Gingrich: Deep state starts at top with DOJ; Protester who stormed 'Julius Caesar' stage speaks out

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 19, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Welcome to "Hannity." This is a Fox News Alert. Leftist rage reaches now an all-time high as liberal hatred towards the president is now spiraling out of control. Newt Gingrich, Jay Sekulow, Sara Carter, Gregg Jarrett all here tonight.

Plus, special counsel Robert Mueller is engaging in investigative mission creep, what I warned you about. It's now turned into a political witch hunt. It needs to be shut down. We will cover all of that in tonight's very important "Opening Monologue."

All right, liberal hatred towards President Trump and Republicans has now reached a fever pitch. It has become uglier, nastier than anything we have seen in modern political history. And now it is becoming violent.

Just take a look at what happened. Remember? Last week, a deranged left-wing ideologue tried to assassinate Republican lawmakers. Now, thankfully, two brave armed Capitol Police officers were there and they prevented this from becoming what could have been a massacre.

And you know what's even more disturbing is that police have found a list the gunman had in his van, and it contained the names of six GOP congressmen. Now, three of those Republican lawmakers on that list will be joining us later in the program tonight.

But here's the thing. This horrific assassination attempt is just one example in a much, much larger pattern of vile, disturbing, left-wing hatred that now sometimes is encouraging violence. For example, there is a performance of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" that's been going on in New York City depicting a President Trump lookalike getting brutally murdered. That's night after night.

Last Friday, a protester actually rushed the stage at the play and reportedly yelled, quote, "Stop the normalization of political violence against the right." That protester will join us also later tonight.

Now, in 2012, there was a theater company, they did use an Obama-like character in the same play. But can you imagine if the circumstances were the same back then as they are now? That wasn't covered a lot then. The mainstream media would be apoplectic and rushing, of course, to blame conservatives and of course, Second Amendment supporters, and they'd be going ballistic over all of this.

Now, I here on this program, I've been coming under fire from never- Trumpers who say that I'm, quote, "overreacting" by criticizing this play, and I don't know Shakespeare. Really? This isn't about Shakespeare. It's about glorifying -- by the way this is for liberal Joe on MSNBC. This is glorifying violence against the president of the United States of America.

Look, in 2012, if the Obama version had gotten more attention, I would have taken the same position. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. This isn't even really about freedom of speech, although I'd never call for anybody to be silenced. These liberal purveyors of hate have the right to say whatever they want, and I have a right to call them out for being beyond tasteless, vile and disgusting.

And let me remind them of the viciousness that has been spewed from the left in this country. Here's one example that is so graphic -- we always have to warn you before we put it up on your screen -- Kathy Griffin posing as an ISIS fighter with a fake, bloody, severed head of Donald Trump. You know what? Is posing like a jihadist with something that looks like the president's head, is that the right thing to do? Is that what we want in this country? Or is it a threat potentially against the president?

Or how about this from Madonna at the women's march with thousands of left-wing protesters. Is telling a crowd of angry protesters who were in Washington, D.C., that you thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, is that a smart thing to do, or can it be interpreted as a threat against the president?

Now, there are countless other examples of liberals making threats against the president, but here's the thing. This isn't really free speech. This isn't art, this isn't Shakespeare. This is about a rage, a hatred of this president and the left and liberals trying to objectify, dehumanize this president. They're trying to paint him as not human.

Now, peaceful protests -- you know what? That's not what Democrats and the left have been calling for since the election. No, they've been calling for -- remember the words -- resistance.

So let's be clear. I'm not saying that the left is responsible for what happened last week, or Bernie Sanders supporters are. That is not Bernie Sanders supporters, what happened in Alexandria, Virginia. I won't say that because you have to hold people accountable when they commit acts of violence. They're responsible.

But you cannot deny there is this out-of-control rage and hatred coming from the left in America today. It is a very, very dangerous game that is being played out here, and it's one the left plays, frankly, all the time. Remember back in 2008, President Obama said this about yours truly.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, put me on your staff!

OBAMA: I might have to put Mr. Burgess on Fox News. You know, I'll give him -- I'll pit -- I'll put -- I'll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity. He'll tear him up.


HANNITY: And Obama also said, "Get in their face." Remember during the 2016 campaign, former vice president, crazy uncle Joe Biden, said this about then candidate Donald Trump.


JOSEPH BIDEN, FMR. VICE PRESIDENT: The press always asks me, don't I wish I were debating him? No, I wish we were in high school, I could take in behind the gym! That's what I wish.


HANNITY: Yes, if I said taking Uncle Joe behind the gym, what would happen to me? Now, we're going to have more on this topic later in the program tonight. It's so important.

But also tonight, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is, in fact, now turning into a dangerous witch hunt by engaging what I've been warning about: investigation mission creep. Now, we've been highlighting night after night exactly what's been going on here, and here are the facts.

Mueller, who has massive, huge, numerous conflicts of interest with his relationship with James Comey, is now hiring an army of people to look into everything else but Trump-Russia collusion, including, for example, Jared Kushner's finances. There's also the fact that at least three people on Mueller's team have donated to Obama and Clinton. Does that sound fair, balanced, impartial to you? Or the fact that now they're investigating other issues like obstruction?

Here's what's happening. This whole thing was supposed to be about so-called Trump-Russia collusion. But guess what? There's zero evidence, well, none whatsoever at this point.

So now Mueller is now looking into other things, finances, business dealings, obstruction. And we can expect it's only going to get bigger and more expansive day in and day out. And you can bet one thing, he's not going to stop until he finds something to justify his existence. It's what I call investigation mission creep.

And speaking of the facts, if Mueller wants to investigate obstruction of justice, then he should ask his good friend James Comey, his BFF, about Loretta Lynch influencing him in the Clinton email investigation and meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac and saying it's not an "investigation," no, it's a "matter." Oh, and by the way, Sara Carter reporting, yes, she might have put the kibosh on any potential indictment.

And if Mueller wants to look into his finances or any finances, then why not investigate the pay-to-play scheme that was going on at the Clinton Foundation? Remember, the Uranium One deal -- there's a Russia conspiracy -- Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, signing off on giving 20 percent of America's uranium to Vladimir Putin and the Russians? And by the way, all the while, people involved in that deal donating millions and millions to the Clinton Foundation and while her husband, by the way, Bill Clinton was doubling his speaking fees in Moscow.

Now, instead of creating crimes, Mueller should be investigating the ones we actually know occurred, including the felonies by Hillary Clinton.

Here's with reaction, author of the brand-new book, by the way, a best- seller, "Understanding Trump," former speaker of the House, FOX News contributor Newt Gingrich.

You know, you said something this weekend that really is true but should be scary to every American. People are going to be indicted over something that has nothing to do with the original investigation!

NEWT GINGRICH, R-FMR. HOUSE SPEAKER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I absolutely believe that. You look at -- it gets worse the more I've done research over the last three or four days. The State Department, or the Justice Department, the Department of Justice has 97 percent of its donations went to Hillary Clinton, 3 percent went to Trump. That's at the Justice Department.

That was bad enough as a culture. Now it turns out that the law firm that Mueller comes from was -- this is almost hard to believe -- 99.81 percent of their money went to Hillary Clinton. It was, like, 363 -- $360,000 to a total of $678. So you have this very biased culture at the Department of Justice, which is 97 percent for Hillary in terms of donations. They then reach out to an even more biased law firm, which is at 99.81 percent, to find the lawyer to head up the nonpartisan -- remember nonpartisan investigation.

He then hires four key lawyers, all of whom donated to Democrats, as you pointed out. My favorite is the one who defended the Clinton Foundation against...


GINGRICH: ... Freedom of Information Act.


GINGRICH: Unbelievable! You know, (INAUDIBLE) occasionally writes novels, I don't know that I'd have the nerve to write this novel.

But if somebody wants to know what the deep state is, start up here with the Justice Department's 97 percent, come down then to the law firm at 99.81 percent, pick a group of lawyers who are hard-core Democrats, two of whom, by the way, also had prosecutorial problems because they hid evidence from the defendants. One was repudiated 9 to zero by the Supreme Court.

HANNITY: Mr. Speaker...

GINGRICH: And you look at this pattern, and -- I think it's not -- not defensible.

HANNITY: Rosenstein wrote a two-page memo saying Comey has to go. OK, then so Comey then leaks to The New York Times. Then Comey then gets his BFF to be the special counsel. Rosenstein contributes to all of this, and now he's talking about shifting away from Russia-Trump collusion, the lie, into obstruction and finances.

This is dangerous for this country! Both of them need to recuse themselves and get out of the way! Why are they even still there?

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, you have to question the entire special investigatory process that brings in these headhunters who are very high- powered lawyers. They're not going to leave until they get somebody. That was my point over the weekend. You know, Karl Rove wrote a very good column last week in The Wall Street Journal because he's lived through this. And he said you have to be very worried about special investigators running amok.

And he cited, in his own case, he had forgotten one phone call. Now, imagine how many phone calls somebody in Karl's position in the White House was getting. He forgot one phone call that was months ago or a year ago. They almost indicted him for forgetfulness. That's how vindictive -- that's how powerful...

HANNITY: Listen, Scooter Libby...

GINGRICH: ... the criminal powers of the state are.

HANNITY: Scooter Libby had a -- had a perjury trap -- by the way, I want to send our thoughts and prayers to the family of this young man, Otto, that just recently returned from North Korea. He died tonight. I am so sad for this family.

I want to ask you one final question, and I think this is important. I really believe this rhetoric, this hatred that I talked about in my opening monologue, the Shakespeare, the ISIS pose, the rhetoric, the hate, the violence directed at this president to dehumanize him is now extraordinarily dangerous. Your thoughts?

GINGRICH: It's extremely dangerous, and it's much deeper than just Trump. I talked to college students at the College Republicans national convention this week. I asked them, How many of you feel intimidated on your campus? A third of them raised their hands. I've had students tell me that they are literally intimidated against saying that they were for Trump because they thought it would cost them two or three grade levels from their professor.

This anti-conservative, anti-Trump, anti-Republican pattern is very deep. It's very widespread. It's in the newsrooms, it's in Hollywood, it's in the academic community, and it's in the bureaucracy. And that's what the deep state is all about. And that's why this fight's going to go on for all eight years of the Trump presidency.

HANNITY: This deep state, it's now a fourth branch of government. And the media colluding with them is even worse -- 11 months of lies, no apologies, no retractions, no, We're going to get this right.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, congrats on the book, "Understanding Trump"

GINGRICH: Thank you.

HANNITY: ...,, book stores everywhere. Thank you, sir, for being with us.

All right, and coming up, we have -- remember, late last week, we learned disturbing news that this left-wing gunman who tried to assassinate GOP lawmakers had a list in his car with the names of six Republican lawmakers. Three of those lawmakers will join us next. That's straight ahead tonight.

And also, we will continue all of this hatred towards the president, and we'll get into the other issues, including the woman who literally stormed the Shakespearean play in the park over the weekend, peacefully, to say enough's enough. That and my exclusively tonight, and my commentary on Megyn Kelly straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." The House majority whip, Congressman Steve Scalise, remains hospitalized tonight again in serious condition. Now, Congressman Scalise is recovering from the gunshot wounds after a left-wing gunman tried to assassinate GOP leaders last week. Fox News has also learned the gunman had in his van in a written list with the names of six GOP congressmen on this list. Now, the list contained their Capitol Hill office room numbers.

Joining us now with reaction, three of the lawmakers on that list, Congressmen Mo Brooks, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Morgan Griffith are with us.

Mo, I've known you for 27 years, when I was doing radio, local, down in Huntsville, Alabama, and you filled in for me. I've known you all these years. You're a tough guy. This really impacted you, describing -- number one, putting the tourniquet on this young kid, then, of course, what happened to Steve Scalise fighting for his life, and now you find out you're on a list to be murdered, to be assassinated. I've got to imagine that's tough, too.

REP. MO BROOKS, R-ALA.: Very much so, particularly on my family. What the public probably does not understand is that we often get these kind of threats, members of Congress or the United States Senate. By way of example, at one time, I had a bounty on my head of $20,000, $30,000 -- I forget the exact amount -- if you were successful in killing me. And some other members of Congress also had that kind of bounty.

This -- what happened last Wednesday brings it home in sharper focus, however. It's one thing to get these kind of threats. It's another thing to have multiple shots at you and at your friends and colleagues.

HANNITY: Yes, and again, having to jump in and help these guys. Congressman Franks, by the way, it's also media figures. I've dealt with this my entire career. It's not fun.

REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.: Well, it really isn't, Sean. I just have to say, you know, as much as I want to say that the line that's held deeply by all of us that we need to seek unity, there also has to be an element of accountability.

And when you have the president of United States being treated by the leftist media as almost an agent of a foreign government, and you have I understand major corporations like American Express still sponsoring plays in the park that depict a Donald Trump lookalike being stabbed to death, and Kathy Griffin holding up a depictions of a beheaded Donald Trump, a duly elected president of the United States, you can kind of understand why it might appeal to the nut cases and the malignant in our society.

And it's time that the left calls this out and we get back to principled persuasion and debating the issues like we're human beings and like that we're still the American people that believe that all of us are created equal. And I think unless we do that, the...

HANNITY: Congressman...

FRANKS: Please.

HANNITY: Go ahead, sir.

FRANKS: I think unless we do that, that the present situation could devolve into very tragic circumstances.

HANNITY: Congressman Griffith, I agree with Congressman Franks. I just think it's gotten so heated -- I mean, an ISIS pose with a severed, bloodied head of our president, a nightly murdering of our president? The rhetoric -- the Russia-Trump conspiracy lie told day after day, night after night. You think it's had an impact in terms of not only delegitimizing the president, but also sort of objectifying him as a subject of evil.

I wrote it down, an agent of the foreign government. I mean, I think that was a really good way for Congressman Franks to put it.

REP. MORGAN GRIFFITH, R-VA.: Yes, I think Trent's right on that. I think that we all have to be careful in what we say. Everybody has to be careful because there's a heightened sense of emotion and frustration out there on the streets. A lot of it has been fed by a lot of groups on the left, but we have to be careful on the right, too, that we don't encourage folks who are our friends to go out and do something stupid.

So we have to be careful because you don't want anybody getting hurt by the violence that has already ensued and could continue if we don't see a toning down of the rhetoric by the media and others.

HANNITY: Mo Brooks, what's your take on the rhetoric and association (ph), ISIS poses, severed heads, conspiracy theories. Is it having an impact?

BROOKS: Well, it's definitely having an impact. And it's a part of the demonization strategies that the Democratic Party uses on a regular basis. So the last years, by way of example, you saw it with respect to our law enforcement community. You saw it with Occupy Wall Street.

I personally believe that what we saw in Dallas where a gunman shot at and killed law enforcement officers and Caucasians simply because they were law enforcement officers and Caucasians is in part because the Democratic Party strategy of demonizing the law enforcement community on the one hand, and also engaging in a strategy of racial division, where they try to get block votes from minority groups by trying to portray Caucasians as the enemy.

And it's not surprising to me that you see this kind of blowback as we saw in Dallas and as we saw last Wednesday in the Washington, D.C., area.

HANNITY: All right, I -- first of all, thoughts and prayers with Congressman Scalise. I'm sorry that you and your family's had to deal with this. Congressman Brooks, on a personal note, 27 yeas ago, you would fill in for me on my radio show. You've come a long way. I'm really proud of you.

BROOKS: Thank you, Sean. You have to, I might add.

HANNITY: I'm going OK.


HANNITY: ... and thank you very much.

And coming up, you're going to meet the woman who stood up this weekend, stormed the stage at the Shakespeare in the Park rally in New York City. She is calling for the leftist hatred to come to an end.

And later tonight...


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury.


HANNITY: The ranking Democrat on the Intel Committee, Representative Adam Schiff -- he now admits, no proof or evidence of Trump-Russia collusion! Really? We'll get reaction from Jay Sekulow, also Sara Carter and much more tonight.



HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So despite the vicious left-wing assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress last week, well, New York Shakespeare in the Park continued their production of "Julius Caesar," which depicts the killing of a Trump look-alike every single night.

Now, the show did close last night as planned, but my next guest felt she had to do something about the depiction of violence against our president. So during Friday evening's performance, Laura Loomer staged -- stormed the stage, interrupting the performance, denouncing the depiction of violence against the right. And following the interruption, Loomer was, in fact, arrested by the NYPD.

She joins us now to explain why she did this. Laura, welcome to the program. Thanks for being with us.


HANNITY: Listen, you knew if you did this, you're putting yourself at risk. You're probably going to be arrested. You were arrested. You are charged. You're going to have to appear in court. But you knew that, right?

LOOMER: Yes, I knew that that would be the consequence.

HANNITY: Why was this then so important to you?

LAURA LOOMER, RUSHED STAGE AT SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK PLAY: This is been really important to me because the left has systematically and programmatically used free-speech and artistic expression as a pretext to incite violence against the right and promote the assassination of President Donald Trump, and that is really problematic. You can see the consequence of this play and just the liberal mainstream media using political violence against the right of this past week when Representative Steve Scalise was shot in in assassination attempt on House Republicans. This was of course carried out by a liberal who watched MSNBC, was a fan of the liberal mainstream media, and who knows, maybe he was influenced by Kathy Griffin and "Julius Caesar."

HANNITY: By the way, this was nonviolent. And it's funny because the left has been preaching since Donald Trump got elected, oh, the resistance. Obama once said get their faces, and Biden once talked about taking Trump behind a schoolyard and kicking the crap out of him. Robert De Niro wanted to punch him in the face. Jim Carey wants to use a golf club on the president. Then we got ISIS poses and everything else, and then you have of course, the infamous Madonna. Listen to this.


MADONNA, SINGER/SONGWRITER: Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House White House.


HANNITY: You know, Laura, speaking about you, wait a minute, I thought the left liked peaceful protest, and in some cases, they don't even speak out against violent protest. And RINO Republicans, they have been critical of you, and never-Trumpers are critical of you. But this was nonviolent. You expressing that you are tired every night of a president or a president lookalike getting assassinated on stage. Why would they be so critical when they support it when liberals do it? And what if it was against certain historical religious figures, what do you think the reaction would be?

LOOMER: This is assassination porn, right? So the left is taking pleasure in watching an assassination attempt on President Trump. Shakespeare once said that violent delights lead to violent ends, right? And so when you're going to delight in the assassination of our president, it's going to have a violent end.

And why aren't the never-Trumpers supporting me? Well, what do the never-Trumpers have in common with the liberals? They both are unhappy with President Trump being our president. They haven't accepted it. And the only way that that would be resolved is if he was eradicated or taken out. So of course never-Trumpers like Ben Shapiro are going to criticize me because I am protecting the president's life. I am protecting our constitution. I'm using my constitutional right of free speech and protest to protest against the bastardization of Shakespeare, really, just an attempt to continue the normalization of political violence against the right. And it is absolutely absurd.

HANNITY: In light of what happened last week, you took a very courageous political stand. It was nonviolent. You are making a very strong point. I applaud you for what you have done, and you did it knowing what the risks are, and good for you. Thanks for being with us.

LOOMER: Thanks so much for having me.

HANNITY: And up next tonight on this busy breaking news night right here on HANNITY.


SCHIFF: I'm not prepared to say that there is proof you could take to a jury.

HANNITY: Now even liberal Congressman Adam Schiff, the latest Democrat to admit there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collision. And why is this still a story? And we'll talk about investigative creep by Robert Mueller and how dangerous this is. Jay Sekulow weighs in next.

And also tonight, we'll continue that discussion. Why do we move from Russia and Trump to obstruction of justice and finances? Sara Carter, Gregg Jarrett weigh-in, straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." So Democrats, members of the destroy- Trump media, will not stop pushing this phony Russia-Trump collusion narrative despite no evidence. As a matter of fact, evidence now to the contrary. And just yesterday the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat, liberal Congressman Adam Schiff, he said this. Pay attention.


SCHIFF: The allegation of course is that the Russians and the hacking and dumping of documents in the election had essentially relationships with Trump campaign people and coordinated those efforts.

Now, the FBI opened an investigation into that issue in July, well before Congress did. But I am not prepared to say that there is proof you can take to a jury, but I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating. Indeed, it would be negligent for us not to investigate.


HANNITY: Here now with reaction, President Trump's attorney, also he is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow.

Jay, I want to specifically get into this, because this has now become like Russia-Trump conspiracy, birther conspiracies, sort of truthers. And it has gotten so bad, every intelligence agent, every intelligence official, every Democratic congressman, nobody has any evidence of collusion. Eleven months of media lies. Why now are they moving on to, what, obstruction? And if that doesn't work, now we'll move on to financial issues. At what point does this investigative creep end?

JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: First of all, this is, and the president said, this is absolutely correct, this is a witch hunt. It's as if you have a false narrative being compounded by another false narrative, except you've got a committee of the House, a committee and the Senate, a special counsel, and everybody is looking at this.

So here's what you just heard from Adam Schiff. Do we have evidence I can go to a jury? No. Last week it was we have the smoking gun, that was from Senator Warren. And then the other senators saying we have not seen evidence of collusion, then all the intelligence officials saying no evidence of collusion, no evidence of Russian collision.

So what is this at the end of the day, and what's really at stake here? And the constitution is what's at stake, because what you have right now is these multiple prong investigations that have been going on. People think that the special counsel was appointed in the middle of May and it's only been a couple of weeks now. This has been going on for 10 -- almost a year, 10 months. And what is the evidence that even the members of the Democratic Party have acknowledged? Nothing. We have seen no evidence. So, at this point --

HANNITY: Here's my question then. I want to stay focused on these constitutional issues here, because remember, Richard Armitage -- Patrick Fitzgerald knew early on that Richard Armitage was the leaker, but he stays on this for literally three years, and all he comes up with is a perjury trap for Scooter Libby at the end of the day.

So now we're at the start of the Russia-Trump collusion, that has been debunked. Why is this special counsel still here? How does the guy, how do we move to obstruction? How do we then move to finances? To me it seems like a constitutional crisis now created. Thoughts?

SEKULOW: It's a fake constitutional crisis, because if you look at the constitution, of course the president could not have obstructed justice in the termination of James Comey. And this goes to the point of what we've been saying. The whole basis upon which this -- by the way, all we know are leaks coming out of supposed agencies going to "The Washington Post." We don't have evidence of anything, a leak, or a series of leak, and they don't identify the agency.

But what is the purported violation here? This is where the constitutional issue arises. Here is what really happened. So the president takes an evaluation of the conduct and activities of James Comey as the director of the FBI. He comes to a conclusion based on consultation with people that he trusts in his administration, including the attorney general and deputy attorney general who recommend removal. He was already thinking about it before. They made a big deal about that. Of course president's think about that. Look what James Comey date in the middle of the last election.

So then he takes action. What's the action based on? He takes a recommendation that now the attorney general and deputy attorney general have made, and he took action to remove James Comey as the FBI director. So now he is being supposedly, and again, there is no evidence of this, supposedly if it was true what they are leaking, he is supposedly being investigated by the agency who told him to take the action that he ended up taking. And now they do that through the office of the special counsel who reports to the deputy attorney general.

So this is the problem. The constitutional problem is that they are creating something that is contrary to the way the constitution is structured and the powers of the presidency.

HANNITY: I've got to run here. And then the really important thing is, now the president doesn't deal with Russia threatening to shoot on our planes or the insanity of North Korea that we have to deal with, or ISIS that is a big problem, or getting people out of poverty, off of food stands and into the labor force and buying homes. Now this is 80 percent of the president's time, which in part is part of the agenda, which I'm going to get to. Jay, thank you.

SEKULOW: I call that, it's a media filibuster. And the president is doing his work. This is not taking up 80 percent of his time. He's doing his job. Yes, absolutely.

HANNITY: And now it has taken on, we're got to talk about the investigative creep next. Jay Sekulow, thank you.

When we come back, what is this mission creep, investigation creep? If they don't have Russia-Trump collusion, why are they still there? Anyway, should Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein resign? I say yes. We'll check in Sara Carter, Gregg Jarrett.

And later, my take on Megyn Kelly's interview with Alex Jones, a commentary you don't want to miss.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity." And joining us now to talk more about Mueller and Rosenstein, and of course Comey and investigation creep, as I call it, from Sara Carter, Fox News anchor, attorney Gregg Jarrett.

I want to go to both of you. This is really dangerous to me, Sara, and I want to bring you in on this first. OK, we started out, Trump-Russia collusion, reason for investigation. OK. Then somehow Rosenstein, the guy that recommended in a two-page brutal takedown why he should fire Comey, is now saying firing Comey may be obstruction. He recommended it.

And then we're going into finances. Then we're going into Mueller literally leaking daily, or somebody to his office, to "The Washington Post." This to me is beyond dangerous. Once it's been proven that Trump- Russia collusion doesn't exist, why are they even still working on this?

SARA CARTER, "CIRCA NEWS": That's the question that everyone has. It's the question that I have. If there is actually no evidence that they have as of yet, and they haven't had in the past seven months, that Trump or his team colluded with the Russians --

HANNITY: Right, 10 months.

CARTER: Yes, 10 months, 10 months. And so there's no evidence that he colluded with the Russians, why are they continuing to push for an investigation? You brought it up -- mission creep. This is mission creep by the Justice Department.

And there's a lot of questions as to the people that Mueller has hired. Democratic donors, backers of Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, connections to the Clinton Foundation, especially with Ray. And what we are looking at is a serious problem and particularly ethical conflicts. And this isn't coming from certain lawmakers. This is coming from people within the FBI who are very concerned about the relationship that Mueller also has with Comey. And I think that this is something that needs to be taken very seriously, and there is reason why the Trump administration, why President Trump would be and should be concerned about this.

HANNITY: Concerned, I mean, Gregg, here you have Comey leaks to "The New York Times" for the very purpose of getting a special counsel. Rosenstein wrote the letter that Comey should be fired, now is helping to get the BFF of Comey, Mueller, in there. Then he hires, as Sara points out, Hillary's attorney on the Clinton Foundation to avoid FOIA requests, and donors to Obama and Hillary. Wow. Can there possibly be any more conflicts, which is why Mueller and Rosenstein need to go, in my opinion.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS ANCHOR AND ATTORNEY: To borrow a phrase, Sean, from John Dean, there is a cancer within, except the cancer here is within the special counsel office. Mueller is violating the law, Comey has violated the law. Rosenstein continues to violate the law by refusing to disqualify himself. And these are the three central figures in all of this.

There's a reason why ethical rules exist -- to prevent favoritism and prejudice. And yet all three of these individuals are ignoring the law with impunity.

I have a theory here. They know there is no collusion, so they can't prove a case there. So what prosecutors in my experience as a defense attorney is they try to conjure criminality where it doesn't exist. And so they are --

HANNITY: They are justifying their existence.

JARRETT: They're contorting the law of obstruction to try to make a case when under the statute it cannot exist given the facts that we know.

HANNITY: Right, that is exactly -- --

JARRETT: There would have to be a threat, a bribe, or some other kind of hiding evidence, concealing evidence, and Comey alleges none.

HANNITY: And that's exactly what Alan Dershowitz said. He said show me the person and I'll show you the crime.

And then this raises other questions. Why aren't we, Sara, investigating Loretta Lynch and her obvious obstruction, and did she put the kibosh, in spite of the evidence, any potential indictment on Hillary? Hillary Clinton's obvious felonies, mishandling, destroying of classified information? Then, of course, we've got the foundation of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton giving 20 percent of American uranium asset, there's a Russia conspiracy, to Vladimir Putin and getting kickback millions from people involved for their foundation, seriously?

CARTER: There are so many questions, Sean, that haven't been answered with regards to the Uranium One deal, with regard to Ukraine, with regard to Haiti, with regard to the Clinton Foundation. None of those saw a special prosecutor. We didn't see a special prosecutor in those cases. And I think the big concern here is, especially for lawmakers, is what happened with Loretta Lynch. Right there we know that Loretta Lynch asked, she asked Director Comey to call the investigation a "matter" not an investigation. And what we know is, furthermore, that there was an email that Director Comey obtained between two political figures that suggested that Loretta Lynch was going to put the kibosh on any kind of indictment against Hillary Clinton. So those are questions that need to be answered.

HANNITY: Gregg, to me, there is collusion, there is obstruction, there are felonies committed, and there is a conspiracy theory, because Hillary, a Russian conspiracy, because Hillary conspired to give 20 percent of uranium to Vladimir Putin for money.

JARRETT: Isn't it interesting that the two people in which there is some evidence of illegality, Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general, and Hillary Clinton are not being investigated here. All you have to do is go back and look at the tortured interpretation of the law that Comey offered last July 6th, and any lawyer will tell you there are plenty of prosecutors who would have brought that case under the Espionage Act. And here you have Loretta Lynch politically interfering with an FBI investigation, and Comey at the time was so upset about it he was thinking of calling a special prosecutor himself.

HANNITY: All right, guys, great work. We will keep reporting, and I know you guys will, what the rest of the media is ignoring and frankly has upside down and backwards. Thank you both.

When we come back, I want to give you my take on Megyn Kelly's interview with Infowar's Alex Jones. And we need your help, a very important "Question of the Day" straight ahead.


HANNITY: Welcome back to "Hannity."

So Sunday night, NBC News, they aired Megyn Kelly's much talked about interview with Infowar's Alex Jones. And of course in all the too common style of the mainstream, leftwing, destroy-Trump media, the interview by NBC was highly edited.

Now, it raises a question. Do networks now in the day and age of having websites, do they have an obligation to release the full interview? That's tonight's mini-monologue.

During last night's interview, NBC News host Megyn Kelly, my former colleague, pressed Jones on some of his conspiracy theories. But out of the hours of video apparently they taped, NBC only aired a few minutes of it. Jones has called for NBC to release the full, unedited version of the interview. And by the way, in this case I have to agree. Whether you agree or disagree with him, this is the right thing to do.

I want to be very clear. I am in no way, as some in social media have suggested, being critical of my colleague and somebody who I have been friends with, Megyn Kelly. She is a journalist. She was doing her job. But I do believe NBC News should release the tapes, the full tapes of the Alex Jones interview. Let Americans decide. Isn't that what websites are now for? Shouldn't NBC let you, the American public, see everything that was said, and then they can decide for themselves what to think?

Now, I say this because I am a little sick and tired of the mainstream media, news media editing interviews to fit a predetermined narrative. Again, I'm not saying Megyn Kelly did this. As a matter of fact, I know she didn't. And I really do hate to disappoint all of you people in the media that would love to see a battle and fight break out between Megyn Kelly -- that's not happening. So I truly wish her the best.

But you may remember, just a few months ago back in March I was the focus of fake edited news. I had agreed to do an interview with CBS and their Sunday morning program and their special contributor Ted Koppel. The interview lasted nearly 50 minutes as we discussed in great detail, great specificity, many, many things, why there is such a great divide in America, politics and media. The interview airs. I get 70 seconds of that interview cut down. Afterwards I called for CBS to release the full video, which of course they refused to do.

And that brings us to tonight's "Question of the Day." Should NBC release the tapes, especially in the day and age where all of these news organizations have websites? All they have to do is put it up there. Just to, @SeanHannity on Twitter, let us know what you think.

That's all the time we have left this evening. As always, thank you for being balanced -- thank you for being with us, fair and balanced always. See you back here 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.