Deep State Exposed - August 21st, Hour 3

specific important tasks. And today's announcement, remember earlier in the week shoes on Hannity and they took away thirty seven security clearances, number one and number two. They're cutting back the size and scope of what the organization is because they've gotten away from their original intent. He said, it will make the dn I stronger, more effective for national

security for the President. I look forward to working with Director Gabbard to implement these reforms and provide the ODNI with legislative relief necessary to ensure our intelligence community can focus on its core mission, and that is stealing secrets from our adversaries. Anyway, Senator Cotton, great to have you back. Thank you for being with us. A lot of news that is unfolding as it relates to the Deep State.

John Solomon will be with us at the bottom of the hour, and his report on James Comy is very breathtaking in terms of they have smoking gun evidence according to John, that in fact, there were purposeful leaks of classified information to reporters coming from Comy directly himself. He's going to lay out the case. He's got all the documents,

he put him up on his website. And then of course we have James Comer today finding out that, you know, with the most informative interview of his probe so far into this conspiracy that he only met twice, meaning Ian Sam's who testified today, only met twice with Biden. But he was saying, oh, it's a conspiracy theory if you

dare talk about his cognitive state. And Mike Howell pras And of the Oversight Project is pointing out that Biden's own Justice Department was warning directly that these last minute of pardons and commutations were not going to be legal, and he lists four specific reasons why, and nobody paid attention to them. And on top of that, the FBI director Cash Pattel said there was no constitutional basis, no lawful predicate for Biden's Justice Department and FBI to carry

out the rate at mar A Lago. There's a lot going on. Everything that we had been reporting on seems to be, you know, more and more evidence is coming out every day that it was all true. Your reaction all of it sean.

of Congress twenty years ago. This is something she and I discussed in our first conversation after President Trump nominated her. We both addressed her confirmation hearings and at my committee. The Intelligence Committee passed legislation to help implement a couple months ago that expect to pass Congress later this year. I mean, the D and I does not collect intelligence, They don't have agents running around the world. They don't

have satellites. They're supposed to be a coordinating function. They're not supposed to be involved in politicizing intelligence, really giving directives on how agencies use their own internal assets. But when you have as many people as the D and I has had in recent years, it does open up the possibility of mishift making. When people don't have legitimate intelligence functions and responsibilities on the plate, then they start cooking up the kind of things that justify their jobs

and their budgets and so forth. So what Director Gabbard announced this week is an important first step. We've been working with her closely. Some of the problems with the D and I, I'll confess, Sean, there's the problems of Congress over the last twenty years imposing new mandates on them, creating centers that are superfluous or not related to intelligence

at all. And it's going to take our legislation to eliminate those offices and those centers so that D and I can get back to its original focus of ensuring that intelligence is coordinated across all the agencies while letting those agencies do their primary job.

the election. And do you believe that after they lost the election and senior career intelligence officials ascertained with their intelligence analysis that there was no Trump Russia collusion and that Obama and his top lieutenants didn't like that assessment, and they came up with a new assessment that said just the opposite, And then they used the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that was bought and paid for by Hillary to write a new assessment to make Donald Trump look bad.

What do you make of all of that? Is that criminal to you?

So in some ways, it's the intelligence officials that were trying to protect the reputation and integrity of their own work and their agencies against these democratic political appointees. I think that's what took a lot of people, or what struck a lot of people, is that it really started

at the top. And it seems that Sean had frankly gone all the way up to the very top with Barack Obama in the transition period of twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen, and it's proven out by FBI investigation and with the Department of Justice prosecutors, and any of these people were involved in violating the law, then certainly if the statue of limitations has not run, then they would face criminal liability as they should for engaging in criminal misconduct.

Hunter Biden's laptop. They knew that story would break. They verified the authenticity of the laptop in March of twenty twenty. They went about the process in the summer of twenty twenty of meeting with big tech companies every single week, warning them they may be victims of a disinformation campaign. It may be about Hunter, it may be about Joe Biden.

And then sure enough the story breaks and Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, then Facebook, and Jack Dorsey of then Twitter, you know, call and say, is this what you were warning us about? And they would not tell them what they knew to be true, that it was authentic, that it was real, that they had verified. Such is that putting cinder blocks on the scale of an election.

publicly to account so it never happens again. So no unelected bureaucrat or no democratic appointee in the future thinks that they can use law enforcement or intelligence agencies to influence domestic politics here in America.

no lawful predicgated for it. And then, of course, on one of the top stories of the day, the President now celebrating his victory over the you know, over Letitia James and this ridiculous settlement of five hundred and fifteen million dollars as it you know, relates to a mortgage case which is unprecedented, and a judge that you know, stood by evaluation of mar a lago of eighteen million dollars when it's when it's a billion to a billion

and a half dollars. And they got away with all of that, and all of the other law fair the novel legal theory of Alvin Bragg, the rate of mar A Lago, all of these things combined. I mean to me, that's more election interference. That's more that their job then was to bloody up Donald Trump, to make him, you know, not to make render him not a viable candidate for president.

threat to democracy. And it's so funny that they always levy that charge against President Trump and against us, when they're the ones who, again, over the last ten years, have rapidly used law enforcements and litigation to try to tar Donald Trump, to try to convict him and imprison him for the rest of his life, or in the case that was just overturned today, to find him a half billion dollars for what Shawan taking out loans that he repaid. I remember when that judgment first came down

last year. I was talking to a farmer in Arkansas and he's like, what are they even talking about up there? You take out a loan, you repay it all. Who's the victim? I bet the banks are happy, And they weren't happy, of course.

help out. Alvin Bragg tells me they wanted that conviction as badly again, to bloody of Trump and render him unelectable.

the legal theory period. They would were willing to break any rule, any procedure, any custom, all an effort to get Trump to bankrupt him, to convict him, to imprison them. Thank goodness, the American people saw through it all and did not allow it to influence their choice in the election last year.

News Channel. Quick Break right back will continue, probably continue now with Senator Tom Cotton, Great State of Arkansas's with us. You know, a lot of people listening to this show will think back and they'll remember investigations that we've had. You know, Hillary Clinton's dirty bought and paid for dossier. James call me protecting Hillary with you know, no reasonable

prosecutor would prosecute. But then, of course a double standard occurred when mar Lago got raided and she did not have the protections that Donald Trump did with the with the Presidential Authorization Act, where he had access to these papers, she never had the ability to take them with her. The same with Joe Biden. Again, a double standard, a

dual justice system. And I just wonder, you know, and I know my audience is wondering because everybody I talked who says, do you think something's going to happen this time? Are people really going to be held accountable for what they've done here?

to Congress, lying the federal investigators, substruction of justice. You're going to hear wailing and crying from Democrats and from liberals in the media about how this happens all the time, and these are not serious actions and they're engaged in legal warfare. When it's aok against Donald Trump or for that matter, against Ronald Reagan's appointees or against George W. Bush's appointees, it was all fine and dandy back then,

and it was a matter of high principle. But when it's going when the shoes on the other foot and Democrats are being held accountable for things like lying to federal investigators or obstruction of justice or conspiracy against civil rights, then all of a sudden, those charges are not going to be serious at all in the case where everyone does it and Donald Trump's doj under Pam Mandy and Cash Retail is engaging in that ragious misconduct conduct. Just

mark mark my work, Sean when you hear that. But I'm confident that Pam and Cash, if there are legal legal case to be made and it's colorable under the law and under precedent, will move forward to hold these people accountable.

you know, I'll frankly take my breath away. And as somebody who reported on all of these issues, I spent you know, four years of my life reporting on Russia, Russia, Russia, and even stands beyond that it is, it is kind of breathtaking. But Senator Tom Cott, we always appreciate you being with us. Thank you, sir. Eight hundred nine four one Shawn. If you want to be a part of the program, I'm twenty five now till the top of the hour. Eight hundred and ninety four one. Shawn is

on number. You want to be a part of the program, Hey, I want everybody to go to legacybox dot com slash Hannity today. You're gonna get fifty percent off your box. They're gonna send you a box, and you take your time. You do it on your own time. You're gonna go into your attic, you go into your basement, your closets, your garage and have other family members do the same thing. You want every family memory. You spend so much time. Babies are born, baby's first steps, babies first day at school,

baby's first holy communion, graduations, weddings, you name it. You capture all of these moments on ham quarter tapes, VHS tapes, film reels. You know you have negatives, you have photos and they are literally rotting away because the heat, moisture, and mold. Well, thanks to Legacy Box, they will hand digitize all of these family memories in perpetuity, which means you're great great great great great great great grandchildren. One will know what you look like and sounded like, which

is great for them. And maybe relatives that have passed away, maybe their pictures will be preserved in perpetuity and maybe you'll get to hear from Grandma, Grandpa. Maybe they passed away, You'll get to hear from them again and see them again. It will be an incredible experience for you and your family. These memories were taken not to be hidden away in some attic somewhere, so anyway, get your Legacy Box today.

Go to legacy box dot com. Slash Annity unllocked fifty percent off your order today, send it in at your convenience, and it'll be a gift you can give your entire family and they're gonna love it. We welcome back the founder, editor in chief, chief investigative reporter Justinnews dot com, John Solomon. I will tell you, in the last three four weeks he has been on a tear breaking one big story

after another. I brought up a lot of news earlier, not the least of which is the President scoring that massive legal victory as an appeals court tossed out that ridiculous half a billion dollar judgment that New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Ertuwan, who still to this day thinks mar A Lago's just worth a mere eighteen million when it's well over a billion dollars. The FBI director Cash Bettel has determined the Biden FBI's mar A

Lago raid was illegal. As I said earlier in the program, you have a top Justice Department prosecutor hinting that the New York Attorney General could avoid prosecution on mortgage fraud charges. Interesting investigations going on between her and Adam Schiff and Adam Shifts. By the way, you know, last minute pardon may be brought into question as well the President going out and you know on on patrol in DC, if you will, Pam Bondi will join us tonight on Hannity

to talk about that part. But we just have breaking at this moment on top of all of the news we've had today, John Solomon, I'm just looking at this report. Prosecutors have secured evidence about James Comy, mister higher honor himself that he authorized classified leagues, but what they declined charges.

And I'll let John tell you the story himself, because he did all the deep digging and hard work and he found all the evidence, and it looks like we have bombshell revelations from all I can see here.

redactions heavily were adacted documents. We now know for certain that federal prosecutors ascertained evidence from the top lieutenants of James Comy that James Comy had leaked classified authorized the leak of classified information to The New York Times. One of those leaks right before the election, clearly a leak

designed to influence the election in twenty sixteen. And I want to remind everybody to a famous moment right around the time that President Trump fired James Combe as the FBI director, he was brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chuck Grassley pinned James Comy down. He was asked by by Chuck Grassey, did you ever have you ever been in an anonymous source of news reports and matters relating to the Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation? He answered never.

Grassy then said did you ever authorize anyone else to be an anonymous source on these topics? He said no, and whether? And then he was asked us any cast of information relating to President Trumper's associates ever declassified or shared with journalists and Comby said not to my knowledge. In fact, he went out to say, I think leaks

are a problem. Well, let's tell you what. The Postal Inspection Service and federal prosecutors found when they looked at that testimony and looked at a very specific leak to

the New York Times. They concluded that based on eyewitness testimony from James Baker, the former chief counsel to James Comy at the FBI, Baker admitted he disclosed US government classified information to the New York Times, and he did so because he had been instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comy, and he lays

out how the instruction came down. Comy tells his cheapestaff James Rabicki, James Rebake tells Baker go leak it, and then Baker goes leaks it to the New York Times. That seems to directly contradict, directly contradict the testimony of James Comy in seventeen something that's well outside the statute of limitations. But what isn't outside the statute of limitations is a knowing and willful and intentional leak of national

security information. There are certain statutes in certain conditions where someone can be charged up to ten years after a classified leak if it's knowing in wilfold. Certainly, what Baker and Roubickie are talking about is comy knowing what he was doing and having people downstream from him do the dirty work. This is a bombshell. It is big. It's in FBI documents. We just put the documents up on

our website. Everybody can read them with their own eyes. Now, what did we learn about why we didn't get accountability before this? It turns out that multiple people looked at this, including the US Attorney's office in Washington, d C. Under Donald Trump's first term, and the former Special Prosecutor John Durman. In both cases, they decided not to bring criminal charges even though they had this pretty clear case of a leak and an admission of a leak and who was

involved and who approved it. We're gonna have a lot of fall up peop were going to wonder why did that happen? Who made those decisions in Is there anything Pam BONDI can do now to resurrect this case and bring justice. You'll get a chance, I guess to ask her about it tonight on your show.

wasn't considered for charges. I think that's something we got to do more work on. It's gonna take us some time. There are still some redactions in these documents. There's still some classified information that we can't see. There will be lots of things that will, but there is a portion of the Internal Security Act of nineteen fifty that does extend a statute out to ten years. The things we have to know which we can't tell from this is

what was exactly the classified piece of information. Is there any scenario where James Comby could be classify it himself or did someone above him, Did a Barack Obama or a James Brennan or John Brennan or someone else tell him to leak the information? We don't know that from

these memos, but we do know one thing. There was pretty darn good evidence to say James Commey didn't tell Congress the truth and there was a classified leak that occurred in his inner circle, reportedly in these documents, flatly stating James Comy himself approved that leak.

Russia collusion. That was an early day. They concluded that after the twenty sixteen election, we could backtrack a little bit and we could say, okay, there was no real reason why James Comey stepped up and said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute, knowing the evidence was very overwhelming and incontrovertible as it relates to Hillary Clinton having top secret classified information on our servers in an attempt to cover it up by using bleach bit to acid wash the

servers and destroying devices with hammers and removing sim cards. Then James Comy's involvement. He signed three of the four FISA warrants, even though correct me if my timeline is wrong,

even though he was wrong. He was warned in August of twenty sixteen not to use the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that Hillary paid for, which became the bulk of information for the four PISA warrants, and they definitively knew not to use it by December of twenty sixteen, and James Comy was responsible for putting his signature on the

first three PISA warrants. And there is a law, as Greg Jared has pointed out many many times, that says, if you give false information to a PHIZA court and you discover it immediately, your job is to go back to the court and tell them the information that you had presented to the court turned out to be false. They didn't do that. It seems like there's a lot

of legal vulnerability for James Comy. So maybe when I said back in twenty sixteen, seventeen and eighteen, and we're doing Russia, Russia, Russia every day, and you are such a big part of the coverage. I said, James Komy, just remember you have the right to remain silent. Maybe I wasn't so wrong.

court saying it. We know that there were massive leaks. We know the intelligence community hijacked an assessment and tried to come to a false collusion to carry out a political outcome. We know that Hillary Clinton authorized the whole Russia collusion hoax, and that the FBI knew in advance, and so did President Obama, that she had authorized this

dirty trick. Instill The FBI and the US Intelligence Committee participated in that dirty trick, legitimized that dirty trick dragged the country through three and a half years of unnecessary turmoil over a scandal that never had as John Durham told us, and I owed of evidence to back it up. And now we know that we had a group of leakers, people in high senior positions who looked in the eye and told us we could trust them, who were leaking information.

And those include, according to the evidence that the FBI believed it had, Adam shiff the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, James Comy, the FBI Director. We may have others before we're done, based on what I'm seeing in these memos. So the great steel curtain that hid all of this from us has crumbled, and the only question left for us is will there be a prosecution or a penalty so powerful that it creates an incentive for

future people not to do this. Right now, there's no deterrence. So many people got away with the things we've now chronicled. If I'm sitting and I'm a deep Stater who has political motives, I might not be afraid to do something

similar in the future. That is the moment that Pam Bondi at cash Ptel, that Tulci Gabbett, that President Trump have on their plate right now, they could create a deterrence to make sure they make an example of a few people, created an enormous penalty, could very well see the sort of deterrence.

Joe Biden with his classified documents. Those were the three major investigations that were Democrats that enormous liability, and they got a pass, and they occurred and could have infected the twenty sixteen, the twenty twenty and the twenty twenty

four election. What happened on the other side of that equation, Donald Trump was pursued almost always on fall or incomplete allegations for things like Russia collusion, Ukraine impeachment, classified documents in the raid on Mr Lago, and so the case is very simple, as complicated as all the facts are in the timeline is it's very simple a wash rint repeat cycle of protecting and obstructing an investigation of a Democrat so that they don't get in trouble, then projecting

a fake scandal or a questionable scandal on a Republican and so doing you're obstructing justice and the Democrats investigation, and then you're violating the civil liberties of the Republicans who are falsely accused and put through a process. I think that is what we heard, Tay. Remember what the federal the New York Appeals Court ruled today, what Judge Edjeron and what Letitia James did wasn't just an error. It was a violation of the eighth Amendment of the

US Constitution. Is a civil liberties a civil rights violation. That is the theory that Caspitel opened up this case, and that's the theory that Harmeet Dylan talked about on my show the other day. The people now about the face criminal investigation could be charged with crimes under the same civil rights laws that we use to prosecute crooked cops and dirty cops in the South. In the nineteen sixties who were violating the rights of black Americans in

the South. Those laws could very come around, and it can very much come around if used in this conspiracy case.