Critics cry 'witness intimidation' over Trump tweets on impeachment

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," November 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Hi, welcome to “Hannity.”

So, the Schiff show is back in action, the circus remains in town. Today, another national disgrace.

What we saw, again, every American needs to see this a B.S. pathetic show trial, zero substance, zero facts, zero -- get this -- first-hand knowledge. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. And, of course, no due process.

We got a judge, jury, and executioner, his highness, we got the compromised, corrupt, coward, congenital liar, Adam Schiff -- oh, he was in rare form today. Take a look.



REP. ELISE STEFANIK, R-N.Y.: Thank you, Mr. Nunes. Ambassador Yovanovitch, thank you for being here today.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The gentle woman will suspend. The gentle woman will suspend.

STEFANIK: What is the interruption for this time? It is our time.

SCHIFF: The gentlewoman would suspend. Other House Resolution 660, you are not allowed to yield time except to minority counsel.

STEFANIK: The ranking member yielded time to another member of Congress.

SCHIFF: No, that is not accurate.

STEFANIK: That is accurate.

NUNES: You are gagging the young lady from New York.

SCHIFF: Will suspend. You're not recognized.

STEFANIK: This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of Congress.

SCHIFF: Gentlewoman not recognized. The gentlewoman will suspend.


HANNITY: Welcome to the -- well, witch trial led by the congenital liar. By the way, what's he so afraid of?

Oh, that's right. The truth, that's what is he terrified of. And that's why we didn't hear from an actual fact witness again. She knew nothing. As Devin Nunes said, why was she even there?

We just get more testimony, more testimony, yes, another self-important, very narcissistic diplomat, snowflake, who can't take minor, tiny baby criticism, a witness to nothing. She had no reason to be there she witnessed no wrongdoing, knew nothing about what we are discussing, no direct evidence of any misconduct whatsoever, no contact with the president, no contact with his chief of staff, no contact with anybody that really knew the president, no knowledge of anything being alleged by the Democrats.

You cannot make this sick -- this up. This is how sick Washington has become.


NUNES: Were you involved in the July 25th Trump Zelensky phone call or preparations for the call?


NUNES: Were you involved in the deliberations about the pause in military sales to Ukraine as the Trump administration reviewed newly elected President Zelensky's commitment to corruption reforms?

YOVANOVITCH: For the delay in --

NUNES: For the pause?

YOVANOVITCH: The pause? No, I was not.

NUNES: Were you involved in the proposed Trump-Zelensky later Pence- Zelensky meetings in Warsaw, Poland on September 1st?

YOVANOVITCH: No, I was not.

NUNES: Did you ever talk to President Trump in 2019?

YOVANOVITCH: No, I have not.

NUNES: Mick Mulvaney?

YOVANOVITCH: No, I have not.

NUNES: Thank you, Ambassador.


HANNITY: Yes, then he says why the hell was she even there?

Oh, and that's right, she was fired her feelings were hurt. She has expressed that a lot. And she had a lot of not nice things to say about the president.

By the way, President Obama got rid of ambassadors, too. This whole entire charade, none of it is about truth or justice. It is about a never ending three-year smear of this president at all cost because they cannot accept the results in 2016.

And as a consequence -- well, the House Democrats, they have done nothing. Oh, and government fund something set to expire next week, funding for our military set to expire next week. An important trade agreement with Canada and Mexico is yet to be approved.

These do nothing Democrats have done nothing for three years, are ignoring really serious issues, let's see, peace and safety and security and prosperity and job creation. Why? Because of this psychotic rage at the mere mention of Donald Trump.

And all ambassadors, she even admitted, they serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. And President Obama, he fired dozens of ambassador holdovers from the Bush administration. And he did it for political reasons. Nobody criticized him.

The president has the right to fire or hire any ambassador for any reason or no reason at all. As a matter of fact, there was good reason to want today's star witness removed from her post. Look at these interviews conducted by John Solomon and the "New York Times", a top Ukrainian prosecutor has repeatedly claimed she gave him a do not prosecute list in 2016.

Now, the former ambassador denies the accusation. There was one paper, I believe, in Ukraine that said he rescinded those remarks. We will ask John Solomon about it in a second.

Do I know who is telling the truth? No, I do not. How does any of this apply to impeaching a president duly elected president of the United States? It doesn't.

Anyway, joining us now, FOX News contributor, investigative reporter John Solomon.

Now, you printed an article this week, there's two issues that I sees a it relates to the ambassador. I knew nothing about until my name and your name came up in the audition hearings. Nobody saw.

And what it comes down to is she didn't like that you reported on the fact that the prosecutor general, and my understanding is correct, that would be the equivalent of our attorney general.


HANNITY: Had said she handed her a list of people not to prosecute.

Now, people are saying that he has recanted that you are saying no, he has not. What's the truth?

SOLOMON: He told "The New York Times" this week, he stood by what he said, that meeting with the ambassador she applied pressure and gave him names of Ukrainian nationals she did not want to see prosecuted.

But here, let's take it away from Yovanovitch and Lutsenko, because it's a he said, she said. The witnesses that Adam Schiff has called from the State Department have testified affirmatively, that the U.S. under Yovanovitch applied pressure, multiple time to Ukraine prosecutors to drop prosecutions of people that the U.S. embassy like. These were Ukrainian nationals and Ukrainian prosecution decisions.

And our embassy was applying pressure, interfering in those law enforcement matters. That is no longer in dispute. It's under oath by her own deputies and aides confirming that that pressure was applied in 2016.

HANNITY: OK, in your column this week, you talk about the Geneva Conventions and as it relates to ambassadors particularly not getting involved in the country, for example, she is a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

SOLOMON: That's right.

HANNITY: Not as a U.S. ambassador. She is not supposed to get involved in anything political or election-wise. You put in your article a link to a speech.


HANNITY: Tell us, did she get involved in Ukrainian politics?

SOLOMON: Well, certainly the Ukrainians thought. So and how do we know? Because they began asking questions of her bosses within a couple days.

The first time I ever heard Maria Yovanovitch's name was March 5th of this year, and that's because she has given a speech earlier that called for the removal of a prosecutor three or four weeks before the end of the very contested Ukraine presidential election. And all of a sudden, I heard from career diplomats, you won't believe what our American diplomat did today, there's going to be a kerfuffle in Ukraine because Geneva Convention says we don't get involve in election stuff and she gave a speech.

Two days later, her boss goes to Ukraine, Yovanovitch's boss. The first question, one of the first questions he gets, why did you meddle in our election with those comments? He defended her and said this and her words speak for themself. I'm not going to say anything more about them.

This same issue came up in the hearing today because the Democrats want to pretend Ukraine didn't interfere in our election. But the ambassador acknowledged she knew in August 2016, Ukrainian ambassador to the United States wrote an op-ed slamming Donald Trump just before Election Day. So, two good examples of where both countries have a gripe where they believe they saw political interference by ambassadors, despite what the convention says. That's right.

HANNITY: John Solomon, thank you for your reporting tonight. We appreciate it.

SOLOMON: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: And tonight, I've got to tell you something, the very basis of America law constitutional order, due process, presumption of innocence, equal application of our laws, equal justice under the law, are in jeopardy. That means the fundamental constitutional rights in this country are at risk. That is a very dangerous situation.

We don't have equal justice, that is now missing in action. We have one set of rules for Democrats and entirely different set of rules for Republicans and the rest of us, we, the people. Because we know just hours ago, look at the conviction, Roger Stone was found guilty of seven process crimes. And he could face decades in prison.

Paul Manafort might spend the rest of his life behind bars because of loan applications and tax issues. The U.S. House of Representatives is now spending every waking moment trying to impeach this president over no identifiable crime, and if you don't have any real witnesses, oh, hearsay witnesses.

And, meanwhile, we've got deep state actors. We've got Trump haters, Andrew McCabe, oh, he is enjoying his cushy job over at fake news CNN, and as of yet, he has faced zero charges. And, remember, he was accused of repeatedly lying to the FBI.

The office of the inspector general -- well, they found that McCabe showed, quote: a lack of candor with then Director Comey on or around October 31st, 2016. A lack of candor in an interview under oath with agents on May 9th, 2017. Inspector general found a lack of candor in an interview under oath with the office of inspector general investigators on July 28th, 2017. A lack of candor in an interview under oath with the office of the inspector general on November 29th, 2017.

Not to be left out, his boss, Mr. Super Patriot, former FBI Director Comey, who took advantage to go after our 33-year veteran, a guy that the FBI agents didn't think was lying, General Flynn -- yes, he was the subject, also, of a scathing office of inspector general report. Criminal charges were actually recommended because Comey leaked confidential material about the president of the United States.

Now, in that case, the inspector general determined, I will quote him: Comey set a dangerous example for all FBI employees. But is Comey, is he facing any charges? Nope.

Did Hillary Clinton face charges when she mishandled classified, top secret material on a secret server? No. Did she face any charges for literally taking subpoenaed emails, deleting them, acid washing the hard drive with Bleach Bit, busting up devices with hammer or having an aide do it, removing SIM cards? There's a three-year investigation over the collusion and her dirty Russian dossier. No. No problems whatsoever.

Has anybody faced any charges for committing premeditated fraud on a FISA court which we now know happened? Has anyone faced charges for spying on the Trump campaign, his transition team, his presidency? Not a single person.

No one in the Obama administration faced any charges for what was rampant, unmasking of Americans during a 2016 election. That hasn't happened either.

What about the Bidens? We've got sleepy, creepy, crazy Uncle Joe 30330 bragging about his quid pro quo. By the way, even the Democrats' star witness today had to acknowledge this blatant misconduct. Got to give her credit. Take a look.


REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Out of thousands of companies in the Ukraine, the only one that you recall the Obama-Biden State Department preparing to answer questions about was the one where the vice president's son was on the board. Is that fair?


RATCLIFFE: As he testified in his statement, that in February of 2015, I raised my concern that Hunter Biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest. Did you ever -- do you agree with that?


RATCLIFFE: That it was a legitimate concern to raise?

YOVANOVITCH: I think that it would raise the appearance of a conflict of interest.


HANNITY: Imagine that. A billion dollars if you fire the guy, you don't fire him, you don't get the billion. He's investigating his son being paid millions with zero experience.

Here now, author of the best-selling book "New York Times" witch-hunt, FOX News legal analyst, and senior legal advisor to the Trump 2020 campaign, Jenna Ellis.

Gregg -- Jenna, let's again with you. Let's get your thoughts on all of this, because another hearsay witness. Nothing to add whatsoever, nothing. But here we go again and, yet, did have to admit that about Hunter and Joe.

JENNA ELLIS, SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: Yes. And, you know, Sean, the president said it so well today in his tweet when he said this is a double standard like the country has never seen, talking about Roger Stone but then, also, when he fairly commented on what was going on in the hearing. I mean, this is the president who doesn't have his legal counsel able to be present. He is not getting due process, he simply is fairly commenting.

And yet, the Democrats try to attack that. This is absolutely ridiculous and incredulous. This is a fight for our country, for our Constitution. This is an attack like the country has never seen.

This president deserves absolutely the moment that he came down that escalator in 2015, he solidified himself in history as standing among the Founding Fathers who pledged their very lives, fortune in their sacred honor. President Trump is hated because he loves this country and he loves America.

HANNITY: All right. Gregg, I agree with Jenna. You know, there is very, very serious side of this. I mean, you look at the inspector general comments about McCabe, Comey, you look at the conduct of Hillary, you look at premeditated fraud on the FISA court, outsourcing a spying, weaponizing the powerful tools of intelligence. This is crossroads, in my view. I think Jenna is right, for this country.

Your reaction?

GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: Unequal enforcement of the law, selective prosecution, and it's still going on right now in this impeachment inquiry which is really a vaudevillian act with Charlie Chaplain at the helm, aka Adam Schiff.

You know, the president has no choice. I mean, just look at what happened today, cross examination, shut down. Republicans can't call witnesses. The president has no ability to defend himself.

So, he goes over everybody's head, to the American people in social media and issues a tweet. It is not witness intimidation. That's absurd. That's clearly defined under American law, one of three things, physically harming a witness, bribing a witness, or coercing a witness to lie.

Simply pleading your case under the First Amendment and criticizing a witness who is leveling false accusations based on multiple hearsay is not witness intimidation for God's sakes. The president was right to tweet it. He has no other choice.

HANNITY: All right. Jenna, Gregg, thank you.

ELLIS: Thank you.

HANNITY: Also breaking today, the president released his very first telephone call with Ukrainian counterpart, President Zelensky, showing that he agreed to meet him without any preconditions. Wow, another example.

Here with reaction, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham is with us.

Stephanie, you know, the interesting thing is you can bring I guess all the hearsay people you want. Hearsay, I say, you say, grandmas, nephews, uncles, sons, brothers, cousins, neighbor actually told me this and that's why I believed it.

But at the end of the day, you have the transcript. At the end of the day, it's all there. It was never any mention of money. That fact doesn't change. They did nothing to get the money.

So, it's a little bewildering to me that we actually are in this insane position.

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, sadly, it's not bewildering to me after watching Schiff and Pelosi and their antics. But, again, they have been trying to undo this presidency since he won in 2016.

And you're right. He released the transcript today of the first call. He released the transcript of the second call. He is being so transparent in this process because he did absolutely nothing wrong.

There was no quid pro quo. I guess I'm not allowed to say quid pro quo though because the Dems have done some polling and "bribery" is the better word to use apparently.

But again, the president did nothing wrong. And that's why the White House continues to release documents, which is unprecedented.

HANNITY: All right. So, with the president being put in this horrible position, I'll be honest. I mean, I read the tweet, I'm like OK, well, he didn't like this particular ambassador. It was about as innocuous a statement that I think the president could ever tweet out, you know, almost -- he could have tweeted out what the general prosecutor said. He could have tweeted out some other issues that John Solomon has brought up about her, but he didn't. He was pretty innocuous.

GRISHAM: Yes. The president -- he was telling people why he was unhappy with that ambassador, which is every president's right. There is no -- this couldn't be witness-tampering or intimidation because this is not a trial. This is not a legal trial. This is just a political sideshow.

And the president went around Schiff because he's getting -- we are given no rights. And he went ahead and tweeted it.

I'd also like to remind people that Obama fired every Bush-appointed ambassador the day he was elected office. Every president has the right to have people representing them in foreign countries that he trusts.

I'd also like to actually point out that she was only recalled three months before her term was supposed to end. And she's still employed at the State Department. So, something to think about.


All right. Stephanie Grisham, White House press secretary -- thank you for being with us.

All right. When we come back, Jason Chaffetz, Congressman Steve Scalise and the great one, Mark Levin. I just got off the phone with him. He has a lot to say tonight. That's all coming up on this busy breaking news edition of "Hannity".



HANNITY: All right. So, now, the corrupt mob has a new conspiracy theory tonight, that the president somehow committed witness intimidation by tweeting during today's hearing. That was innocuous.

Just moments ago, the president responded to the absolute hysteria again. Take a look.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: In the history of our country, there has never been a disgrace like what's going on right now. So you know what? I have the right to speak. I have free speech just as other people do.

But they have taken away the Republicans' rights and I watched today as certain very talented people wanted to ask questions they weren't allowed to ask questions. Republicans. They weren't allowed to ask questions. It's a very sad thing.


HANNITY: All right. Joining us now, author of the best-selling book "Power Grab", FOX News contributor, former Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz, along with House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and our own Ed Henry, host of a brand new show every Saturday and Sunday at noon right here on the FOX News Channel.

All right. Let me go to you, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, because you have all over this in a hundred different ways.

This was the most innocuous tweet. In all the years that we -- in reading Trump's tweets, oh, kind of trouble followed her wherever she went. She wouldn't have even known about it had Schiff not read the stupid thing.

JASON CHAFFETZ, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, it was going on during the hearing. And so, she wouldn't have heard about it.

And let's also remember that Barack Obama in the middle of investigations that we were conducting in to the IRS, Benghazi, other things, President Obama weighed in regularly. Did he intimidate witnesses by saying there wasn't even a smidgen of corruption? When we had people within the IRS that I think would have testified otherwise?

Come on, the media is going to play this one out, they've got to roll it all the way out. But what the president did today was not inappropriate. He stated a fact. He is entitled to his opinion.

And if this is what they left the hearing with, this is the big thing that they had, they had nothing with the ambassador today, nothing.

HANNITY: You know, and, Steve Scalise, that's the point. I mean, Devin Nunes captured it perfectly. Why are you even here? You know nothing?

She had absolutely nothing add to this. And Republican makes a point of order -- no, no, no. I mean, just like this document in the inquiry. Well, we are going to have full fairness at the discretion of the compromised, congenital liar Schiff. We're going to allow witnesses at the request of the Schiff. I mean, it's judge, jury, executioner, it's -- I have never seen anything this corrupt.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: No, Sean, it is a Soviet-style impeachment process.

And when you look, here we have another day, Sean, and another star witness for the Democrats who admitted under oath that the president didn't do anything wrong. Today, Chris Stewart asked Yovanovitch, did you see any crimes? Did you see any bribery? She said no.

We had John Ratcliffe two days ago asking the two Democrat star witnesses on day one. Can you name a single impeachable offense? Not one, Sean. And, yet, they still want to go forward with impeaching the president.

HANNITY: And the funny thing, Ed Henry, you probably know better than I, because I know more Democrats will talk to you than me, but I am -- I'm hearing from a lot of my friends on Capitol Hill, that the Democrats see this is a major blow up, screw up. And there's a lot of nervous Democrats on Capitol Hill. What are your sources telling you tonight?

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, my sources told me heading into today, Sean. But where I've got to disagree with you a bit I think Democrats felt a lot better about what happened today in terms of the tweet. I know you are going to say, look, the president has a First Amendment right and he is not necessarily getting a fair shake. He doesn't have a defense witness there at the table. So he certainly has a right to speak out on Twitter.

But you have someone like Ken Starr, the former independent counsel saying today on fox this was injurious to the president's case and poor judgment to get involved like that and sort of play into the Democrats' hands, that is where I think you and I have an issue, Sean.

HANNITY: Let me interrupt for a second. Ed, Ed, tell me what was so bad about the tweet.

HENRY: Ken Starr said this could be perceived to be witness intimidation. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe this will play out and it will be a whole lot of nothing is my point.

But the president was having a relatively good day. Congressman Scalise, the leader, is right that, in fact, Yovanovitch testified not only that the president, this president, President Trump helped Ukraine more than President Obama, also she testified something else, Sean, that he has the right as president to fire her, which is an important point.

So the Democrats did not advance their impeachment cause but the president might have injured himself a bit.

HANNITY: Ed Henry, thank you.

And Mark Levin -- all right, so I just talked to Mark Levin. He's really fired up and he is calling out these corrupt Democrats for trying to say this was intimidating a witness. It's ridiculous. He will join us.

And later, Ken Starr will explain what he meant about Trump's tweet as we continue, straight ahead.


HANNITY: All right. Welcome back to Hannity. All right, today we saw once again another hearing in the Schiff show as you want to call it, radical Democrats, by the way this impeachment circus we've been showing you.

Joining us now with reaction he is a number one best-selling author with his latest book "Unfreedom of the Press." I call them the "Great One," national syndicated radio show "Life, Liberty & Levin" its new time 8:00 p.m. every Sunday night the #1 show here on the Fox News Channel and all of cable news.

Sir, really the President tweets out a mild tweet basically saying, yes, you know what this didn't work out very well. And look at - this is intimidation - no Mark, look at the law, it's not.

MARK LEVIN, "UNFREEDOM OF THE PRESS" AUTHOR: You know, Sean, this is amazing. I hope the American people know what you're witnessing is tyranny. You can have tyranny of the legislature, you can have tyranny of the executive branch, you can have tyranny of the judiciary.

You're witnessing tyranny in the House of Representatives, in the Intelligence Committee that doesn't do intelligence work anymore. This is an outrageous violation of the Constitution. How often is the Constitution read during these hearings? Never, never, and it's never going to be, because they're destroying the Constitution of the United States. They're undermining your franchise they're trying to influence the 2020 election.

And by they, I not only mean the Democrats on this committee, I mean the media. To listen to the media analysis of what's taking place in these hearings is absurd, it's disgraceful. They talk about Russia, they sound like the Russian media.

The Democrat Party and the media are like this, that's why I wrote the book. They're like this. So the President's never going to get a break from the media, so he tweets. So due process, even though it's not a criminal case, even though it's not a civil case, due process - Western civilization believes in due process.

Due process even before the Bill of Rights does not apply to the President, because Congress can do whatever it wants. Is that what the Constitution says? Is that what that says? No that's not what that says.

President's not allowed to tweet to defend himself. Well then he can't defend himself, you name one newsroom in this country really that's calling it straight here. None of them, none of them - not picking on anyone, I'm saying none of them.

President's tweet today - not a single newsroom that I watched put the tweet up there in full - in full. Here's what the President tweeted America, everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then - and that's pretty much what he said. No it's not, according to Adam Schiff it is.

"Then fast-forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors." This woman is intimidated by this?

We're told 33 years in the State Department where they have the most brutal bureaucrats on the face of the earth. She was facing down dictators. She was in somewhat - she was on - oh, my god, this tweet intimidated her.

Now how could the tweet intimidate her, as I posted early on and everybody repeat it. She'd didn't even know about the tweet until commissar Adam Schiff read the tweet and he'd even read the full tweet. He read part of the tweet.

Now let's talk about what's going on here. Here's an article for the 50th time. POLITICO, January 2017, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. Now other news outlets, this is conspiracy theory written in left-wing POLITICO, repeated in left-wing "New York Times." It's not conspiracy theory it's fact.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. It goes on in incredible detail. This ambassador wasn't all that familiar with it. Did she do anything about it? No.

They have this great leader over there that everybody loves in Ukraine was trashing the President on social media, did she call him? No, no, it's - that's OK. But you know the poor thing was smeared by Rudy Giuliani.

Let me tell you what a smear is. A smear is when you go after somebody's returns, a smear is when you go after somebody's bank records, a smear is when you go over somebody's children, a smear is when you try and dig up dirt about their past personal lives, a smear is this clown show.

I mean it was fractious to hear them, "oh, I'm sorry poor madam ambassador that you were smeared and that Rudy Giuliani - I'm sorry, while they're smearing the President of United States, while they're undermining these values that we believe in Western civilization and in our United States Constitution.

And here's the thing, everybody knows, Trump gave military aid to Ukraine. State Department proposed it, other departments proposed it, he gave it 2017, 2018. 2019 he says we have a new government let me take a look. You're not allowed to do that Mr. President.

Meanwhile, Obama without military aid from the Ukrainians when they really needed it. Russia invaded Ukraine on his watch and did he give them the military stuff they needed? No. Who do you think the Ukrainians like better? Is the American President Donald Trump or Barack Obama? I could tell you I'm sure it's Donald Trump.

Who do you think the Russians liked better as President Barack Obama - you know, we'll work this out after the election or Donald Trump who has put the harshest, most severe penalties on Putin and his people in modern American history. Who do you think Putin wants as President of United States?

Let me tell you something. This committee is a rogue, tyrannical committee with a rogue, tyrannical Chairman. Whatever the Constitution requires, he does the opposite. Whatever justice and fairness requires, he does the opposite.

He's literally withholding transcripts from witnesses who've already testified in their below-ground skiff, because he doesn't want those witnesses who've testified differently than the show horse witnesses you've seen to be questioned.

He doesn't want their narrative to be challenged. He doesn't want his one his narrative to be challenged. So the - and I hear the media. If the President would just stop tweeting we can fix this.

Let me tell you something about the American media - it sucks. There's nothing free about it. It is part and parcel of the left of the Democrat Party. And these legal analysts who know nothing about the Constitution and the rule of law and American history, let alone Western history, they are pathetic and the American people are being horribly disturbed.

And I would tell the American people that there's only one way to fix this, on Election Day - only one way to fix this on Election Day. And by the way, at least they admitted today that the President of the United States - he's the one who gets to set foreign policy. It is the State Department that is resisting this President that is the irregular channel.

And if they want to attack Rudy Giuliani then have a different hearing about Rudy Giuliani and we'll get all the facts out on that. But the President of the United States, A, did nothing wrong. B, did not bribe. C, did not extort. D, no quid pro quo. E, gave them their money. F, that's the end of it.

HANNITY: All right. That's why we call him the "The Great One," Mark Levin. Don't forget, Life, Liberty & Levin's new timeslot 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time every Sunday night right here on Fox.

When we come back Ken Starr, Charlie Hurt, they're going to react to the Schiff show circus all coming up as we continue. Glad you're with us.


HANNITY: All right. So the left hypocrisy, their corruption, their madness has been on display all week throughout this Schiff show, impeachment circus. Joining us now with reaction, we have Washington Times Columnist, Fox News Contributor, Charlie Hurt; former U.S. Solicitor General, Independent Counsel in the Clinton Investigation, Ken Starr.

Ken let me go to you, because I know you've made some news with your comments earlier today. And you're also saying that there's nothing impeachable for the President. I'm going to read you to you the President's tweets, and I want you to tell this audience exactly what was so horrible.

They call it serving at the pleasure of the President. The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than preceding administrations. It is called quite simply America First. With all of that, however, I have done far more for Ukraine than Obama, which by the way, even the former ambassador admitted.

And when you look at the second one, "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia. How did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors, which she even acknowledge."

Ken Starr, I've known you a long time. You got to help me out here. You got to tell the audience what was so harmful and bad about that, because you didn't make any sense to me today, none whatsoever.

KEN STARR, FORMER UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL: Well, Sean, you and I have known one another for a long time, and I have a different perspective. You don't attack a public servant in the middle of her testimony - period, full stop. Let others do the work for you for - sakes.

HANNITY: What is the attack? Tell me what the attack is?

STARR: The attack - well, let's put it more gently. The criticism of her public service, I think it's a mistake. Laugh all you will. Look, she's in the chair--

HANNITY: I mean, it's Ken Starr - have we become a nation of total snowflakes? Because this is the most innocuous thing in the world, Oh, my precious feelings were hurt.

STARR: Sean--

HANNITY: Oh, I'm so - oh - he didn't like me--

STARR: Sean--

HANNITY: Oh, I feel so bad about myself. Let's bring in a therapy dog for me.

STARR: Hey you're convincing me. You're absolutely - Sean here's the situation.

HANNITY: I need hot coco. Go ahead.

STARR: All right. Let me respond ever so briefly.

HANNITY: All right. Go ahead.

STARR: And I'm not going to convince you. But let me - I think it's poor form. I think the President serves himself well when he simply says, hey, here are the problems and he identified some of the problems, the unfairness of the procedures. Those are very fair criticisms. Don't criticize the witness in the middle of her testimony.

And I just think what you're saying and it can be interpreted - this is the way it's being interpreted. If you testify, I'm going to hammer you. I think that is - it's not a crime, it's not impeachable, I think it's unwise.

I think we want people to like our President, because look at how success - hey, come on, this country is very successful right now.

HANNITY: He Ken can ask - and you know what he is a disruptor and you know what, he is speaks so much. Charlie, here's a thing for me. I mean, I honestly - he could have talked about, for example, how the Ukrainian President hated her guts and wanted her out. He could have talked about what the prosecutor general said about her and whether it's disputed or not, that's in dispute still.

John Solomon says the prosecutor general stands by that she handed him a list of names, but I don't know what the truth is. The President could have gone after a lot of other stuff. Let me bring in my pet therapy dog. I need to - I'm getting too hot. I got to calm down.

CHARLIE HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: Sean, there's no doubt that that tweet was one of President Trump's milder tweets. And Judge Starr is exactly right. It probably would have been a whole lot simpler if Trump had just shut up and just not gotten involved. But that's not who President Trump is.

Of course, he's going to get involved. He always defends himself. And of course, if this offends Adam Schiff so much, and he doesn't want President Trump getting on Twitter to defend himself. Of course Adam Schiff could have allowed the President - I don't know to have an attorney there cross- examining and defending Trump for him. But that's what is not permitted.

But the real thing here that I think is so - it reveals how unfair this whole process is, is the fact that yet, again it's like the obstruction of justice charge. When the underlying charge, the underlying accusations against the President they always fall apart, they always become ridiculous.

They have to go to these second tier accusations like obstruction of justice or intimidation of witness - intimidating a witness who has nothing impeachable to say.

HANNITY: And Ken Starr, now we have three witnesses, all hearsay. Would any of this be admissible in any court of law?

STARR: Not until they've proven a conspiracy and they haven't come close.

HANNITY: I mean, OK. I'm going to send over the dog. We'll give--

STARR: Thank you. I love dogs.

HANNITY: --we'll give - we can pet it same time.

STARR: I love dogs.

HANNITY: Thank you both. All right when you come back, Rush Limbaugh on fire today about what's going on in Washington. That's next.


RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW": All right. So at the end of the week of the radical Dems' phony impeachment show trial and the vicious, the dishonest attacks on America's duly elected President. Well here's Rush Limbaugh explaining exactly why his support for president Trump has never been greater and I believe he speaks for a lot of us. Take a look.


RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW": My support for Donald Trump has never been greater than it is right now. It is paramountly obvious watching this. These people have to go.

You elected Donald Trump to drain the swamp, well, dismissing people like Yovanovitch is what it looks like, dismissing people like Kent, dismissing people like Taylor, dismissing everybody involved from the Obama holdover days, trying to undermine Trump, getting rid of those people, dismissing them. This is what it looks like.

It was never going to be clean. They were never going to sit by idly and just allow Trump to do this.


HANNITY: All right. We'll have more on this madness. Take a deep breath. Enjoy your weekend. Watch football. We will be back Monday. We'll never be the media mob, which hates Trump.

Let not your heart be troubled. Why? Because the Laura Ingraham Angle is next. Have a great weekend.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.