Gingrich: Congress should have Obama testify under oath; Levin: The collusion is among the Democrats

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 26, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Welcome to "Hannity." And this is a Fox News Alert. In is a massive win tonight for President Trump, the Supreme Court has reinstated very key parts of his extreme vetting travel ban and announced that it will hear arguments in this ongoing legal battle straight ahead. Also, president Trump on Twitter writing, quote, "Very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. We must keep America safe."

Jay Sekulow will be here tonight with reaction, also Newt Gingrich, "The Great One," Mark Levin, a rare appearance, will also join us.

But first, everything Democrats, the destroy Trump media have been telling you about Russia election interference, collusion, conspiracy theories, obstruction of justice, and all the other criminal activity has been flipped on its head. Tonight, we'll explain about how everything boomerangs right back on the Democrats. And that is tonight's "Opening Monologue" you won't hear anywhere else.

All right, so for months, the destroy Trump media has been floating the conspiracy theories and pushing all kinds of unfounded accusations against President Trump and members of his administration. But guess what? It's actually now boomeranging back. The left -- they are the ones guilty of committing the very things they have been accusing the president and people close to the president of.

In other words, the real colluders are the ones who have been claiming collusion by trying to score cheap political points and by making these absurd and wild claims about the president. Democrats are actually now exposing themselves, leaving themselves wide open.

Now, the real fault for Russia's election interference now falls -- guess what? At the feet of former President Obama. The real crimes were committed, in fact, by Hillary Clinton. The real obstructer of justice is the former attorney general, Loretta Lynch. The real Russia conspiracy is the Uranium One deal and another one I'll explain tonight. And the real corrupt collusion is the relationship between the former FBI Director James Comey, and his BFF hiring every liberal Democrat he can, the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Let's start with Russia election meddling. Now, according to a brand-new report, President Obama knew exactly what he was going through and what was going on during the election. He chose, starting in August of 2016, to do nothing.

Now, President Trump spoke this morning about the stunning hypocrisy during an interview with "Fox & Friends." Take a look.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. But nobody wants to talk about that. The CIA gave him information on Russia a long time before they even -- you know, before the election. And I hardly see it. It's an amazing thing.

To me, you know, in other words, the question is, if he had the information, why didn't he do something about it? He should have done something about it. But you don't read that. It's quite sad.


HANNITY: Why did Obama not do anything about this? Now, the president is making an excellent point. And by the way, he's not the only official who's calling out Barack Obama for failing to act. Remember, he had this information in August of 2016. Now the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff, he's also slamming the former president. Hard to believe, but watch this.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The American people needed to know, and I didn't think it was enough to tell them after the election. But rather, given the seriousness of this, I think the administration needed to call out Russia earlier and needed to act to deter and punish Russia earlier, and I think that was a very serious mistake.


HANNITY: That's correct, we the people needed to know. So the real question tonight is, if President Obama knew what Russia was doing back in August of 2016, why didn't he act?

Now, remember, Democrats have been claiming the Russia interference, which, for the record, didn't change actual vote tallies according to every top government official who's testified, but they're saying it was so egregious that it threatened the very foundation of this country.Well, if that's the case, why did Obama stay silent?

The answer we now know is simple. According to a report, the president didn't do any investigation because he actually thought Hillary was going to win. In other words, let me translate here. The only reason Russia interference in the story is a big deal is because Donald Trump won. Now, that's what the special counsel needs to be investigating tonight, real collusion, Obama this time defending Hillary, colluding so she'd win and not rocking the boat.

And by the way, that's why everyone should be freaking out about right now, and they are. Now, we need to know what did President Obama know, when did he know it, and maybe he could come and clear up some serious questions. After all, it was Obama who promised to be more flexible with Vladimir. Remember this with Medvedev? "I'll have more flexibility after the election."


THEN-PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.

MEDVEDEV: I understand. I'll transmit this information to Vladimir.


HANNITY: Then tonight, there's actual crimes and actual felonies being committed. Well, we know Hillary Clinton -- the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible as it relates to her e-mail server. Democrats, the destroy Trump media for months -- well, they've accused President Trump of breaking the law without any evidence, without any proof.

Now, meanwhile, we have evidence of real crimes, and it's right in front of their faces and has been for a long time. Hillary Clinton broke the law by mishandling top secret, classified, special access program information on her email server that she put in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet. James Comey said Clinton was, quote, "extremely careless," which is -- essentially, that's the same thing as what the law calls for, gross negligence.

And then, of course, we have obstruction of justice. Democrats, they've been claiming, well, President Trump tried to interfere in the Russia investigation, which once again, no proof, none. And as we now found out, the real obstructor of justice appears to be the former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Her actions have become such a problem that now a group of bipartisan senators announced late last week they are now going to do their job and investigate the former Obama attorney general for potentially influencing the investigation into Hillary's email server.

And by the way, here's why. We know last summer, Lynch met on a tarmac, remember how inappropriate that meeting for 40 minutes with Bill Clinton was just days before former FBI Director James Comey announced that he was giving Hillary a free pass after basically 13 minutes of a stinging indictment.

And while testifying before Congress, Comey also revealed that Lynch told him to call the investigation a "matter," which, by the way, is how Clinton's own campaign wanted it referred to.

And finally, remember Circa News, they broke the massive story a couple of weeks ago about how it was James Comey who confronted Lynch over potentially putting the entire kibosh on any Clinton indictment! In other words, the fix was in. This Lynch scandal, by the way, is now getting so bad that even Democrats are admitting this is now a problem, which we've been telling you about for a long time.

Lynch now needs to be put under oath to testify. Why? Because you, the American people, deserve to know the truth.

And as for the real Russia conspiracy, it doesn't have anything to do President Trump. It now deals with this important information that we know, the Uranium One deal. In other words, secretary of state, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Remember? She signed off on giving 20 percent of America's uranium, the foundational material for nuclear weapons, to Vladimir Putin and the Russians.

By the way, a lot of people involved in that deal, they were kicking back huge millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And her husband was doubling his speaking fees in Moscow.

Now, Democrats, the destroy Trump media want to talk about collusion, let's have the conversation, let's do it. Because the real collusion going on is between the disgruntled former FBI Director James Comey, also the special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey admitted that the reason he had a friend leak the memo to The New York Times is he wanted a special counsel. And guess what? Mueller, his BFF, was appointed. And Comey and Mueller's relationship is a massive conflict of interest!

Now, on top of that, members of Mueller's investigative team -- let's see. They've donated huge bucks to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.

By the way, Mueller is even so corrupt, he went as far as to actually hire one of the lawyers that had done legal work for the Clinton Foundation to prevent you, the public, from getting Freedom of Information Act requests, and by the way, help defend in this particular case.

All of these reasons are exactly why Mueller needs to step down, resign the special counsel witch hunt, end it, and by the way, and also the politically motivated so- called investigation once and for all.

Also tonight, we have an explosive report from The New York Post. Here's the headline. Quote, "Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators." And The Post explains that the firm behind the dossier, which is called Fusion GPS, they're refusing to respond to requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee about that fake document which has helped fuel and even begin the phony Russia conspiracy theories. And the congressional sources tell The Post that a firm has a pro-Hillary Clinton, anti-Trump agenda. Oh, interesting. Remember, that's the dossier that talked about Trump at Ritz-Carlton in Moscow with two prostitutes urinating on his bed?

There's also this fact, that according to reports, the FBI, James Comey at the time, offered to pay the person who created the fake dossier $50,000! Now, the FBI's previously told Fox News that it denied making any payments.

Now, the Trump-Russia collusion investigation has been turned now completely on its head. We shouldn't be surprised if Democrats -- if they start now -- well, maybe we ought to let this all come to an end because now they've opened the door for their own investigations and real trouble. We call it the boomerang effect.

Joining us now, author of the number one New York Times best-selling book "Understanding Trump," former speaker of the House, FOX News contributor Newt Gingrich.

Let's start with Comey wanting to pay the guy that came up with the phony dossier! Let's start there -- 50 grand.


HANNITY: You can't make it up!

GINGRICH: ... stuff up.

HANNITY: You can't!

GINGRICH: I mean, you can't make it up. And there are two parts to it. One is how much of it's bad and the other is how bad they are at being bad. I mean, you'd think if they're going to do this kind of stuff, they'd be subtle. They'd be clever.

This is stupid. I mean, here's the FBI director being stupid. It's not complicated. Here's Hillary Clinton being stupid. I mean, talk about a stupid party. I know the donkey was the original symbol of the Democratic Party, but this is really down at a point of embarrassment.

I will say on behalf of Adam Schiff and on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I'm very proud as Democrats because I know it was a risk that both of them came out and said, We have to investigate Loretta Lynch and find out what she's doing. And of course, all this is happening exactly as you thought it would.

Now we're beginning to turn the corner. You didn't, by the way, get in a totally separate story about Bernie Sanders and his wife also now lawyering up...

HANNITY: Oh, we got that, too.

LEVIN: ... a little bit on a different problem. You know, I mean, all this stuff is coming down the road...

HANNITY: All right, but here's...

GINGRICH: ... and if I were Trump and -- go ahead.

HANNITY: All right, is...


GINGRICH: I was going to say, if I were Trump...

HANNITY: The evidence -- we know...

GINGRICH: ... I would be looking down, going -- I would be thinking, All right, you guys, you had six months of coming at me. You couldn't do it. You couldn't prove anything. And now you're about to just wreck yourself (sic) on all this stuff.

And in addition to being pretty happy with the Supreme Court, he ought to be pretty happy with the way these things are turning around in a way that is astonishing.

HANNITY: You know, Mr. Speaker, I kind of feel in many ways, we've been -- and you've been included in this and you've been an enormous help with great analysis -- we've almost been a sole voice here of sanity in the media, and we pointed out Hillary's -- the evidence, overwhelmingly incontrovertible. We saw a problem with the tarmac and Loretta Lynch and investigation versus mission and then the Circa story. And then he saw the unhealthy conflicts with Comey and Mueller.

Let's start with Comey and Mueller. Does this investigation now need to be wrapped up? And how does he justify hiring the biggest donors to the Democrats and also Hillary's lawyer?

GINGRICH: Look, I think that the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should bring Mueller in, not to get into the details of the investigation, but to get into the tales of who he's hiring, why he's hiring them. Has he considered a single pro-Trump lawyer?

I mean, this is one of the most...

HANNITY: Not one.

GINGRICH: Again...

HANNITY: That I see.

GINGRICH: ... it's part of the same pattern. I mean, these guys -- there is no way you can look at the people Mueller has hired, look at where they came from -- and apparently, the other day, Rosenstein said, Oh, well, maybe they gave some money to Democrats, but that doesn't mean they're biased. Give me a break! Every single one of them? I mean, the top five lawyers he brought in are all professional Democrats. One of them actually worked for the Clinton Foundation. Why would any reasonable person have any faith in this kind of a team?

HANNITY: Mr. Speaker, is it now time because the Democrats have pushed so hard and we know -- I have no doubt Hillary committed felonies. Now that they've pushed so hard, if we believe in justice and equal justice under the law, doesn't she now need to be fully and completely investigated, both on the foundation pay-to-play and on the e-mail server, where we know and Comey pretty much himself admitted she committed felonies?

GINGRICH: Well, there are reports that the State Department now is actively looking at taking away her security clearances...

HANNITY: That's not enough.

GINGRICH: ... which would be a pretty big sign of guilt.

Well, look, I -- here's what I honestly believe. I really think that the new director of the FBI should look at all of the evidence and should follow it where it leads. I don't want a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, but I also don't want -- you know, if we're going to talk about Russian influence, like you, I want to know about all the different parts that were commingled between...


GINGRICH: ... John Podesta's brother, is an agent, the Clinton Foundation, the uranium deal -- I mean, all these different pieces, the half million dollars to Bill Clinton...

HANNITY: And this is the most important...


GINGRICH: ... public accounting.

HANNITY: What about what we learned, that...


HANNITY: Obama knew in August of 2016 and chose to do nothing -- Because he thought -- he didn't want to rock the boat...

GINGRICH: There's no question...

HANNITY: ... that Hillary had this.

GINGRICH: There's no question that the Congress should call the former president in to testify under oath, to explain what he was doing and why he was doing it. There's no question that they should build the case from ground up. Who was doing the investigating? Who was reporting to the president? Who did it go through? What were the meetings like where they decided not to pursue it? I mean, talk about an extraordinary failure of national security.


GINGRICH: ... astonishing that after all these months of rumors, it's him.

HANNITY: Exactly. Doesn't it seem that the only reason that he did nothing was for political reasons because he knew that she was on a path to victory, which...

GINGRICH: I think -- I think because you and I are both concerned for the country...

HANNITY: Absolutely.

GINGRICH: ... we should simply say that the Congress should ask him that question. What was your -- I mean, literally, I think that President Obama should come and testify.

HANNITY: Absolutely. Under oath.

GINGRICH: Where did you learn about it? Who did you learn about it from? Who was in the room with you when you made the decision? What was their advice? And what was your reasoning?

I mean, for months -- you're talking now about what, August, September, October, November, and then he goes quiet when all of a sudden, we're talking about the Russian thing and he's known about it for five months? And he lets it hang out there...

HANNITY: Unbelievable.

GINGRICH: ... as though it's brand-new? It is.

HANNITY: All right, sir. Good to see you. Congrats on number one New York Times. We appreciate it.

GINGRICH: Good to see you. Thanks.

HANNITY: When we come back, the great one, Mark Levin, rare television appearance. We'll ask him about the Trump-Russia collusion hysteria, the boomerang effect. He's got a brand-new book out that talks about our framers and founders and those that inspired them.

And later, Jay Sekulow weighs in on this huge win on the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about the president's travel ban, temporary travel ban, a huge win for the president.

Then an important mini monologue. Tonight, I will expose which network forced to eat crow yet again, posting a fake, phony on-line story about Russia. That and much more straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So as we explained in tonight's "Opening Monologue," the Obama administration -- they knew about Russia's possible election interference. They did nothing.

And over the weekend, President Trump -- he weighed in on the issue. He tweeted out, quote, "The reason that President Obama did nothing about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Hillary Clinton would win and he didn't want to rock the boat. He didn't choke, he colluded or obstructed. And it did the Democrats and crooked Hillary no good."

Joining us now with reaction, the author of the brand-new book -- it's part of a series -- unbelievable information about our framers and founders and the great philosophers that inspired them -- "Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism," the great one, Mark Levin.

Before we get into specifics, Mark, I want to stay on this issue for just a second. Eleven months, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. Turns out there's no evidence of any collusion. Obama was notified in August of 2016. He didn't want to rock the boat because he thought Hillary had it in the bag. Now, with this knowledge, what should we take from that?

MARK LEVIN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first of all, I think now we do have proof of collusion within the Obama administration. Various departments and agencies involved in intelligence and law enforcement colluded to cover this up and keep it from the American people and obstruct our knowledge during the course of the election.

If they really thought that Donald Trump colluded, don't you think they would have put of this information way back in August? The president is exactly correct. They figured Hillary would win. They sat on this information. Then they put it out near the end of the election in order to try and help her.

And Hillary Clinton goes on and on with collusion. The Democrats pick it up. And for now some God reason we have a special counsel.

I think that special counsel, Mr. Mueller, ought to consider expanding his investigation to include the prior administration, to include their activities with the Russians, to include their activities to cover up for Vladimir Putin. And while he's at it, he may want to include domestic surveillance, which I believe took place and the unmasking of American citizens, perhaps some of the Trump transition team members. So by my count...

HANNITY: You know...

LEVIN: Yes, go ahead.

HANNITY: Yes, Mark, you're right. I mean, what happened to General Flynn was a crime, a violation of the Espionage Act. I've talked a lot and at length about unmasking, surveillance and leaking of raw intel. Then we have Hillary. You know, it's incontrovertible, the evidence she committed crimes here. And if you want a real Russian collusion story, it's the Uranium One deal where he she gave 20 percent of America's uranium to Putin and she got kickbacks...

LEVIN: But Sean, I think we have...

HANNITY: ... to the foundations.

LEVIN: I think we have a...

HANNITY: And Loretta Lynch.

LEVIN: I think we he a new Russian collusion story, which is the collusion within the Obama administration to cover up for Vladimir Putin. Whatever the reason, that's what they did. They kept that information from the American people in the course of a presidential election because they thought it would help Hillary. They certainly weren't trying to help Donald Trump. Now, it seems to me we honestly need to get to get the bottom of the real collusion.

Now we have collusion! The Democrats should be excited. Collusion's been found. It's among them! And I think we need to get to the bottom of it. We have obstruction, potentially, real potential obstruction with the former attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch! So by my count -- Loretta Lynch, right? By my count, we have potential collusion, right.

By my count, the Democrats have a problem on their hands. Hillary Clinton was criminally investigated, too. So my attitude about this is, you want a special counsel? Now, Mr. Special Counsel, when you're done hiring every liberal Democrat in Washington, D.C., you might want to reconsider what you're doing and take a look at the prior administration.

HANNITY: You know, we have a shared belief. I call it, there's a silent coup going on in this country and these forces aligning against the president. You have your own way of saying it, Mark. And we've got these real problems.

We also both agree that America's at a tipping point. We better get it right now. And what they're doing to destroy this man is unprecedented in history.

And this goes to the heart of your book, is that one of the things I love about your books is, number one, your passion for the Constitution, our country, for our framers, founders. But not only that, those that inspired them come shining through. They all warned about deep state. They all warned about the size and scope of government.

Explain how that fits into the narrative you're advancing in this book.

LEVIN: Well, look, the problem is when you look at the media and Hollywood and education in our public schools and colleges and universities, when you listen to Democrats speaking a lot of Republican speak, you reach the conclusion, if you understand history and you dig into it, that the progressives have won, that we're in a post-constitutional period. We don't even talk about the principles that made this country great.

So what I try to do it in my own little way is take them on, take on the progressive masterminds, take on the attitude in our government, take on the attitude in our media for people who are interested. You know, the fact is that if you ignore the academics and intellectuals, you know, people -- their eyes roll over and they say, Oh, forget about it. You ignore them, you lose your country because they're the ones that drive the politics. They're the ones that determine whether you're free or not in every society. So I take them on.

There's a difference between being an elite -- we like elites, sports players, elite chefs -- and elitist, who is a putdown person or tries to control you or something of the sort. And Sean, from my book, I put down a short list of the difference between those of us -- Americanism and the others, progressivism. These are the two forces, one liberty, one tyrannical.

HANNITY: Yes. All right...

LEVIN: We believe in the Constitution. They believe in centralism. We believe in individualism. They believe in conformity. We believe in private property. They believe in collectivism. We believe in prosperity. They believe in redistribution.

We believe in the separation of powers. They believe in this all-powerful administrative state. We believe in eternal truths. They believe in ideological social engineering. We believe in cultural stability. They believe in constant transformation.

I'm getting there. We believe in real science. They believe in social science. We believe in the rights of man. They believe in the power of government. We believe in a moral order. They believe in situational ethics. We believe in liberty. They believe in a growing authoritarianism. And we believe in education. They believe in indoctrination.

Finally, we believe in a civil society. They believe in the federal leviathan. There couldn't be any bigger difference between them and us! And they -- they rely on the -- the philosophers, Marx and Hegel and Rousseau and others, which I talk about. I won't here -- talk about at length. We rely on the great Aristotle and Cicero and Locke, and of course, the founding fathers. This is a debate that we must have to get our principles back, to get our liberty back, to get our republic back because it's been taken away from us!

HANNITY: Well said, the great one, Mark Levin, right after the break.

Also tonight, the Supreme Court delivers President Trump a huge victory today, agreeing to hear oral arguments about the travel ban. And parts of the ban will, in fact, be reinstated. Tonight, we get reaction from Jay Sekulow.

Also tonight, you -- we will tell you the one network that had to eat their words because they published yet another fake news story about a Trump associate and Russia. We'll explain in tonight's mini monologue you don't want to miss straight ahead.


KELLY WRIGHT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This is a Fox News alert. I'm Kelly Wright in New York. Here's what's happening.

The White House releasing a statement a short while ago saying that the United States has identified potential operations for another chemical weapons attack by Syria's Bashar Assad regime. According to the White House, the activities are similar to those made before a chemical attack was carried out on April 4th of this year. That attack killed more than 80 people and sickened hundreds more. Many of those victims were children. Once again the White House says it has seen evidence that Assad's regime is preparing to carry out another chemical attack in Syria. And in a statement, the White House says if his regime carries out another chemical attack, there will be a heavy price to pay.

Three days following the last chemical attack, President Trump reacted swiftly, authorizing a cruise missile strike in Syria with a warning of another strike if the regime continued.

I'm Kelly Wright. Back now to "Hannity."

HANNITY: As we continue tonight on "Hannity," we continue with the great one, Mark Levin, author of the brand new book "Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism." You know, Mark, I was listening to you in the last segment, you were talking about the need for the intellectual foundation, founders, framers, constitution, and even beyond that those that inspired these guys.

You know, I look at President Trump, and here is a guy that, you know, frankly, practical, commonsense, instinctive knowledge that big government is oppressive and wrong, regulations are burdensome, it's hurting the American people, millions more in poverty and food stamps and out of the labor force. Doubling our debt is dumb. Top down health care is stupid. And he has all of that instinctively. And look at how those forces that support the opposite of what you're explaining in this book react to him trying to drain that swamp and get back to those founding principles, perhaps without the intellectual foundation that maybe you have, but, frankly you're one of the few people that really do.

MARK LEVIN, AUTHOR, "REDISCOVERING AMERICANISM": They are definitely out to destroy him, and I think they are out to destroy him for three fundamental reasons. Number one, he's not one of them, and they really thought they would get Hillary Clinton and four more years of this crazy leftist type government. That's number one.

Number two, he is striking them where they believe they have absolute monopoly control, in the administrative state. The departments and agencies where this massive fourth branch of government that is nowhere in the constitution --

HANNITY: The deep state.

LEVIN: The deep state. But it passes three to 4,000 laws a year without our input. It continues to operate despite the public will. It rejects electoral outcomes. That is the progressive leftist power base, the administrative state.

And number three, the courts. The unelected judges and justices in this country, and you saw what a disaster they were in these district court cases. And thank goodness we have a Supreme Court that took a look at his executive order on immigration and it was a 95 percent victory there for the president, and congratulations to him.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this, Mark. If you are talking to the present and you said how do we defeat these forces that are selectively leaking, the corruption that is against him, what specific advice you give him based on your research here?

LEVIN: First of all, he can't defeat them. He can start the process of defeating them, and this is one of the things that bothers me. President Reagan was in there eight years, started the process. Then the other Republican presidents come in and they unravel it. It's like with Obamacare right now. The Republicans are basically giving imprimatur to a massive progressive government program.

The way you do it is this. You shrink the size of government. If you're going to go into every department and agency, it's like hand-to-hand warfare in the jungle. That doesn't work. Slash them across the board except for defense and federal law enforcement and intel. Slash them across the board, 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent. Call in McConnell, call in Ryan, and read them the riot act if you can. If they won't do what the president says, then replace them. He is the leader of the Republican Party. Replace them. So far I would replace them, but what do I know? So you need to do that. There's another issue, too.

HANNITY: I'm with you, Mark. I'm sick and tired of them. They have no urgency, no fight.

LEVIN: I have Russian heritage so I would go to jail in two seconds, so that would rule me out.


LEVIN: Even though I can't stand them, that's a whole other issue.

But that said, I've been behind another movement called the Article Five Convention of States and I wish the president and his administration would take a look at it even though they don't have a direct role. And that would allow us through our state legislatures to change the nature of this government, which has been stolen from us. This is not anymore a representative republic, not with a massive administrative state, or a federal republic with federalism since the states basically do what they're told.

HANNITY: How many states are on board?

LEVIN: We have 12. And we need 34, but we have 12 without any real effective national push. That's a big deal.

And the other thing is, we are not really a constitutional republic. I don't know what we are, but the reason they are trying to chew up Trump is because Trump is not one of them. He doesn't belong to their club.

And I'm going to say something else that's not even related to this. I want to thank the president for something. He gets attacked for this. Thank you for taking on the media. It's damn about time somebody did. Don't stop tweeting. Be more careful with your tweets, but don't stop tweeting because you are able to go over the head of the media the way Reagan did with his speeches. He can be more careful, I don't care. Are the media careful about what they report? No.


LEVIN: In any event, I am one of those, count me in the minority that says keep at it, keep at it, keep at it.

HANNITY: Mark, always good to see you, my friend. That's what we call you "the great one." Thank you.

And coming up, another big win today for the president and his administration. Supreme Court reinstating, yes, the president's temporary travel ban. We will also hear oral arguments about the issue in the fall. Jay Sekulow weighs in next.

And later tonight, this is important, one of the major purveyors of fake news, conspiracy news in this country over the weekend forced to eat crow after published a story about a Trump associate and Russia. Guess what, it wasn't true, like so many others. A very important mini monologue straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." A huge win for President Trump and his administration. Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided they will hear the case and will reinstate parts of the ban. The president reacted in a statement, writing, quote, "Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for these six terror prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm."

Here with reaction, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also attorney for the president, is Jay Sekulow. This is huge. How do people even argue that if you come from a country that has terror ties, terror training ties, or perhaps believes Sharia law, which is the antithesis of our constitution, that you have a right in here without any questions of all?

JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Well, the ACLU sent out an alert today saying that basically the sky was falling because the Supreme Court, with all the justices agreeing in the opinion said that the executive order was written not, as the lower courts had said, unconstitutional. They did not find religious animus or religious discrimination.

They put in place, and this is what's significant here, they put in place a stay on the lower court injunctions that were issued. And basically 95 percent of the executive order was upheld under this basis right now as constitutional. I suspect, Sean, when the entire case is argued, fully briefed, argued on the merits, it will be a 100 percent victory for the president. But let me --

HANNITY: And judge shopping doesn't work.

SEKULOW: It does not work. I predicted that when this went to the Supreme Court, the president would prevail, and he did.

HANNITY: We have to talk, Jay, Ok, so President Obama knew in August the Russians were trying to have an impact on our election. By the way, it does explain why the Democrats did not want the DHS or the FBI looking at their computers because they put the fix in and rigged the election for Hillary in the primaries. But he knew since August and he did nothing because Hillary was going to win and he didn't want to rock the boat? It looks like we have got a real Russian conspiracy now, Jay, that we never had before.

SEKULOW: Yes. So here's the case as it now exists. I kind of mapped this out over the weekend. So we now know that the Obama administration had the intelligence and the information regarding Russia's engagement in hacking and other activities in the previous election. They knew it over a year ago. So they had the information.

They took no action of significance on the information because of the election, convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to win. Instead Donald Trump becomes the president of the United States. Then we end up with a -- after they knew all of this information, they had the information, we now have a special counsel investigating Russia collusion and Russia activities based on information the government already had.

So why isn't there a special counsel, instead of wasting their time with this, why isn't there a special counsel looking at why did the Obama administration take no action on this issue of Russian engagement? Why is it that that wasn't the issue that was being looked at by the special counsel? So in my view now when you look at the entire case as the evidence comes out, again, no evidence of Russian collusion, how many witnesses have already lined up to say that? None.

HANNITY: This special counsel has to go.

SEKULOW: Let me say this, well, here's what I say. Not only that, the president of the United States deserves an apology and so do the American people because, Sean, understand what has happened here. There was ongoing intelligence already known by the previous administration, and they did nothing with it. A special counsel gets appointed because of James Comey's leaking of information, and intelligence information, by the way, that was already out on the situation. This is outrageous. An absolute outrage, inexcusable. The president deserves an apology.

HANNITY: For the Democrats, their chickens coming home to roost. Good job. We will have you back. Appreciate it.

When we come back, OK, a very important mini monologue. Which network, OK, a Hillary colluding network, had to eat crow this weekend yet again for a fake story published about a Trump associate and Russia? A very important mini monologue straight ahead


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So for months we have been telling you how that destroy-Trump media will do anything in their power to take down this president, this administration. Time after time the professional Trump haters over Clinton News Network, they have been proving my point, including over the weekend, for Clinton News Network once again published a demonstrably false Russia collusion story that they now have been once again forced to completely retract. There's a major credibility crisis at CNN, and it starts at the top with the fake news chief, Jeff Zucker. That's tonight's mini monologue.

Last Thursday, CNN published a story alleging that longtime Trump ally, personal friend of mine, by the way, Anthony Scaramucci, was being investigated for colluding with the Russians through dealings with a Russian investment fund. But 24 hours later, the story was completely debunked. CNN was forced to issue this embarrassing retraction, quote, "That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci." Jeff Zucker must be so proud.

But the problem is this is only the latest example of very fake news coming from CNN. On June the 16th, CNN again forced to delete a tweet, issue a correction after implying only Democrats prayed at the Congressional baseball game prior to the opening pitch. And on June 15th, CNN senior White House correspondent, somebody who is becoming unhinged like liberal Joe, Jim Acosta tweeted and deleted a fake claim that President Trump didn't visit Congressman Scalise in the hospital following the Congressional baseball shooting, which was tragic and a lie.

And that's not all. Earlier this month, CNN actually had to rewrite a story that incorrectly predicted James Comey would refute certain statements from President Trump during his testimony. It didn't happen.

Now all of these are just recent examples from this month alone. Take a look at some of the many conspiracy theories that are being pushed on a regular basis on CNN, and the downright vicious, nasty coverage of the administration that takes place at night after night, day after day on air. Watch this.


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST. MAY 9: It's a grotesque abuse of power by the president of the United States. This is the kind of thing that goes on and non-democracies.

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT, MAY 11: At the dessert course he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie instead of the single scoop for everyone else.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR, MAY 30: He gains weight according to these sources. He doesn't trust people around him, he's withdrawing, not a good picture.

JEFFREY LORD, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If he wants to say that, Barack Obama wants to say whatever, if George Bush says I looked in the eyes --

COOPER: If he took a dump on desk you would defend him.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM", MAY 16: Are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?

VAN JONES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, MAY 18: Now he's president snowflake, OK? Everything he said, "Oh, they are mean to me and they don't like me, and I just don't understand it, and it's not fair."

JONES, NOV. 9: This was a white-lash. This was a white-lash against a changing country. It was a white-lash against a black president in part.


HANNITY: Way beyond unbelievable.

So why is CNN's president Jeff Zucker allowing this culture of biased, anti-Trump, fake news to thrive at his network? Now, as the Harvard educated New York elitist so enraged with the election of President Trump that he's now committed to politically using a network to destroy the administration by any means necessary? By the way, Jeff, do you even care that CNN has no credibility left? Do you care?

And coming up, we need your help, a very, very important "Question of the Day." That's straight ahead.


HANNITY: Time for the "Question of the Day." Very important, do you think the Clinton News Network, the rest of the media have a major credibility crisis? When will they be held accountable? We want to hear from you,, @SeanHannity on Twitter, let us know what you think. That's all the time we have left this evening. We are always fair and balanced on this show. Thanks for being with us. See you tomorrow night.

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.