detail including the violence was -- we now know, because you can't have a snap impeachment. why? you have to have an investigation first. you have to have evidence built. then you have to make conclusions based on real facts, something the house of representatives never did. we now know that a lot of this violence was planned in advance of the president's remarks on

january 6th. and the fact that the president went onto tell his supporters, again, edited out, to "peacefully and patriotically, they're going to march to the capitol so their voices can be heard." hardly a call to incite insurrection. tonight, we want to focus also on something else, and that is the enate level of hypocrisy in the democratic party. their shifting narrative. they impeached on one hand and then they tried an entirely different case, because according to them, the president is not allowed to tell his supporters to fight like hell. well, here are the impeachment managers themselves now prosecuting this case. right there, you see congressman jamie raskin september 2020. he tweeted "we must fight like hell to stop this assault on healthcare and the constitution." 2019, he told the atlantic, "let's hope for the best, be prepared for the worst and fight like hell for the constitution." in 2017, he wrote, "we've got to

wake up every day and fight like hell for liberal democracy." again in 2017 he tweeted, "constitutional patriots of all parties must demand investigation into trump and russia." this is our democracy, fight for it" oh, i guess he was inciting insurrection. pretty chilling stuff from jamie raskin. also, by the way, he was questioning the results in 2016, the very thing they said trump wasn't allowed to do and his co-managers, well, they're just as bad. let's look at ted in 2017 tweeting, "when they go low, i fight back." in 2020, another democratic impeachment manager, "i'm ready to fight like hell to elect joe biden and kamala harris to the white house." then there's this genius, eric swalwell, not only does swalwell have this thing, you know, the problem with fang-fang, the chinese spy, also apparently loves going on national television and telling his supporters, you got it, to

"fight like hell." take a look. >> which stated that a leader of the militia group known as the. [indiscernible] [no audio] >> hannity: as it turns out, swalwell doesn't really seem to care about violence against elected officials in 2018, remember, maine senator susan collins, she received a series of violent threats. this was during the kavanaugh confirmings -- confirmation when they were smearing kavanaugh lying about him when swalwell tweeted, "boo-hoo-hoo, you're a senator that will be protected." in fact, democrats have themselves as we pointed out frequently used aggressive, hostile rhetoric to attack republicans and especially donald trump. let's just take a look at a few

of those examples or we can spend the whole hour if we had the time. take a look. >> you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. >> be careful. i just don't know where there aren't uprisings all over the country. maybe there will be. >> walk lightly. >> you have to fight them. the only way he knows how to fight is to street fight. >> enough is enough! >> if the president fired robert mueller, we'd have people take to the streets. i believe there'd be widespread civil unrest. >> we ain't playing with you. >> even in states where donald trump won big, that it does you any good running away from donald trump. i think you need to go back and punch him in the face. >> make them pay. >> what we've got to do is fight in congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets. fight online. fight at the ballot box. >> for those of you who are

soldiers, you know how to do it. do it right. >> hannity: you know how to do it, do it right. wow. i'm going to take trump out tonight. remember that doozy? maxine waters. now, i would say everything you just saw probably we're going to apply the same exact standard or we'd be impeaching all of them? why? for inciting insurrection. their favorite new word. the left has been viciously attacking president trump. the republican party as well. they spread nothing for three years but lies and conspiracy theories that trump was a russian agent. asset. not true. only russian interference was hillary's bought and paid for dirty russian misinformation dossier used to spy on the presidential candidate trump and president trump. he accused all republicans of being racist and sexist and homophobic, 16 february topick and homophobic. you know the list. they said republicans were going to destroy the country, throw

granny over the cliff and take away everyone's healthcare so you can die in 2017, remember the deranged far left gunman targeting republican lawmakers on the baseball field? friend of the show, steve scalise nearly died that day. he shot multiple people. we saw how two brave capitol police officers in an open field with only a pistol went up against the rifle. totally risking their lives and getting injured in the process. at the time, president trump, this show, we didn't blame democrats. nobody accused bernie sanders of inciting that violence. instead, president trump released this statement: now we may have our differences but we do well in times like these to remember everyone who serves in our nation's capitol is here because above all they love our country. and as president donald trump always while repudiated violence including last summer. remember when the silence was deafening from the media mob and from democrats?

violent riots ripping through one american city after another. city after city after city and president trump calling on states to activate the national guard. he pledged his full support of the federal government to restore order, law and order, peace and tranquility in cities and states. what was kamala harris doing? she was out there promoting that bail fund. why? to get violent rioters out of jail quicker so they can rejoin their friends in the effort. she said they're not going to stop, we're not going to stop, they shouldn't stop and we're not going to stop. wow. other top democrats attacking president trump for defending american cities and stopping the rioting and the arson and the looting and the murder and the 2,025 cops injured during that time. in the weeks in the riots in downtown portland week after week after week, multiple democrats condemning president trump for sending federal law enforcement officials to protect a federal courthouse that

rioters were trying to burn to the ground almost every night. watch this. >> who in america believes is the real threat to our constitutional right? is it the oregonians who gathered in my hometown, an overwhelmingly peaceful protest for racial justice or is this a heavily-armed secret police who snatched portlanders off the streets in the unmarked vans and interrogated them without justification? >> here's what the scene looked like in portland when the federal troops were arriving. thousands of people, peacefully protesting -- can we move that into the picture -- holding flowers, dancing, chanting, arguing that we need to have a reform in america so that there is equal public safety for all. >> hannity: like fake news cnn

and msnbc. mostly peaceful. mostly the city is ablaze behind them. earlier that summer, far left rioters surrounding the white house. remember that? the president and his family inside. for hours, they attempted to breach perimeter set up by the secret service. remember, we were told the white house complex faced the highest security alert since 9/11/01. the president and his family were rushed into a secure bunker after fears that the perimeter would be breached and not hold, not be held? this happened only a few months ago! nobody on the left seemed to care. where was the outrage from democrats when this sacred building was attacked? where was the outrage when far left rioters showed up at senator josh holly's front door harassing his wife and young child? by the way, senator holly's wife will jiang join us tonight. -- will join us tonight. where was the outrage when senator mcconnell's house was vandalized or he was confronted

at a restaurant. where was the outrage when kirstjen nielsen and sarah sanders were accosted at restaurants with their families. where was the outrage when rand paul and his wife were attacked after the rnc? where was the outrage when rand paul was viciously assaulted by a neighbor, the one that left him with six broken ribs? congresswoman omar "joked about that on twitter. on i on i tonight, the same democrats who condoned or ignored all of the summer's violent riots and ignored the attack on the white house and ignored the harassment and the attack against republican lawmakers and called on their followers to "fight like hell" just like donald trump, the same democrats now accusing the president of inciting insurrection because he told his supporters to fight like hell and in the same speech it turns out he says to be peaceful and patriotic and let your voice be heard. president's speech doesn't, i guess, qualify as incitement, does it?

according to, if you want to look at the law, brandonberg v ohio, speech could only qualify for incitement if directed at producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action, in other words, a political speech telling people to peacefully, patriotically let your voices be heard is not incitement, not even close and it's not insurrection and that's why democrats are attempting to now shift the accusations of realtime away from the president's actual words, slice, dice and edit, into more of a smear into everything he's done and everything they don't like about him, about voter fraud, election irregularities. kind of sounded like hillary and stacey abrams to me. if voicing election concerns is a high crime and misdemeanor, well, then i guess abrams and clinton will be held accountable. not only is the shifting impeachment narrative getting sloppy, so is the evidence, because we're learning that one tweet used by the impeachment managers was actually altered or

falsified. another problem arose when the impeachment managers entered another piece of false evidence into the record about mike lee. they falsely claimed that president trump called him and was briefed about the situation in the capitol. that's also false. any way, joining us now, he is a very prestigious law professor and also well known as a liberal democrat, constitutional scholar, jonathan turley, sir, glad you're with us. >> thank you. >> hannity: ok, let's go through this. you're the first to inform this country snap impeachment is dangerous. ok. now we're learning that a lot of this was preplanned. now we're comparing the rhetoric of the left and the rhetoric with president trump. you know what? both sides get hot, jonathan. you and i -- this is not our first rodeo. thoughts? >> well, what i think really is glaring is that the house managers wrapped up their case

and what was not in that case. after doing the snap impeachment, there were four weeks where the house did nothing in terms of locking in testimony. there are a dozen -- there were a dozen people who were around the president who spoke publicly about things he did or said during those critical hours. the house never called any of them as witnesses, never locked in their testimony, never created the record that they failed to create when they did the snap impeachment. and the question is why? you know, the incident you talked about with senator lee is demonstrative of this problem. they were holding news article about potential witnesses but they didn't call them before or after the snap impeachment. so they knew it was unlikely that they would get many, if any witnesses. even when the republicans were in control of the clinton impeachment, there were only a couple of depositions and no live witnesses. with the trump impeachment, the first one, there were no witnesses. so why wouldn't the house want

to lock in the testimony as direct evidence as to what the president was doing and saying during this period? and then it really became quite glaring today when you had the house manager say, look, we have the evidence of the state of mind of trump but then they played four years of speeches and other controversies. at one point, it sounded like they were saying that he was responsible for the kidnap conspiracy of governor whitmer. and what you're seeing, they're saying you just impeached him for incitement for insurrection. not negligence. not for being a lousy person. you impeached him because you said he was trying to incite actual rebellion. that's in the article of impeachment. the 14th amendment language of the actual rebellion. they dug a deep hole that's a lot to fill in. they didn't really try him.

the question is why? why wouldn't you want to marshall that evidence? in the end, they wrapped up with very little hard evidence on trump's intent, purpose or state of mind. >> hannity: to me, jonathan -- and you're a far smarter constitutional attorney than i am -- i would argue on three quick cases, three quick issues, constitution itself including jurisdiction which allen dershowitz talked at length about, now, the evidence that shows this was all preplanned, can't incite something that was planned in advance unless he plotted with them and the own insurrectionist standard or incitement of insurrection, democrats would be just as guilty as the republicans if we're going to be just as blunt leer. i would say as a strategy three hours, wrap up your case, i rest my case, answer some questions and they want to call witnesses, it's a mile long, i hope they

do. your thoughts on how they handle this? >> the house opened the door on this comparison. they shouldn't want this to be a trial on reckless rhetoric because as you've noted it may be hard to it distinguish between at caused, the prosecutors and the -- the accused, the prosecutors and the jury. we're living in an age of rage. people say irresponsible things, but they move radically from the article they drafted and enacted. it's poorly crafted. but they chose that, and they really didn't prove that case. they didn't really talk about the burden they had to shoulder. instead, they showed a lot of clips of past speeches. now, they're going to get a lot of clips of other speeches, some of which are their own. >> hannity: jonathan, i wish you could just go and speak for an hour, wrap up the case and we'd be done. piece of cake. should it go on more than three hours? what do you think? the defense? >> i was the one that says the

it should rest on the constitutional challenge. >> jonathan turley, still unable to comprehend the 2016 laws. hillary decided to give her opinion on this sham. you won't believe what she has to say. allen dershowitz and much more coming up straight ahead.

>> hannity: just a few moments by the way, holly's wife, erin, joins us to talk about the night that protesters came to her home. insurrection there, considering that's the word of the week or the month. erin will join us in a moment. twice-failed presidential candidate hillary clinton can't help but inject herself saying tweeting if senate republicans fail to convict president trump, it won't be because the facts are with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense. it'll just be because the jury

concludes as co-conspirators. anyone in the democratic party have a problem with that rhetoric? remember, she told joe biden concede under no circumstances but they'll never ever hold themselves accountable, will they? the democrats, the rules don't apply to them. harvard law professor alan --ovic joins us along with katie pavlich. professor, let's start with you. i think two or three hours, a few videos, the substitution, your an nall -- the constitution, your analysis will be a good start followed by the facts that it was determined it was preplanned followed by donald trump is guilty of inciting insurrection, so are all of you people. >> well, i don't understand. hillary clinton is a very good lawyer. what she says to the republican senators, he's as guilty, you're as guilty as he is. they're listening and say oh, you mean we're -- he's as innocent as we are. they think they're innocent so if she's making comparisons between the senators and trump,

that's very ineffective advocacy. she's actually advocating for the senators to vote to acquit him. the evidence is overwhelming. the president made a statement, a speech which was so within the perimeters of our first amendment in brandenburg, not withstanding the fact that 144 scholars have said it would be unethical, unethical to even raise the first amendment issue. i hope the defense attorneys for trump don't listen and make that argument. i offered to defend them in front of any bar association that finds this argument unethical because these scholars are trying to intimidate lawyers, trying to persuade them they can't ethically make a first amendment argument depriving all of america and the senate of the opportunity to hear how the first amendment precludes this impeachment and so i expect we'll hear a few

hours, david shone is a very good -- david shown is a very good lawyer. he'll focus laser-like on the first amendment issues. they should also argue the jurisdictional issue. remember that it doesn't matter what reasons the senators have for acquitting, some may acquit on the first amendment grounds, others even though they'll vote it down may still acquit on the ground there's no jurisdiction and the total simply has to be more than 1/3 and there'll be an acquittal. i think that'll be the strategy. the democrats overplayed their hand today. they went on too long, too repticious. they should have rested yesterday. i think the republicans, the lawyers will do a good job by making it neat and clean and to the point and short. >> hannity: all right, let me go to katie pavlich. let's look at the political side of it and then we'll go from there. >> well, first of all, you know, hillary clinton was telling the world and the american people in the fall that president trump was an illidge matt president and not only was he ellidge matt

in her opinion but he knew he was illegitimate. she took no responsibility of pushing this lie over the past four years that president trump was elected because of the russians despite it being debunked a number of times. as we move forward politically, you know, democrats have gone beyond just holding people accountable who stormed the capitol who are responsible for their own behavior and attempted in a lot of ways been successful at painting all republicans as insurrectionists who applaud the mob for going after both republicans and democrats on the floor of the senate that day, and that's why i think people are watching this going, ok, well i could -- i could condemn the mob, i could condemn maybe some of the rhetoric that happened but i cannot allow democrats to smear everybody who is not involved in this. and it's very clear that the democrats are moving forward to try to go after civil liberties. they're trying to coordinate power and solidarity around their cause going into the midterm elections. this is all about power for

them, especially considering president trump is no longer president and cannot be removed by the senate. >> hannity: lee zelden. i'm watching your house of representatives. i'm thinking, ok, they didn't have any facts or witnesses. they didn't have any defense. they didn't have any due process. is that how it works in your house of representatives? your you're a part of that -- you're a part of that body. >> that's how it works with nanci pelosi as speaker and adam shiv and his ship-show and jerry nadler and his judiciary committee. the reason why all the senators will be acquitting donald trump is because this is unconstitutional. it is because they realize the american public, the average person is saying to themselves why are we doing this impeachment? he's not even in office anymore. why aren't we working at getting our kids back into schools? they're looking at the facts. they're seeing that this was preplanned. the f.b.i. warned about this ahead of time. the president gave a speech. they're saying you can't assign any type of metaphorical

characterization on the president saying "fighting like hell" when you look at his actual words, he's calling for his people to go there peacefully and patriotically. on the facts and also as you've been pointing out on hypocrisy, people are seeing the insurrection of autonomous zones in seattle taking over police precincts or attacking a federal courthouse, throwing molotov cocktails at police cruisers. the double standard has the average person infuriated and senators are going to acquit because of not just one reason, because of many different reasons. the whole thing is a farce. they want to see us getting back to getting kids back to school. >> i only got 15 seconds. professor, would you go beyond two or three hours in the defense? i wouldn't waste more time than that. >> no i think they have to make the argument again about lack of jurisdiction. they have to show the videos of all the democrats using language like "fight like hell," focus on the first amendment, laser-like

and then sit down and they've won the case. >> hannity: amen. all right. i bet you i could probably do that in an hour and a half and i didn't even sit in your law class like mike pompeo and ted cruz. i'm just an amateur talk show host. good to see you all. all right, last month, remember angry left-wing protesters surrounded the home of senator josh holly when only his wife and infant daughter were home? senator holly's wife, erin, will be here to discuss these terrifying events straight ahead. advanced non-small cell lung cancer can change everything. but your first treatment could be a chemo-free combination of two immunotherapies that works differently. it could mean a chance to live longer. opdivo plus yervoy is for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread and that tests positive for pd-l1 and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is the first and only fda-approved combination of two immunotherapies

opdivo plus yervoy equals... a chance for more starry nights. more sparkly days. more big notes. more small treasures. more family dinners. more private desserts. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain, nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur at the same time and some more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. here's to a chance for more horizons. a chance to live longer. ask your doctor about chemo-free opdivo plus yervoy.

thank you to all involved in our clinical trials.

>> hannity: while democrats deceptively edit donald trump's rally to push their false

narrative about inciting insurrection. democrats are guilty of their own insurrection standard, spewing violent rhetoric over the last four years over donald trump and his supporters. violent left wing agitators on february 4th stormed the d.c. area home of josh and erin hawley's house shouting with bull horns, even standing at the front door blocking the porch, vandalism. at the time, erin was home alone with her seven-week-old daughter as all the mayhem was unfolding. she writes in a new piece on foxnews.com, the assault on our home followed by weeks of personal attacks are not civil discourse. they just are meant to frighten. where is the outrage on the senate democrats for 0 this attack? where are their calls for accountability on this incitement of violence. she called on the accountability for the agitator. he was charged with illegally demonstrating. here to join us is senior legal

fellow, independent woman's forum, wife of senator josh hawley, erin hawley. you have two young boys. thankfully, they weren't home that night. you have the seven-week-old little girl. tell us what happened? >> well, absolutely, yeah, as you touched on, i'm just so grateful our boys were not home that night. abi and i were enjoying a home movie, little girls' night downstairs when we heard angry voices. i came up the stairs and saw about 20 protesters standing outside of our home. they were shouting with bull horns. i stepped outside with our baby in our arms and asked them to leave saying wade new baby which was obvious as well as neighbors. they refused. so i went back downstairs and then came up again when i heard shouting and pounding up close. when i came upstairs, as you mentioned, there were about three gentlemen -- i say "gentlemen" blocking the door shouting in the bull horns and

yelling "come out! come out!" >> unbelievable so -- and then -- you said some wonderful things. now, this went on longer as they talked -- you had threats of rape and death and then other people say, oh, well the hawleys are snowflakes and you had a police person se say this was a minor -- say this was a minor incident. this was no minor incident, was it? >> no, and especially if you think these protesters came to our home at night on purpose and what other purpose could there be to coming to a family home at night undercover of darkness? if my two boys would have been home, they would have been terrified and i thank god they were not, but it's not a minor incident to frighten families or to terrorize children. the protesters know that. there are many public spaces in which they can get across their message. the first amendment protects that, but it doesn't protect

coming to a family home at night. >> did any elected democrat ever call to you say they're sorry about what you went through? >> you know, they did not, sean, but on the other hand, we have neighbors of all sorts of political purr situations. those neighbors have been very -- persuasions. those neighbors have been very supportive and very kind. there are good people in the world but no democratic elected official called, no. >> hannity: i'm very sorry and you your family went through that i hope your little girl is doing ok. hope the boys are ok. sound like you have amazing neighbors. i heard about the wonderful things that they did there are good people in this world and in this country. we're glad that you're safe. thank you for being with us. >> hannity: up next, another trump group, lincoln project, they're in big trouble. going to tell you about a report out tonight. tammy bruce will weigh in straight ahead.

>> hannity: all right, now tonight, the disgraced anti-trump lincoln project appears to be caught in yet another lie about what and when they became aware of some pretty sick, disturbing prettytory allegations against co-founder john weaver. now as first reported by american conservative last month, weaver is credibly accused of using the lincoln project as an outlet to groom and sexually exploit young men in a news story tonight from the a.p., we're learning more about the leaders of this rabid anti-trump cabal that were well aware, apparently, according to these reports of disturbing allegations all the way back in the summer of 2020 but took no action. this is what the a.p.'s reporting. despite the early warning, the

group took no action against weaver and pressed forward with its high-profile work. remember, after being bolstered by the media and mob, they raised nearly $90 million in the 2020 election cycle. now this report goes onto talk about how many of the funds went directly to firms of the co-founders themselves all while john weaver allegedly used the group as an outlet to exploit young men. by the way, it looks like they used these, well, "other outlets" as a means of not disclosing how much money was going to who and where. that's what the charge is lincoln project is still refusing to take responsibility for any damage here. one co-founder calling the stories a hit from trump world. i think trump world's busy. in a separate statement, the group said recently published stories about the lincoln project are filled with inaccuracies, encrat information, -- inaccurate information relying exclusive on

anonymous sources. there's an essential truth in all of them that must be reckoned with, that is john weaver's appalling conduct and the abuse inflected on people. lincoln project added they hired an outside investigator review weaver's conduct but have no further comments until the probe is completed. where'd the money go? with reaction, fox news contributor tammy bruce. i've not had time to independently investigate. the lincoln project to me was a bunch of people who say they were republicans, they were rhinos at best and just hated donald trump, the same people who said, oh, for the good of the party, you have to vote for the liberal republican. they'll stay to conservatives about mccain and others. all right, your thoughts. >> this is -- yeah, it is. this is huge, and what it reminds us of now -- and by the way, the stories, of course, coming out in the "new york times" and the associated press after the election, and you're

looking at every single tell with this organization that this is about something other than doing the right thing. it really is like in a way a cult, gathering people up on one emotional issue about hatred of donald trump. that's the only thing that matters. this is where you belong. we'll do anything because he's so bad. morally corrupt. indecent and doing everything only for money. and what do you know, sean? they're describing themselves. they're describing themselves. coming from the left, i've been warning people now for decades, everything that the left accuses the right of, anything conservatives or people who challenge the status quo of the establishment, um, are going -- everything that they're accused of, the left sim complimenting, the left is -- is implementing, the left is doing these things. we know this. we've seen it time and time again, but in this case, you do have individuals who claim to be republicans, in fact, even karl

rove exposed and noted in one instance in 1988 an allegation regarding john weaver's behavior. that's over 30 years ago. this could explain, sean, the frenzy of the establishment of these kinds of republicans that were out of their mind trying to stop trump for unknown reasons. this perhaps explains it that trump would be the keeper of the secrets. trump would be the one who wouldn't put up with this. and, you know, we're seeing the same thing with the cuomo death rates in the nursing homes. this bizarre obsession, but with weaver and other individuals in the lincoln project, people with spotty financial histories, lawsuits, mortgage problems, irs problems and suddenly they are flush because they found the right boogie man, and they've manipulated people's emotional reactions including perhaps young men, in one case with john

weaver according to the "new york times," a 14-year-old grooming that individual with promises and using his political work, maybe lincoln project, as a lure, as is described in some of the stories, like a daily beast and the a.p., etc., that that's the nature of what is going on here. it shouldn't be an outside investigation. this really needs to be more serious when it comes to the nature of the money and what was done to procure that money and who these people really are. >> hannity: wow. unbelievable. tammy, great analysis. we'll follow this story as news breaks. thank you. we'll have more "hannity" after this.

♪ ♪ >> sean: unfortunately that's all the time we have left this evening, please set your dvr so you never miss an episode, the defense of the president, i would say no more than four

hours, likely two or three, then they will have questions and vote, than the predetermined outcome. in the meantime, let not your heart be troubled, laura ingraham takes it from here, what do we have tonight? >> laura: i'm beginning to see clearly what's going on, so i decided to clear, that's all and going to say. it's water, thank you very much. >> sean: that's what i'm drinking. >> laura: i love the fact that now the democrats care about law enforcement so much, that's actually heartening because last summer we were begging them to care about law enforcement, we are going to get into that right off the bat. >> sean: you been having kick beep shows.