Circa News: Obama administration 'unraveled' privacy rights

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," March 29, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And welcome to "Hannity." And tonight, we have damning new information on a developing story you won't hear from the mainstream destroy Trump media. And in just moments, we're going to uncover two shocking pieces of evidence that may show the unmasked members of the Trump team may have been surveilled by officials inside of the Obama administration. And that is tonight's blockbuster "Opening Monologue."

All right, let's go back to March the 4th. Remember? President Trump, he was ridiculed by the alt-left propaganda destroy Trump media. Why? He tweeted out that members of his transition team have been wiretapped by the Obama administration. But tonight, there is a damning piece of tape circulating that could vindicate President Trump.

Now, this clip we're going to show you is from March 2nd. It's from an MSNBC interview with Dr. Evelyn Farkas. Now, she served in the Obama administration from 2012 through 2015 as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

Now, this clip from the interview earlier this month, it could prove the Obama administration was very much involved in the surveillance of Trump transition team members. Wow! Watch this.


EVELYN FARKAS, FMR. DEPUTY ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I was urging my former colleagues, and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill -- it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, "Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration" because I had a fear that, somehow, that information would disappear with the senior people who left.

So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their -- the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.


HANNITY: All right, this is very, very important. Let's break down what Evelyn Farkas is actually saying here. And while I'm doing this, by the way, I want you to remember very crucial words, four words: surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaking. Now, first, pay close attention. She's admitting here surveillance of Trump and his associates and transition team took place! Listen to this.


FARKAS: It was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, "Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration" because I had a fear that, somehow, that information would disappear with the senior people.


HANNITY: All right, now, what is the information she's actually talking about? Now, obviously, Farkas is referring to surveilled information on the Trump transition team. Listen next as she admits that there was unmasking, in other words, revealing the identities of those Trump team members.


FARKAS: ... that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their -- the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.


HANNITY: Pretty blockbuster. Third, she admits that intelligence leaking was taking place! By the way, that could very well be a felony.


FARKAS: I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.


HANNITY: All right, let's go backwards. Surveillance, unmasking, intelligence leaking all acknowledged in that tape by Evelyn Farkas. Now, for days, we have been asking on this program, who knew what, when and where? So did Obama officials commit a crime here? And how did Evelyn Farkas, a former relatively low-ranking Obama administration official, how did she know about all this surveillance?

Now, that brings us to another big story tonight. For weeks, right here on this program, Sara Carter, John Solomon from Circa News, they have been doing excellent reporting on the surveillance story. Now, they uncovered the existence of an FBI investigation into a server that was being utilized by Trump Tower. By the way, that's where the campaign was. They also discovered a FISA warrant that allowed federal officials to capture Trump team communications. Now, prior to the president taking office, all this occurred.

Now they have another bombshell report and it shows high-ranking officials with direct access to President Obama may have had access to unmasked federal surveillance of the Trump transition and their team members, and may have briefed President Obama himself about the information they were collecting on then President-elect Trump.

Now, my predictions is that as each day goes by, more and more information will be becoming available. And soon, we're going to have the answer to these very important questions.

Joining us now with their explosive report, from Circa News, Sara Carter, John Solomon. Thank you, John, especially, for making a rare appearance. Sara's been doing all the heavy lifting on the show.



HANNITY: This is very important. Now, how is it that Evelyn Farkas, Sara, who left the administration, is talking specifically about surveillance? It seems like she's admitting the surveillance that you've been reporting on and John's been reporting on that took place of Trump transition team members. She's admitting that they unmasked them because they're Trump transition team members. And it seems she's talking about, Well, we got to get it to our friends that (INAUDIBLE) politicizing intelligence, and B, talking about leaking intelligence. What are your thoughts?

SARA CARTER, CIRCA NEWS: My thoughts are, you know, with the story that John and I broke today with regards to how the Obama administration loosened a lot of the regulations that protected the privacy of Americans - - I mean, this is going back all the way to 2011. Remember, everyone thought for a long time and once it was revealed that in January, when Obama expanded executive order 12333 to all the agencies, everybody was just focused on that. But nobody was focusing on what happened before that.

And I think what John and I were able to show was that, look, it didn't happen just in January. That expanded it even further into all 16 agencies. But in 2011, there was already the unraveling of what we consider our privacy rights. And then again in 2015, it happened again.

So they were already set up to look at these unredacted, unmasked transcripts between Americans and foreign officials or foreigners to foreigner, you know, that were talking about Americans.

HANNITY: All right, but let me -- let me go back...

CARTER: And I think a huge revelation...

HANNITY: Because I think this is important. John, I'll throw this to you because Evelyn also served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign, according to one report was up for a position if she had won. So she's out in 2015. We're talking about 2016 here. How would somebody that was once a rather low-level official -- no offense to her, she's serving her country. How would she have known that there was surveillance of Trump and the transition team? If you break down -- if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with the Russians -- wow! How would she possibly know that outside of government now?

SOLOMON: Yes, that's a really great question. And her appearance raises more questions than we have answers to right now. But it's possible the surveillance started earlier, when she was a Russia expert inside the Pentagon in 2015. That's something we have to look at. It's possible...

HANNITY: Whoa! John...


HANNITY: You just said they could have been...

SOLOMON: Possible.

HANNITY: ... surveilling in 2015?

SOLOMON: Certainly possible. Listen, we don't know, so I don't want to leap to any conclusions, but that's one possibility. Another possibility is someone passes information along to her. It could be some of the information she has isn't classified at all, though she used the word "intelligence," so that's a red flag, right?

I think her appearance on that show is going to raise a lot of questions, and we may not know the answers to them for a little bit of time, but there certainly -- there's certainly some important questions that she's raised in that appearance.

HANNITY: Let me go through quick bullet point list and ask if you both agree. Do you both agree she's admitting surveillance at least of the Trump transition team and the president-elect took place? She seems to confirm that. Do you both agree with that?

SOLOMON: I'd say, listen, there are many different ways you can find out what's on going overseas. Surveillance is one of them. Wiretaps is one of them. Interception's one of them. Sometimes human intelligence is another one. A foreign government comes in and said...

HANNITY: If they found...

SOLOMON: ... Hey, we found this out about an American.

HANNITY: If they found out how we knew what we knew, that would compromise sources and methods.


HANNITY: That's surveillance...

SOLOMON: Sources and methods could be humans, too. It doesn't necessarily mean surveillance or wiretaps. It could be...

HANNITY: OK, but...

SOLOMON: ... one of many different ways.

HANNITY: And it's also...

CARTER: And it may be all ways. I may be all of those ways.

SOLOMON: That's right.

CARTER: They may have utilized all of those ways.

HANNITY: OK, so -- it seems to acknowledge surveillance took place. Had to. How else would she know this information? Some sort of surveillance -- that's the only way that they'd get that.

All right, she's also revealing when she talks about, if they found out how we knew, what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with the Russians, doesn't that mean some unmasking took place of some kind? Sara?

CARTER: I think so. I mean, I think we already showed through our reporting that unmasking took place. And what we know for a fact is that with Flynn and if on the separate, you know, investigation, his name was leaked -- so Lieutenant General Mike Flynn's name was leaked out there. So we know for a fact unmasking took place. But what unmasking was it? Who was unmasked? And who authorized the unmasking?

HANNITY: She's saying the Trump staff, what we knew about the Trump staff.

CARTER: Yes! But who in the...

HANNITY: How would they possibly know...

CARTER: ... Trump staff?

CARTER: ... it was -- unless somebody's leaking. Now, then she talks about, I knew it was important. I was urging my colleagues on the Hill to keep this information, gather this information. Who are these colleagues? Do they have security clearances? Should they have access to this information? That would be -- if you leak any intelligence, even if it's to a member of Congress, wouldn't that still serve as a felony under the Espionage Act, John?

SOLOMON: If it was transmitted through channels that were not authorized, absolutely there could be criminal conduct. If it wasn't classified, it may not be. There's just so many questions we don't know. But I will say that her appearance raised more questions. And I talked to some people on Capitol Hill late today that were telling us they have the same questions. They're going to start asking their colleagues and Democrats on the Hill, Were you taking information from this woman and her friends?

HANNITY: Is this possible -- now, we all can go back to Watergate. And by the way, number one, it proves Trump was right. There was surveillance. We now have confirmed through you guys, James Rosen here at FOX News, and I think this also backs this up. Trump was surveilled. He was right in his tweet that he sent out that day.

If we go back to Watergate and we look at Watergate, wasn't that about a break-in, about a political opponent? Didn't that become a big scandal and a president resigned?

My question to both of you, do you think, based on where this story is now, this has the potential of being even bigger? If we're talking about surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence, even bigger than Watergate? Is that a possibility where this ends up? Sara.

CARTER: Yes, I do. I think so. I think it's something that needs to be investigated. And I think we need to look at what civil liberties here have been violated and how far this expansion, this -- these -- these regulations have been loosened to allow people -- I mean, even in our story today, we talked about top Obama aides viewing unmasked intercepts on a routine basis.

What were they viewing? Why were they viewing it? Why did they need to view these? Some may be legitimate, but if we find out that they were just viewing conversations between even then, you know, President Trump and other foreign officials and members of his team...

HANNITY: That's illegal if you don't have a warrant for President Trump, even if it was picked up incidentally. John, how big does this story potentially get?

SOLOMON: You know, a couple weeks ago when Democrats were throwing Watergate around, I said the same thing on your show, which is, Listen, Watergate had a lot of crimes, and we're a long way from proving crimes yet. But I do think that there's...

HANNITY: Well, wait a minute.

SOLOMON: ... a really...

HANNITY: Don't you think a crime committed with releasing the intelligence information on General Flynn? Isn't that a felony?

CARTER: We have a leak investigation, but Watergate was much larger than leaks, as you know. In fact, the one leak that made Watergate a lot of people heralded as a great moment. We're just a long way from there yet. But we need -- listen, there are important issues that need to be answered here.

And the story that we broke today, if you're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, you should be really concerned how easy it is today that large numbers of members of the government for a very low threshold can ask the NSA, Hey, if you intercepted John Solomon or Sean Hannity, could you unmask his name because we're trying to understand this intelligence.

It used to be that was a very rare moment. When you look at the rules that Obama changed in 2011, and through 2017, it is very easy now for the intelligence community to get someone's -- American's name...

HANNITY: I got to...

SOLOMON: ... and see what they were intercepted.

HANNITY: We got to take a break. We'll have more with Sara and John on this blockbuster breaking story, new information we have tonight. We'll also get legal reaction from Jay Sekulow and Tom Fitton.

And also, again today we asked CBS to release the full 45 to 50-minute interview I had with Ted Koppel. They said to The New York Times they will not release it. We're going to get reaction from Joe Concha, Matt Schlapp. All of that, and Herman Cain is here with us tonight.


HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity." And we are covering two big developing stories, each surrounding the potential surveillance of the president-elect Donald Trump and his team by Obama administration officials. We continue with Circa News's Sara Carter and John Solomon.

All right, so your piece today -- let's -- let's start at the beginning. As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama's to aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency's incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of the rules that their boss relaxed starting in 2011 to help government better fight terrorism, espionage, et cetera.

Were they using -- under the guise, Sara of -- of protecting the country and legitimate surveillance of America's enemies, friends, foes -- were they using that as a ruse to tap into Donald Trump's transition team in Trump Tower, do you think? Is that a possibility?

CARTER: I think that's the concern that a lot of the sources that have spoken to John and I have. I mean, their concern is, Look, we want to be able to go after the terrorists. We want to be able to find these hackers and cyber-espionage and counterespionage. We need this. But are people using this as a back door to actually spy on Americans? Is this being politicized? Is this political espionage?

And that's the question that we all need to be asking. And we all need to kind of understand that civil liberties here are being -- in a sense being violated, if what our sources are saying is true.

HANNITY: John, your reaction.

SOLOMON: Yes, I agree. Listen, there was one intelligence official we talked to who was, you know, defending the intelligence community, but even he said, Listen, you know what? We know that could -- this unmasking could be used for abusive or political purposes, and that's why we try to put strict rules in place. But when those rules get loosened, the potential goes up for abuse or political espionage. And those are the questions I think the Hill and the intelligence community's going to have to answer.

HANNITY: You know, based on, though, your big report -- this is a big blockbuster story. I mean, you're saying that Obama loosened the rules. Now, this is before he modified executive order 12333.

SOLOMON: Five years before.

HANNITY: Five years before. So he was lessening the rules. And then I've got to ask this question again. I mean, here you have this Evelyn Farkas going back -- when you tie that into your story that they're loosening these rules, how does somebody who's working for Hillary, who left the Obama administration, possibly know about surveillance or potential surveillance at Trump Tower and the need to get this information to her friends on the Hill because it might disappear once Donald Trump becomes president?

I mean, is there any level of intelligence that everybody didn't have access to at this point? Sara?

CARTER: Yes, well, I -- you know, I think the FBI will probably have a lot of questions for her. And I think that that's very concerning because what we don't know about her is, was she holding onto this TS clearance? Was she working in some capacity, you know, beyond that...

HANNITY: She was officially out of the administration. She was gone. She was working for Hillary.

Last question. Do you think the mainstream media will end up with egg on its face? Here we have Clapper, we have Admiral Rogers, we have Comey all saying did not impact the election. There's been no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign. You guys have reported on that. The media has been going eight months without any evidence about Russia.

Do you think this blows up in the media's face? Real quick, Sara and then John.

CARTER: Well, I think they're definitely going to have to follow down the path of the truth. And eventually, they're going to have to get on board with that. And that depends on whether they choose to keep running down a certain rabbit hole, or somebody comes out and reveals in Congress or something else and brings closure to this...


CARTER: ... from -- from our story.


SOLOMON: Yes, listen, I think we're going to look back at some reporting in the last six, seven months, and it's going to feel breathless and McCarthyite in the limelight. But keep in mind the investigation goes on and new things can come to light and this narrative could change. But the body of evidence today, I think there's been a little bit of breathless and overreacted reporting.

HANNITY: All right, thank you both. Great work, as always. We'll have you back. We're going to will continue on this story.

And when we come back, we're going to get reaction to Sara and John's reporting from Jay Sekulow, Tom Fitton. We'll look into all the legal issues that may be involved as it relates to surveillance, unmasking and intelligence leaks.

And we'll keep asking, by the way, CBS News and Ted Koppel and "Sunday Morning" to release my interview that we had, the 50-plus minutes. Why won't they release it? We'll get reaction from Joe Concha, Matt Schlapp. Also, Herman Cain is here to weigh in on the Rockville rape case, and we're going to show you statistics about crimes that nobody else in the media will tell you, straight ahead.



HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity." So as we told you in the last two segments, according to Sara Carter and John Solomon's reporting, Susan Rice, John Brennan and Loretta Lynch were cleared to, quote, "request and consume unmasked intelligence reports." So will the mainstream media cover that bombshell?

Here with reaction, from Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, and from the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow.



HANNITY: ... all right, break this down legally from us from the issue of surveillance...


HANNITY: ... unmasking, leaking intelligence. Based on -- she's not even in the administration anymore.

SEKULOW: Now. At the time that she said that she was aware of the information, the intelligence, she was no longer an employee of the State Department. So what you have to ask is the first question a lawyer asks, is-

HANNITY: She was actually former assistant defense secretary.

SEKULOW: Defense secretary. So the first question you have to ask, how did a former defense secretary find out about this information when she was gone? So that brings up felony number one. Who leaked her that information? That's number one.

Number two, this -- we were concerned that the Obama administration officials involved in this would be known by the Trump administration. Well, guess what? The president of the United States is Donald Trump, so of course, he would know that.

So then it brings up the third issue, and the third issue is here, what in the world did they think that they had that they could justify doing this? And Sean, I said on your program weeks ago -- Loretta Lynch, John Brennan - - these were the ones to be looking at. Look who signed off on these orders. Look who wanted this unmasking. So you've got the whole issue of unlawful unmaskings, leaked information -- leaked information, by the way, then to a third party who was no longer a government official.

HANNITY: By the way, it was -- she was -- it was more than that. According to one report, she was an adviser to Hillary Clinton at the time.

SEKULOW: Well, that would even make it worse. But you know, at that point, you're pouring felony on top of felony because...

HANNITY: Do you think this woman, based on what she said on that show is in legal jeopardy or...

SEKULOW: I would tell her to hire a lawyer. Don't call me, but she needs to hire a lawyer.

HANNITY: Immediately.

SEKULOW: Immediately because she's -- well, first of all, she's going on television talking about how she got information, they were trying to hide it from the incoming administration.


SEKULOW: So -- and that -- the FBI needs to or the Department of Justice should...


SEKULOW: ... grand jury tonight!

HANNITY: When she talks about, you know, getting this information to colleagues on the Hill, is she talking about leaking?

SEKULOW: Well, what -- what colleagues on the Hill?


SEKULOW: She is now in private life! What does a "colleague on the Hill" mean, friends of hers that are on the other party?

HANNITY: How can she not know what she was saying?

SEKULOW: That's what's so bizarre but all of this, is you know that Loretta Lynch -- they knew better than all of this, but they did it anyway because they thought they would get away with it (ph) impunity.


SEKULOW: They also thought the other president -- the other nominee was going to be president.

HANNITY: What's your take, Tom, legally?

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, you know, as Jay -- you know, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been doing this scandal work for 20 years almost. And I know the hallmarks of a scandal. You've got administration officials working improperly with outside former officials to launder information -- launder -- launder information that they're are not allowed to send out and around.

This reminds me of the FBI "file-gate" scandal under Clinton, where they were looking at raw data from FBI files in White House, or at least had access to it. Here they were accessing raw intelligence data that was arguably protected by the Privacy Act and other laws, if you violate, require criminal sanctions, in theory.

And then they're also working with Congress on this. So here you've got the elements of the scandal and where this investigations need to go, not only criminal investigation but getting back to this so-called congressional investigation whether by intelligence committee or select committee, this is what they need to look at. Who the Obama administration was working with on the outside and the inside to improperly disseminate this classified material.

HANNITY: Let's go back to legal. Again, surveillance -- there is a legitimate surveillance, but you're not supposed to unmask American names picked up.

SEKULOW: If you get unmasked improperly it could be a felony.

HANNITY: But she admits here --

SEKULOW: She's bragging about it.

HANNITY: If they found out how we knew, what we knew about the Trump staff. So they had to be unmasked to know.

SEKULOW: Of course. So how did this level a person outside of government end up with unmasked intelligence on the president of the United States or his team? How in the world -- how did Loretta Lynch, who, by the way, doesn't mind meeting on an airplane with President Clinton, how does she justify having this out there? How did she justify this signoff, and then how did this individual, this Miss Farkas, get this information? And then friends on the Hill, what are they talking about?

HANNITY: Friends on the Hill, urging colleagues, does that sound like she is talking about leaking the information?

SEKULOW: Yes, she wanted to make sure it was there so that the Trump administration didn't destroy it or some statement like that.

Here's the concern. The concern is the intelligence apparatus in the United States has rules that they have to follow like every other agency. And it appears that in the waning days or maybe the last year of the former administration, they viewed those laws as advisory opinions and not laws.

HANNITY: In other words, our intelligence at least at some level was politicized.

SEKULOW: Completely.

HANNITY: And people's names were unmasked, and it was shared?

SEKULOW: Yes. And I go back to James Comey who just a couple days ago goes on air in a hearing in Congress and says we are investigating Trump associates in Russia, but of course he never wants to disclose an investigation. Then asked if in fact he was investigating the leaks of classified information -- what his real response was, what he actually said was not that he was doing an investigation. He said I'm not willing to say that because I'm not willing to say they were classified.

Now, everybody at this point knows it is classified information but that is how they are playing it, that close. And that the Republicans need to do is ask the next question. For instance, when the president tweeted out in quotes "wiretapped," which we all know is surveillance, why didn't anybody at that hearing say let's put the wiretap portion of it, which hardly use - -

HANNITY: Was he surveilled?

SEKULOW: Was he surveilled? They wouldn't have answered the information.

FITTON: The leadership of the FBI is a real problem. Comey refused to deal with adequately the mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton, and then now by the Obama administration, he doesn't want to look at that. He's as political an FBI director as any one we've had.

HANNITY: How big is this on a scale from one to 10?

SEKULOW: I think this is gigantic. You talked about Watergate. Watergate was the cover up that was the problem. Here the act itself could be the problem.

HANNITY: And there may be a cover-up on top.

SEKULOW: One on top of that. You could have on top of another.

HANNITY: This is going to get interesting, and the media will end up with egg on their face as usual. They're always wrong.

Coming up, we keep asking CBS to release my 45 minute plus interview with Ted Koppel. They say to "The New York Times" they're not going to do it. What are they afraid of? We'll get reaction tonight from Joe Concha and Matt Schlapp.

Also, we have the latest on the rape case in Rockville, Maryland. Defense attorneys for the illegal immigrant rape suspects are trying to say it was consensual. She was 14-years-old. We will get reaction and an explanation from Herman Cain and more.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So CBS News still won't respond to our request to release my full of 45, 50 minute interview with Ted Koppel. By the way, they told The New York Times they won't to release it. This past weekend they aired 70 seconds of nearly hour sit down. Tonight we want to show you another example of CBS edited fake news. Back in September, remember during the election, CBS edited out a portion of an interview with president Bill Clinton where he talks about Hillary's health after she nearly fainted. Remember that? And here is what aired on the evening news that night.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You wonder if it's not more serious than dehydration.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: No, no. She's been -- well, if it is, it's a mystery to me and all of her doctors. Rarely but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of things happen to her when she just get severely dehydrated.


HANNITY: Rarely, but it did happen. That's not everything Bill Clinton said. Let's play the full clip that CBS played on their morning show the next day. Now listen closely to what Bill Clinton really says here.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You wonder if it's not more serious than dehydration.

BILL CLINTON: No, no. She's been -- If it is, it's a mystery to me and all of her doctors because frequently -- not frequently. Rarely but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sort of things happen to her when she just gets severely dehydrated.


HANNITY: Now evening news, they got out Bill Clinton saying "frequently -- not frequently," and of the question is, why didn't CBS News play the full sound bite? At the time the network said it was edited, quote, "purely for time reasons." It was only three seconds. As I mentioned earlier, we reached out to CBS News asking them for a statement and to release the full interview. They told The New York Times they would not release it. We have not heard back.

Joining us now, from the American Conservative Union, their chairman Matt Schlapp, and from The Hill Joe Concha. Good to see you both. What's your take on this from a media reporter standpoint that's not part of the cabal of media reporters that retweet each other all day and live in their bubble?

JOE CONCHA, THE HILL: The argument in these situations whenever a news organization says we had to edit it down because of time constraints, that's fine. But that is an analog excuse in a digital world. The Internet is infinite. is infinite. There are no time constraints on the Internet. So when you put the interview on there, it shows full transparency and it will shut you up and everybody can see what a compelling interview.


HANNITY: Why do you want to -- to say it like that? I want to shut you up.

CONCHA: No, in other words, you're making CBS News go to The New York Times and say we are not going to put it out. Why not do that? Koppel and you combined have seven, eight decades of experience in news. It's probably a pretty compelling conversation. That might get a couple of clicks.

HANNITY: Joe, I've got to be honest, it was a great give and take. Listen, I like Koppel on "Nightline." This is not personal between me and Koppel. I think it was a cheap shot. And 70 seconds, I think it was well over 50 minutes total, that's a cheap shot.

CONCHA: What you could've done was with a pro-gun rights group did last year with the Katie Couric documentary. There were some misleading edits, I mean horribly misleading to make them all look dumb, they couldn't answer a simple question about gun safety and terrorism. So one guy in the room taped the entire thing on his phone, the audio, and then released the whole thing later. And now there is a lawsuit against the people that that that documentary. So maybe that's the way we have to handle these things now.

HANNITY: Matt, I will tell you my reason that I think they won't release the tape is because Ted asked me the first question, I gave an answer. And he goes, none of that will air on this show. I'm like, well, why am I here? And then for the rest of the interview, I'm taunting him. Ted, are you going to include this? Ted, are you going to include that? Ted, I think you really need to include what I just said here and here and here. And so they don't want to show that because it exposes what I'm calling edited fake news. What you can do in an edit room, it can be a beautiful work of art.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: What you realizes that this supposedly straight up media that is supposed to cover the facts, they are really opinion journalists. And what they wanted to get from you is what they wanted from you. And they would take as much is your time as you give them to give you the snippets that they wanted. And I agree completely with Joe, in the age of the internet, no constraints, and with your permission, the only reason they won't show that interview is because it makes Sean Hannity look good.

CONCHA: Matt, just one point on that. In talking to a couple of people that have worked in the business for a long time, their argument was that if you or anybody who gets interviewed asked for footage full or a full transcript of release, that sets a precedent that says --

HANNITY: That exposes all the years that they played this edit fake news game? Come on.

CONCHA: Right. But that's the thing. This isn't a sealed deposition we are talking about. This is a conversation between two public figures.

HANNITY: I'm telling you, it was a good conversation. The interesting thing is I am bad for America because I have an opinion show, but Ted, to say that, gave his opinion.

CONCHA: Right, it would be a contradictory thing. Go ahead, Matt.

SCHLAPP: On the other piece, on the editing of Bill Clinton, this is particularly egregious. This happened at a point in the campaign where a lot of people were worried about Hillary Clinton's health. If you looked at both videos of her stumbling into that band or being basically carried into that van or being basically carried into that van, this raised real questions about her honesty, her honesty about her health, what was the situation of her health, could she serve a full term. And there was no question that they did everything they could to fix Bill Clinton's interview because, I guess it depends on what the word "frequently" means, because he started off by interview being honest, and it really just reiterated -- it would have reiterated the concern people had in their minds over his wife's health.

CONCHA: There was one more error in that interview where Ted Koppel said "Let me finish my sentence and then you can talk." And he said something along the lines of your audience wants ideology over facts, and then your response was never allowed. An interview never ends with the interviewer making the final point. The interviewee should.

HANNITY: Does it really bother me? No. Do I hate Ted Koppel? No. But, you know what, it gave I think America an opportunity to see these games that the media has been playing. That is fake news because it was not representative of what happened in this studio. That is why it is dishonest.

CONCHA: It helped prove your point.

HANNITY: All right, guys, thank you.

And coming up, the Reverend Franklin Graham will join us later to talk about his brand new move that's come out. But first, we'll have the very latest on the rape case in Rockville, Maryland. Defense attorneys for the illegal immigrant rape suspects are trying to say this was consensual with a 14-year-old girl. We'll explain and get reaction from Herman Cain. That's next.



JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: When cities and states refused to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe. Countless Americans would be alive today and countless loved ones would not be grieving today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended.


HANNITY: That was the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, earlier this week discussing the deadly cost of sanctuary cities that they have on the country. On this program over the years we have highlighted families who have been victimized by criminal illegal aliens. And as Fox News has been covering, according to reports, two immigrants from Central America, 18- year-old immigrant Henry Sanchez Milian, pictured right there, and 17-year- old Jose Montano allegedly brutally raped a 14-year-old girl in a bathroom stall at a high school in Maryland. Now, attorneys for the accused, they are saying the sex was consensual and they're claiming the girl agreed to have sex in text messages, while police claim that the sex was forced.

Joining us now with reaction, Fox News contributor Herman Cain. We weren't there, we don't know. This sounds really fishy to me in a lot of ways. But the bigger picture is we have Americans being killed, Americans the victims of rape, and we have criminal aliens -- I interviewed a father yesterday. His son was killed by an illegal immigrant, Herman, that had held woman hostage for a week and raped her. And they let this guy go, and then they killed this kid that was working overnight at a convenience store.

HERMAN CAIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Sean, this is another despicable incident why we need to keep illegals out of the country and get illegals out of the country.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was exactly right. Too many Americans have died because of illegals in this country. But what the Democrats do is they try to gloss over this and make it sound as if it is about being against everybody that is here. What the Trump administration is trying to do is to try to minimize the number of illegals in order to hopefully prevent an incident like the one that happened in Maryland.

Now, this attorney is planting a seed even before the trial begins, in order to try to defend these two illegals. It's despicable, and I totally support what Attorney General Sessions and the Trump administration is trying to do.

HANNITY: Let me put up on the side of the screen, and I will read them as I put them up here, Herman. We have according to a July report in 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, 820,000 illegal immigrants are convicted criminals. We have another one. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 2015, 36.6 percent of federal offenses were committed by illegal aliens.

Then you've got in Texas alone, between June of 2011 and February of 2017, there was 1,162 homicide charges filed against illegal aliens. In Texas alone, 2011 through 2017, 68,151 assaults. And you go further. Texas alone between the same years, you've got 6,098 sexual assault charges filed against illegals.

And I, for the life of me, if you are Mayor Rahm "Rahm-bo" "Dead Fish" or "Comrade de Blasio" or the L.A. mayor or a San Francisco politician, how do you get away with aiding and abetting people that we know where break the law? Because you would be in jail, Herman, and I would be in there with you.

CAIN: Exactly. They have gotten a pass for the last eight years from the previous administration. They think it's OK. We now have a president and an administration that says it's not OK to break the law. Now, here is what they are not talking about. Defunding these cities -- if they don't cooperate with the federal agencies, that is just step one. They could be indicted. Nobody's talking about that. They are breaking the law if they do not work with federal agencies in order to enforce the laws on the books. That's all this administration is trying to do.

HANNITY: All right, Herman. It is sad and applaud finally -- you know what? These cities and these states need to pay the price. And it appears this attorney general is going to uphold the rule of law. Thank you for being with us.

CAIN: Yes.

HANNITY: And up next, the Reverend Franklin Graham, he will join us. He has got a brand-new movie out tomorrow, an incredible real-life story and the documentary you don't want to miss, next.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ebola is the world's most dangerous virus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to fight this disease, we have to fight now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And despite the fact that things were out of control we knew that God was in control.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jesus Christ didn't run. We run to the fire. We don't run away from it.


HANNITY: That was a trailer for a brand-new movie out tomorrow night, "Facing Darkness," which tells the true story of two American medical missionary stricken by West Africa's deadly Ebola epidemic and the miraculous fight to get them home and get them cured. Joining us now, the executive producer of this film, also from Samaritan's Purse, also a friend of the program, Reverend Graham is with us. How are you, sir.


HANNITY: So this is in Liberia, a true story about one of your aid doctors, and you have them all over the country and all over the world. He gets Ebola.

GRAHAM: He does. Sean, when Ebola came into Liberia, we weren't there to fight it Ebola. We were there doing other projects. We've been there since 2003. But nobody was there to fight it. And so Samaritan's Purse was asked by the international community, and we said OK, we'll do it. And we had no clue at the time that we were getting ourselves into. We started studying, we began to learn. We set up a safe system. But he was also working in a hospital, and we think he got Ebola from a patient inside the hospital where he wasn't protected with his suit.

HANNITY: And Ebola is almost like a horror film. You melt from the inside out.

GRAHAM: It is a hemorrhagic fever, and your organs after a few days begin to bleed internally. So they're like they are melting inside of you.

HANNITY: And so this poor doctor, so you're doing everything you can to get him out of there.

GRAHAM: And there's nothing you can do. Nobody will cure them.

HANNITY: You had an insurance policy if one of your workers got sick.

GRAHAM: And they wouldn't go get him.

HANNITY: Did you sue them?

GRAHAM: No, because after he came out, they paid up.

HANNITY: Oh, after he came out they paid up.

GRAHAM: They paid out. But they didn't send the plane for him.

HANNITY: You actually got a federal government plane which you paid for because they had to capacity to carry a patient that had that type of contagion.

GRAHAM: That's correct, and so he came back to the United States. But Sean, this whole film is a testimony of how God saved this man's life. There was nothing that I could do or anyone else could do, but God began to make circumstances happen, just like a chessboard, moving people into place at certain times to save his life and that --

HANNITY: And this is a documentary. This is the real deal.

GRAHAM: This is the real deal. This isn't actors. This is the real deal. And it's out tomorrow night in about 700 theaters across the country.

HANNITY: Why only one night only?

GRAHAM: It's the way we set it up, just do it this way.

HANNITY: So you're going to be a second airing because there was such demand.

GRAHAM: Such demand.

HANNITY: Tomorrow night. And if you want to find the theaters, it's FacingDarknessmovie --

GRAHAM: Dotcom.

HANNITY:, one word.

GRAHAM: Yes. And you just put your zip code in there after you go to the website, and it will show you the theaters in your area that are showing it.

HANNITY: You do amazing work, reverend. How is your dad?

GRAHAM: Doing good.

HANNITY: Doing good? Please send our best.

GRAHAM: I sure will.

HANNITY: Good to see you. All right, Samaritan's Purse, Reverend Graham.

All right, that's all the time we have left this evening. I don't play your hate mail tonight, but the "Hannity" hotline will be back tomorrow night. Thanks for being with us. We'll see you then.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.