Hillary Clinton takes thinly veiled shot at President Trump at the funeral of Rep. Elijah Cummings

close

Video

Hillary Clinton takes thinly veiled shot at President Trump at the funeral of Rep. Elijah Cummings

Tammy Bruce, Charlie Hurt and Gina Loudon weigh in on Hillary Clinton's attack on President Trump.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," October 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Welcome to this special edition of “Hannity: Deep State in Panic.”

I'm Jason Chaffetz, in tonight for Sean.

At this hour, we are inching closer and closer toward a reckoning. Fox News is reporting that the Durham probe into the origins of the Russia witch hunt is a criminal investigation. That means U.S. Attorney General John Durham now has the power to subpoena, convene a grand jury, and file criminal charges.

Keep in mind, according to a report from "The Washington Examiner," four notorious deep state figures are wrapped up in the investigation, including Obama's CIA chief John Brennan, Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and the author of Hillary Clinton's dirty Russian dossier, Christopher Steele.

Last night, one of the potential subjects of the investigation who now works at CNN seems awfully nervous. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I found that the timing interesting given the increasing heat around the impeachment inquiry. And so, the timing is interesting, I'll just let it go at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Clapper can try to spend in any way he wants, but John Durham is a serious prosecutor and this is a serious criminal investigation.

And James Clapper is not the only deep state official who should be anxious this evening. Several top lawmakers in the Senate are now calling on the intel inspector general to investigate leaks described in a 2016 text from Peter Strzok.

Joining us with more is the author of the definitive book, you really need to take a look at this one, a new book "Witch Hunt," FOX News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, along with FOX News contributor Sara Carter, who is joining us in Washington, D.C.

Sara, let's start with you. This is another step, Durham is a serious investigator. He's been making in-roads. We know he's upped the number of people on his staff, but to have it be a criminal probe gives him additional powers.

SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: It does give him additional powers, Jason. Think about this. Now that it's a criminal probe, he can impanel a grand jury. He can subpoena witnesses, he can subpoena documents.

This is very important. It didn't just shift from an administrative review for no reason. I think this is important for our viewers to understand. It shifted to a criminal probe because John Durham, a very well-respected prosecutor actually on both sides of the aisle, has actually come across evidence that he believes is criminal.

And this is the reason why it shifted. We know that William Barr, we know that John Durham have traveled overseas, there have been reports about his interactions with Italian intelligence. And, remember, the Italian intelligence is important because that deals with Joseph Mifsud, the professor that attempted to basically lure George Papadopoulos with this idea that the Russians had these emails on Hillary Clinton.

And now he has given testimony, basically they were able to hear a recording in Italy in a very close room, nobody allowed in there, where Joseph Mifsud apparently explained why his life is in danger and why he needs constant security. There is also information that he was working for Western intelligence and this is what wraps up John Brennan, as well as others like James Clapper into this mess.

That is why they have been really running scared for months now, because they know it's -- the heat is not on impeachment. The heat is actually on them.

CHAFFETZ: No, and that -- it brings a great point. Gregg is joining me here in studio in New York. Clapper trying to put a spin on it, saying, oh, they are worried about the impeachment, which one came first? I think it was this investigation, the Horowitz report has been in place for more than a year.

I mean, come on. How do you take this spin from Clapper?

GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that's all he ever does. He has a long history of prevarications and deceptions and lies. And I recount them in my book in great detail.

And on top of Clapper trying to deflect blame, you've got all of these other anti-Trump lawyers, legal analysts who say that this is shocking that the Trump administration's Department of Justice would investigate political opponents from the other administration, the Obama administration -- completely ignoring hypocritically that it was the Obama administration's Department of Justice that launched the investigation of an opposing party candidate Donald Trump. Hypocrisy is endemic in Washington.

But I guarantee you this. It's full employment in Washington right now for criminal defense attorneys, the swamp creatures scrambled to retain lawyers. These guys, and you put their pictures up there, there were other ones, these are people who, you know, didn't get a wink of sleep last night. They are probably popping a valium like candy. They are in deep trouble.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, no, it is time to lawyer up.

But I want to go back to Senators Johnson and Grassley renew their call on the inspector general. I think we have the quote here, but there was this text message from Peter Strzok, this is to Lisa Page.

Think our sisters have been leaking like mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they are kicking into overdrive.

This is a very ominous text message captured I believe originally by the inspector general, but it is out there now. The senators have asked for the inspector general to look into this. They haven't had any response from them.

But the renewing this call now, where do you think this is leading, Sarah?

CARTER: They absolutely need to, Jason, because when you think about this, this is dealing with the actually the I.C. inspector general, Michael Atkinson, and they want him to investigate these leaks. Now, Peter Strzok is in this text message, it refers to sisters. More than likely what he's referring to is the CIA. That's how the FBI sees the CIA, as their sister agency.

So, if it is the CIA, then what Peter Strzok is saying and Lisa Page is that they are kicking and screaming and leaking information. So absolutely 100 percent of the Inspector General Atkinson needs to investigate it.

And I think that's why Senator Grassley and the other senators are so upset, because there were a number of leaks of highly classified information that have never actually been investigated, one of them being Michael Flynn and his actual transcript, the conversation with former Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

This is something they need to look into. This is criminal in nature. And Michael Atkinson so far has not made any statement, has not given any information, exactly the opposite of Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. And this is one of the most sinister and scary things about this, is that our own government officials are using the power of leaking to the media to drive a political narrative against a newly elected -- at this point a newly elected president.

But I'm glad Senators Johnson and Grassley are on this. But this really is one of the scariest parts of what this deep state has been doing, Gregg.

JARRETT: Yes. There were 125 weeks in the first few weeks, one a day, by the deep state -- I call them the malignant force, holdovers from Obama against President Trump. And, you know, of course, McCabe was fired for lying about leaks. Here you've got Peter Strzok. That's -- you know, that's actually in my book and the other leaks.

And, of course, the most prolific leaker and damaging leaguer of all was James Comey, who stole all government documents and leaked them to the media in order to damage Trump and trigger the appointment of his longtime friend, ally, and mentor Bob Mueller who was actually appointed not based on facts, evidence in law, but in an act of vengeance, as I recount in my book, by Rod Rosenstein.

And when Rosenstein did it that very day, he was confronted about his abuse of power in violation regulations. He cowers behind his desk and blabbers, am I going to get fired? Which is consciousness of guilt. He knew what he had done was a violation of regulation.

CHAFFETZ: No, listen, I want to thank you both. Your expertise on this is unbelievable. And I really do appreciate it.

Now, let's keep in mind, the inspector general has a ready-made referrals to the Department of Justice on the director, the deputy director, and the deputy assistant director. In the deputy assistant director's case, it was about leaking and here we go again, those senators need to get the answers of those questions again. I think you both for joining us.

Breaking news tonight, Andrew McCabe tonight has dropped his wrongful employment termination lawsuit against the Department of Justice. We'll have more on that in our next block. But tonight, the Durham probe is not the only investigation we're tracking. The Horowitz report into FISA abuse is finished.

And according to the inspector general, it'll be released to the public with only minor redactions. Folks, that is brand-new news. We had not heard that before. We thought exactly the opposite was going to happen. We thought there would be two different reports.

Now, Congressman John Ratcliffe is saying publicly that the Horowitz report and the Durham probe are connected. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: I think that these two things are related, that the work done by Michael Horowitz could result in criminal referrals, even though the report hasn't been released. The referrals could already have been made. But regardless, John Durham had to let Michael Horowitz finish this work. And I think when people read the impending report, it'll be very clear why the Durham investigation has now moved to a criminal probe, which would allow him to impanel a grand jury and bring in witnesses and ultimately perhaps bring criminal charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: That would be justice in America. But sadly, not everybody wants justice.

Now, after two years of cheering for the Mueller's witch hunt, Democratic Congressmen and Chairmen Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are angry that the Durham probe is now a criminal investigation. They posted a joint statement on Twitter saying: These reports, if true, raises profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge.

If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution or to help the president with the political narrative for the next election, the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage.

Joining us now is Freedom Caucus chairman, Congressman Andy Biggs, and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I had a pleasure of serving with both of you previously in Congress.

I want to go to Whip Scalise here first, because I got to tell you, to hear Schiff and Nadler already pooh-poohing a criminal investigation without any facts, without any knowledge, just saying, oh, well, that must be political, jumping to conclusions, when you hear and see that, Steve Scalise, how do you react?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA: That's a bit rich, Jason, coming from those. I think what you saw today, this was big news, by the way. This is a really bad sign for all the people who are politicizing and trying to interfere with the 2016 election, including people at the Department of Justice and the FBI who were trying to undermine the Trump campaign. And, of course, we've already seen a lot of information about that.

But today, you saw both Schiff and Nadler hit the panic button. They really understand that this is bad for them and their case. They are trying to impeach a president based on false information and innuendo in secret behind closed doors.

And in fact, what you look at, both what Horowitz is doing and what Durham is doing, they've actually been looking at facts, talking to real people, giving things that they've risen to the level of criminal probe.

It's a really big deal, bad news for those people who try to undermine the Trump campaign illegally using their positions in the FBI and other agencies.

CHAFFETZ: Andy Biggs, when you see Chairman Nadler, Chairman Schiff use their chairmanships to belittle, badger, and call politics on Attorney General Barr, Mr. Horowitz -- who is, you know, by the way, unanimously confirmed as an Obama appointee by the United States Senate, when you see these people's apology is names disparaged and they try to take them down and put a political spin on it, how do you react to that?

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Well, Jason, good to be with you and Steve too. But my first thought is, you know what, that's consistent with everything that they are doing in the impeachment probe, that's consistent with the way they approach the Mueller report and it's consistent with their partisan -- I mean, I mean, we are all partisan there, as you know, as both of you know really well. But this is just beyond normal partisanship. They don't care about what justice is, they don't care about what the facts are.

And when I see those statements that those guys both signed on to today, I thought, you know what? How interesting that they are more concerned with saying this is a political witch hunt and immediately going to spin when that's exactly what they've been doing for two and a half years. It's just remarkable to me.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Whip Scalise, I've got to ask you this question. It runs in parallel because you've heard earlier, Mr. Clapper trying to say, oh, well, there's all this heat on these people in the Trump administration because of impeachment.

Now, what I don't understand, I wrote an op-ed for FOX News, what I don't understand is three times, the Democrats tried to bring up impeachment to the floor in the House and three times it was defeated including July of 2019.

So, how is it that anybody can actually call it an impeachment proceeding when the last floor action that happened was a defeat -- over 137 Democrats that voted against proceeding with impeachment. That's the last action on the floor the House.

SCALISE: It is, Jason. And, in fact, if you look at Nancy Pelosi's actions, she is scared to death having a full book on the House floor or even starting an impeachment inquiry, which, by the way, is how every other impeachment inquiry, the other three intent previous presidents have been done in the history of our country. And so, she is trying to shield her vulnerable members because they can't go back home right now, and talk about what they've done. They are the party of impeachment and that's all they have to show.

In fact, they have more subpoenas that this House has issued under Pelosi then bills that have gotten signed into law under Pelosi's. I mean, you think about that. More subpoenas than bill signed into law by Pelosi's House -- such a failure of leadership. And so, all they want to do is badger the president.

They've investigated him for over two years with the Mueller investigation. They thought that was going to be their ticket. And I turned out there was nothing that was charged. Mueller had full authority whether it was for collusion, for obstruction, none of that happen. And, in fact, it was Schiff leading the charge saying that he had more than substantial evidence of collusion, or, you know, of any kind of collusion with Russia and it never existed.

And so, instead of moving on, they're going behind closed doors trying to fabricate a story when, in fact, you look at what Durham and Horowitz are doing, they've actually found some real alarming things that broke the law, and so, it rose to the level of actually convening a grand jury. That's why you are seeing them panic right now because they know there's real stuff behind what happened in the 2016 election and they are afraid it's going to get uncovered.

And President Trump has been seeking the truth, by the way.

CHAFFETZ: Yes.

SCALISE: The American people want the truth and deserve the truth. And that's ultimately what we need to get.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Congressman Biggs, I pat you on the back and applaud you for actually playing a little bit of offense by the resolution to censure Adam Schiff, and also trying to be able to see what's going on in these proceedings there, in a transcribed interview or disposition in the Intel Committee because there is no formal impeachment proceedings. But I've got to tell you, what you've heard from others, Nancy Pelosi changed the rules in January of 2019 on how this actually works. She changed several of the rules, the rules package voted on January of 2019, one of them had to do with the rights of the minority and the ability to actually be present and have members present when somebody is going to the transcribed interview.

So, how does this get resolved because they've got a lot of attention to it, but I don't see any movement by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff in opening this up to the public and to even members of Congress?

BIGGS: Now, you are right, Jason. I mean, so Matt Gaetz and Steve really helped us get through there, try to force the issue. We want to make it known to the American people. But the rules are normally put in place to protect the minority, because the majority doesn't need the rules, they can change the rules anytime they want to do whatever they want.

Nancy Pelosi is not going to budge here because they don't want the truth to come out. This is absolutely a coup d'etat and it's being done as Steve says behind closed doors with selective leaks coming out. And also, this is really interesting to me too. Mr. Schiff has actually threatened Republicans that if they leak, he's going to bring an ethics complaint against them. He threatened an ethics complaint against us the other day.

He does not want openness and transparency. And he's got to be just really queasy when he sees this Durham thing going over to the criminal side now.

CHAFFETZ: I applaud the two of you. You are fighters there in the House. For the life of me, I don't know how Adam Schiff continues to have a security clearance. It makes no sense to me. That should be revoked somehow someway. You all got to figure that out.

But thank you for joining us tonight, Congressmen Biggs and Steve Scalise.

BIGGS: Thanks, Jason.

SCALISE: Thanks very much, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

Directly ahead, Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn's attorney, is making some shocking accusations about prosecutorial misconduct against her client. She will be here. Listen, you're going to hear it from her own lips. And now, next -- and later, you will not believe that Hillary Clinton said this time.

This is an action-packed night. Stick with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of “Hannity.”

New developments tonight as Andrew McCabe is dropping a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, clarifying what reported last block. The lawsuit was over the Freedom of Information Act request for documents in the FBI's investigation of McCabe. We're still investigating how this is related to all the other breaking deep state news this week.

And a new you bombshell court-filing in the Michael Flynn case lays out an even more evidence of the deep state's abuse of power against the former national security advisor. As Flynn attorney Sidney Powell alleges, the FBI's Lisa Page and Peter Strzok actually manipulated the original Flynn 302 to make it appear more damning as it related to Flynn's answers about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Now, Powell also references a purported conversation between former DNI Director James Clapper and a "Washington Post" reporter where Clapper allegedly instructs him to take the kill shot on Flynn, a claim that Clapper denies.

Joining me now with reaction to these big developments is the attorney for Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell.

Sidney, thank you so much.

I want to go back to that point which is made here, because in your filing, to say that somebody is taking a "kill shot" is dramatic. In the filing, it says the defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contact with "Washington Post" reporter Ignatius, especially on January 10th, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius, in words to the effect of "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Did he actually say take the kill shot on Flynn? What do you mean when you say to the "words to the effect of"?

SIDNEY POWELL, MICHAEL FLYNN'S ATTORNEY: Well, obviously, I wasn't a party to the conversation. So I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt there. But yes, we requested his phone records to corroborate the timing and everything about that call that we can possibly corroborate. And it is very concerning.

Of course, there was a leak of the transcript of the call with Kislyak the same time. And two days after that, the Ignatius story breaks, less than two days actually. So, there are a lot of timing --

CHAFFETZ: So, where is -- Sidney, Sidney, where's the evidence that conversation and those words are the effect of those words actually took place?

POWELL: I cannot reveal the source right now but I do have a very good source for that information.

CHAFFETZ: And you believe the Department of Justice is withholding that information from you?

POWELL: I believe the Department of Justice is withholding a lot of information, as it is with Mr. Clapper, Mr. Brennan and on the people who participated in the complete setup of General Michael Flynn. You know, we have found additional text messages that the government suppressed including one where Agent Strzok indicates he knows the pretext to go interview General Flynn, they knew there was no Logan Act violation. They exonerated him completely of being an agent of Russia by the end of January.

And yet, Mr. Comey still runs to the White House on February 14th and conjures up the entire obstruction of justice narrative against the president when Flynn has been cleared of everything long before that.

We also have information that these agents did manipulate the 302. You know, it was long and in a, quote, deliberate state, as they called it, which is highly unusual in and of itself. We attached as exhibit 11 to our document, a comparison of the February 10th and February 11th 302 that show the addition of substantial additional claims that were not in there before and not supported by the notes which we also attached as exhibits to the document.

So people can go to the actual document and read it and see a lot for themselves. It's extremely concerning. It's outrageous government misconduct. The agents deliberately calculated and met to plan and strategize how to ambush interview General Flynn without letting him know he was officially under any kind of criminal investigation, to keep him relaxed, and they wanted to be seen as allies when in fact they knew exactly what he had said in these conversations, and they intended to create a situation in which anything he said could be used against him later as a false statement without any warnings to that effect whatsoever.

CHAFFETZ: And really quickly, I've got to go here, but you believe that Lisa Page was the one that actually edited the so-called 302, which is the summary of the interview with General Flynn, correct?

POWELL: Well, she admitted making some edits of it. I do not know and we do not know yet until we get the metadata from the FBI who made the major edits to it that night.

CHAFFETZ: OK. Sidney, thank you for joining us this evening. It really is some shocking developments and we appreciate you joining us on “Hannity” to go over with us. Thank you.

Also developing tonight, new documents obtained by Judicial Watch review how it reporters for "The Associated Press" appear to have pushed the FBI to prosecute Paul Manafort.

Joining me now with more reaction of this and much, much more is Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, and American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

Tom, I've got to go to you first. You just put this information out. What did the "A.P." do according to what you been able to see in trying to manipulate an investigation into Paul Manafort?

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT: Well, just before Mueller was appointed, they met with Andrew Weissmann who was a senior Justice Department official and I brought him information including the codes to Manafort 's storage locker, which, of course, was raided a few week later. That was helpful.

And Weissmann asked them, hey, go back to Cyprus and ask them to make sure that they've given us all the information we need.

So, you have the "A.P." going in, giving the Justice Department information to target Manafort -- mainly to get Trump, obviously. The "A.P." reporters, according to this FBI memo of the meeting with Weissmann, are pushing, hey, can there be a FARA, a Foreign Agents Registration Act prosecution? Can there be a false statement prosecution? Can you tell me whether it can be enforced?

They are pushing charges on this American citizen. On what planet do -- is it ethical for journalists to do this? And then Weissmann sending the journalists assigning them to contact a foreign government to get up dirt on the President's former campaign manager. That was just a few days before Mueller was appointed. And of course, Weissmann was in charge of the Manafort prosecution after that.

After listening to Sidney, after seeing what I've seen happened with the Manafort abuses, the President should look at seriously pardoning all of these folks caught up in Mueller's web and the deep state web and the Obama web, you name it. Because the abuses of power, the prosecutorial abuses are legion, and if I were Attorney General Barr in the least, he should be freezing the Flynn prosecution and investigating what went on there.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Matt, I was sometimes mocked if I talked about the deep state. People in Washington D.C. and the beltway would just kind of laugh at you. But now, here we are today. All this evidence, mountains of evidence, and you have people like Nadler and Schiff just scuffing off, saying all of this is political on Trump's part. How do you react when you see all of this?

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION CHAIR: Well, like you, I've resisted some of this deep state lingo. I think on the swamp, people had it all wrong. They thought it was kind of like people pay to play in Washington.

The problem with the swamp is something that's incredibly serious, which is even when Republicans win the Presidency, the left controls the city. They control all the white buildings, they control all the agencies because the places where the government - the federal government recruits from are very blue areas, Northern Virginia, Washington, and Washington, D.C.

And I think about Paul Manafort. I met today with somebody who's known that family a long time. And when you think about the people like Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort who dare to associate themselves with Donald Trump, who considered way over the line because he was actually going to come in here like Wreck-It Ralph and really take it to the swamp and take it to the way things are done in Washington.

And you know the - that's why they paid this price. They paid this price. If Mike Flynn had just gone on to retirement and Paul Manafort had never come back into politics, both of them would be having a wonderful retirement. But they had the audacity to help Donald Trump. And that was unforgivable to the deep state, to the swamp, and to these disgusting actors in the Obama administration.

And finally, I'd just like - we have to keep saying it, Jason, which is - this all happened under Barack Obama. I believe Barack Obama knew exactly the wrongdoing or at least new - in a broad sense, the wrongdoing that took place to try to stop Trump as a candidate and then as a new President. And - and this is disgusting. And somebody has to pay or it will happen again to a future Republican President.

CHAFFETZ: Matt and Tom, I thank you. I wish I could spend the whole hour just talking to the two of your wealth of information. An anytime you could weave in Wreck-It Ralph to your answer, you get an A-plus from me because I love that movie.

SCHLAPP: I agree.

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen, thank you. The hate-Trump media is in an all out frenzy over Durham's criminal investigation into the deep state. We'll play a montage you do not want to miss. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this “Hannity Special: The Deep State in Panic." The hate-Trump media went into a full spin mode yesterday when reporting that John Durham is now conducting a criminal investigation of the origins of the Russia probe. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the news that honestly we've been sort of expecting for some time or thinking that if things got really bad, it might come to this. As of tonight, according to "The New York Times," it has come to this. It's involved William Barr hopping around the globe, searching for evidence to bolster a right wing conspiracy theory.

CHUCK ROSENBERG, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Again and again and again, the President and his minions targeting senior law enforcement and intelligence officials.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This investigation, if not born in sin, was born in a political taint.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the people who have been the targets of what seems like a right wing conspiracy theory, led by Sean Hannity and Donald Trump, it's got to be an unnerving experience to know that this is now ratcheted up to that level.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I found the timing interesting, given the increasing heat around the impeachment inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's incredibly concerning, Lawrence. I think it's the most concerning development we've seen out of the Justice Department since Donald Trump became President.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is raising some serious questions about whether the President is using the Justice Department to go after his enemies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): The Justice Department now opening a full-blown criminal investigation into its own Russia investigation. Straight ahead, is it a legitimate inquiry or the President's political revenge?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Yes, it's a legitimate investigation. Here now with reaction, Media Reporter for The Hill, Joe Concha, and conservative columnist Jeffrey Lord, who's joining us in Pennsylvania.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I want to go to you first, Jeffrey. What's your take when you see these talking heads and these other networks talking about the legitimacy of this investigation?

JEFFREY LORD, POLITICAL COLUMNIST & AUTHOR, SWAMP WARS: Jason, for two years plus, these people have engaged in what I've become to call Grassy Knoll TV. There wasn't a conspiracy that they couldn't find that they didn't believe in. I mean, these were all fairy tales.

And all they had to do, which is something that Sean has done every single day of his television and radio shows, is get the facts. And he brings on hardworking journalists like John Solomon and Sara Carter and Gregg Jarrett and a whole host of others. And they dig and they dig and they dig, and they get the facts.

These other folks, on the other hand, they don't want to take the time to do that. They just want to sit there and spin Grassy Knoll style conspiracies and try and sell that. And no wonder their ratings tanked because of it because nobody believes them.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. Now, Joe is here joining me here in New York. The duplicity of how they can pivot back and forth is just stunning to me. When you see that montage, you study the media for a living. What's your reaction to that?

JOE CONCHA, MEDIA REPORTER FOR THE HILL: The Mueller report turned to be an investigation in search of a crime that didn't stop people for two-and-a- half years to engage in reckless speculation. Assume that President Trump, candidate Trump was guilty and then work backwards from there.

And look, we always heard for two years, right? Let's wait for the Mueller report. Let's see what's in the Mueller report before we draw our conclusions. Now, we have John Durham. And already a conclusion has been made that this investigation is corrupt, Bill Barr is running this for partisan reasons, and we shouldn't believe any outcome because this is being dictated by the President and he's running the DOJ. It is a complete and total 180 from what we saw from May of 2017 to April 2019, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Jeffrey, the truth is way more interesting than the stuff that they just seem to make up on some of these other networks. How does the public actually sort this out and digest all of this that's getting bombarded to them because the left and the media, they seem to be in sync in every message that they have.

LORD: Yes. And I can tell you, Jason, I do get out and I go out and give talks and I get stopped, and people talk to me. They are furious with this. I mean, they name the networks that they are not going to watch anymore because they believe these people are truly obsessed with the President. They can't get over the fact that he won the election.

And they bottom line as see that the President is more or less a stand-in for them, that they have such that - they and the leftist state media have such contempt for these people who are out here in the middle of Pennsylvania and elsewhere. And they are furious about it. And I guarantee you, this is proving to be and will prove to be a real asset for President Trump in his reelection campaign.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. Now, Joe, I tell you, I have a really queasy feeling when I see some people that were in the intelligence community, Brennan, Clapper, the FBI Director, but specifically Brennan and Clapper, because these people have security clearances. Schiff does. And they tend to use that to be able to say to everybody, look, I get to see stuff that you don't get to see and so you really should believe me. But they have spewed lies for the last three years.

And I just wonder if there's something that should be actually done about that if you leave the intelligence community to immediately become a talking head on television.

CONCHA: Yes.

CHAFFETZ: I don't know what to do with it, but it doesn't sit right.

CONCHA: That may also lead some people at home to believe that those people, whether we're talking Brennan or Clapper or Comey, they may have been sources for the very networks that hired them. Talk about quid pro quo. Well, you gave us some information for all those years even if a lot of it was wrong. Okay, now, you could be one of our intelligence analysts.

And look, all of them are proving one thing, Jason, right? Whether we're talking Clapper, whether we're talking Comey, whether we're talking Brennan, they're all partisan, Jason, in one direction vigorously against the President in the most provocative of terms. And they were supposed to be apolitical in all of their positions.

So - what? Did they suddenly become partisan or were they like that when they held these jobs all those years and therefore conducted business in a way they probably shouldn't have and now John Brennan - I'm sorry, John Durham is going to get to the bottom of that.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. And we have this Horowitz report that is coming out. Don't disparage John - Michael Horowitz. This guy was appointed by President Obama. He has unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. He has the utmost reputation, and he will bring us closer to the truth than anyone. You want to see somebody that's panicking? See the people that are actually trying to take down the Horowitz report now before it's even come out because when it does come out, I do believe it will be the most definitive word.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. We really do appreciate it.

Coming up, Hillary Clinton is reportedly mulling a third run for the White House. Up next, we'll weigh in her sad last-ditch effort to remain relevant. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the “Hannity Special: The Deep State in Panic." Hillary Clinton will just not go away. Today she used the funeral of Congressman Elijah Cummings, a civil rights legend, a friend of mine, to take a thinly veiled shot at President Trump. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Elijah Cummings shared a name with an Old Testament prophet. Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Bad form.

Joining us now for reaction, Fox News contributors Tammy Bruce and Charlie Hurt, as well as Women for Trump National Co-Chair Gina Loudon. Thank you for joining us.

I don't want this to devolve into what happened at this funeral because I have too much respect for Elijah Cummings. Disagreed with him on everything politically, but I was a good friend of his and I wish him and his family nothing but the best. And may he rest in peace.

But Hillary Clinton, I just - what is she thinking? I want to start with Gina. I mean, it's not just us at Fox News that are talking about her running. It is her talking about running and at least alluding to it, and Philippe Reines, one of her closest advisors, came on this network and talked about this. But what is she thinking?

GINA LOUDON, WOMEN FOR TRUMP NATIONAL CO-CHAIR: I think this is a desperate attempt to remain in some way relevant, Jason. It's I can possibly imagine. It may be a desperate attempt to escape whatever it is she knows, that Barr knows and his reason for reopening this investigation. She can't possibly think she could win.

When she ran before, she ran on a smear campaign of Donald Trump saying all of the horrible things he do to women and yet we know that Donald Trump has been the quintessential President for women. He has lowered unemployment to record lows for women. He has doubled the child tax credit. He has created 3 million jobs just for women in this country. He's been the women's president. She couldn't run on those care tactics anymore.

CHAFFETZ: So--

LOUDON: But we don't know what he might know what Barr might know, that she knows he knows, and she may feel like she has to run to keep herself safe.

CHAFFETZ: Charlie, what's your take on it? What is Hillary Clinton doing?

CHARLES HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: I think that the arrogance of these people is, it knows no bounds. And Hillary Clinton has always believed that she would be America's first female president. And so the notion that she would have the crown knocked from her head, not once, but twice. Because of course, the same thing happened in Iowa back in 2008 when - with the rise of Barack Obama.

But to go back to the funeral, and I agree with you. I don't want to dwell on it either. But there really is something beyond despicable when somebody takes an important, a beautiful service like that and stinks it up with their stupid, gross, selfish, idiotic, political - I don't even know what you call it. But it is so - I can't think of anything more despicable. And you have to be so imbued with the swamp, with politics to think that something like that is acceptable at a reverential, important, beautiful service like the one that we saw today.

CHAFFETZ: Tammy, you're joining me here in New York in studio. What's your take on - what is Hillary Clinton doing?

TAMMY BRUCE, CONTRIBUTOR: What you first asked was what was she thinking. She's only thinking of herself.

CHAFFETZ: Right.

BRUCE: This is, I think, a very good example when we talk about whether it was the memorial or her own comments about Tulsi Gabbard or the nature of other remarks that she's making. This remaining obsession, it is what she's always done. It's what politicians who've been running the establishment do. They've been the only ones that have mattered. The American people have not, the nature of their impact on others has not mattered.

And she has been genuinely shocked because all of her life she has seen the system work for the next in line, that there is no reason to think that this would be different. And it was. But the reason they couldn't think that it was different is because they've been out of touch with Americans as a whole.

So this needs to be and I believe it to be President Trump's election one signal of a long-term reformation. And it is really this - this really pathological refusal to accept that. Now, the American people have accepted it. We are going to have another election, which is where we're going to be able to make our choices. But whether it's the impeachment or Hillary's behavior, you're seeing a level of confusion and collapse throughout the system that is clearly disturbing.

CHAFFETZ: All right. I've got - we've got a hard out. So just a few seconds each.

Gina, does Hillary Clinton run again? Do you think she runs? Yes or no? And what kind of odds do you put to it? Quickly.

LOUDON: Her own party doesn't want her to run. I don't think she should run. I don't know. Her ego is so big. Tammy is probably right. She might just do it.

CHAFFETZ: Charlie?

HURT: I don't think she - I don't think she runs, but man, I wish she would. It sure would be an enjoyable to watch her lose a third time.

CHAFFETZ: Tammy?

BRUCE: The Republicans are saying that she should. I keep saying maybe she is actually working for Trump because she's so awful.

(LAUGHTER)

BRUCE: But - but really, now we have some Senate Democrats saying, do not do it. So she's getting messaging now to step away.

CHAFFETZ: We'll see. Listen. Tammy, Charlie, Gina, have a wonderful Friday night. Thank you.

We'll be right back with a big update in the college admissions scandal. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the special edition of Hannity. An update in the college admissions scandal. Actress Felicity Huffman, who was charged in the explosive college admissions scandal that ensnarled multiple stars, is now out of prison. Fox News Chief Breaking News Correspondent Trace Gallagher joins us live with the latest. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Jason, she was supposed to serve two weeks, but 11 days after Felicity Huffman walked into the federal prison in Dublin, California, near San Francisco, she walked back out. And the prison confirmed that Huffman had been released a few days early.

The 56-year-old actress paid $15,000 to rig her daughter's SAT score, and now she will go on to serve one year probation and perform 250 hours of community service. Before being sentenced, Huffman apologized saying she was deeply ashamed of her behavior and had betrayed her daughters and husband.

As for the other actress caught up in the cheating scandal, Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli, they've decided to fight the charges that they cheated both of their daughters into the University of Southern California. That included getting their daughters admitted as athletes for a sport they never played.

Now, based on other sentences being handed down, it appears that if Loughlin and her husband decide to plead guilty, they'd be looking at roughly two to three months in prison, a lot less time than they probably thought they might get. Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Wow! Trace, thank you.

Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening. As always, thank you for being with us.

If you haven't already, if there's ever a timely book for what's going on these days, it's my new book "Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic."

Have a great weekend. Sean will be back here on Monday. Laura Ingraham is up next.

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.