This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," March 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: A lot of ground to cover.
Welcome to special edition of "Hannity."
Washington scandals tonight, real breaking news, real investigative reporting that the rest of the mainstream media will never do. We have explosive new information first reported by Sara Carter since confirmed by Fox News.
Newly obtained text messages are showing that Trump-hating FBI agent Peter Strzok, well, he was close friends with U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Now, the messages are also revealing that Strzok and his FBI lover Lisa Page, she wanted to meet Judge Contreras at a cocktail party. Is that collusion?
Now, this is the same judge the presided over a hearing with the former national security adviser, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI. Now, Judge Contreras then later mysteriously recused himself from the Flynn case.
And also brand new tonight, USA Today is reporting that the Justice Department is considering publicly releasing parts of the FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page.
And breaking right now, Fox News reporting that the phony dossier that author former British spy Christopher Steele is being ordered to appear now for a videotaped deposition as part of this ongoing legal battle in London. This is a major development and could finally provide answers to very key questions about Hillary's bought and paid for dossier and if Steele tried to ever even verify it.
Now, all that brand new information plus Fox News is learning that the deadline for the former FBI Director Andrew McCabe to be fired and lose his pension could now be Saturday.
And also tonight, Axios is reporting that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, well, he plans to come out swinging against his critics in his upcoming book tour. I will remind him again you have a right to remain silent.
We have challenge, by the way, and an open invitation to Jim Comey -- come on this show. We'll give you full hour. I'll give you three hours on my nationally syndicated radio show, 575 stations.
We have more and this on our breaking news opening monologue.
HANNITY: All right. Tonight, a brand new scandal involving anti-Trump FBI love birds, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Newly obtained text messages between Strzok and Page are revealing damning new information. Now, Strzok we find out today is friends with Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras who sits now on the FISA court.
Now, the romantically involved Trump haters, Strzok and Page, also message about attending a cocktail party with this judge, Judge Contreras. Now here is what is really disturbing. The judge presided over the hearing where Lieutenant General Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
Now, there is a lot of other important context to explain here. We'll do that in just a minute.
But, first, take a look at brand new text messages. Let's start July 25th, 2016. Page writes: Rudy, the judge we are talking about, is on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Did you know that?
And Page adds just, you know, appointed two months ago. Strzok replies, I did. And we talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him. So, Strzok and Judge Contreras know each other.
Now, Page letter writes read through this, thought of it because you had to Google Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges and saw him there. I'm telling you. Strzok follows up with, well, she brought up a good point about being circumspect in talking to him in terms of not placing him in a situation where he'd have to actually recuse himself.
Page then texts I can't imagine either one of you ever talking about anything in detail, meaningful enough to warrant a recusal. And Page says, well, anyway, maybe you didn't mean to but didn't. And Strzok answers really? Rudy? I'm in charge of espionage for the FBI. Any espionage FISA comes before him, what should he do? Given his friend oversees them?
Page replies in this particular case: standards for recusal though are quite high. I just don't think this poses an actual conflict. And he doesn't know what you do. And then Strzok responds, yes, generally does know what I do, not to the level of the scope or area, but he is super thoughtful and rigorous about ethics and conflicts.
And suggesting a social setting with others would probably be better than a one-on-one meeting. I'm sorry, I'm just going to have to invite you to the cocktail party. You can sit next to me -- I'm adding that part.
Strzok continues, of course, you'll be there. Have to come up with some other work people cover for action. And Page writes, why more? Six is perfectly fine for a dinner party.
Oh, six, intimate setting, they know each other, he is in his position, the judge in his position.
There is a lot to unpack here. What is clear is that Peter Strzok knew the judge and that both he and page wanted to attend a party with him. That is a massive conflict of interest, engineering a meeting with FISA judge under false pretenses in this case a cocktail party that could actually be on destruction and other criminal liability. We'll ask Gregg Jarrett in a minute.
What is really inexcusable is that the Department of Justice fought like hell, especially Rod Rosenstein to keep this information secret.
Now, Sara Carter reporting that congressional investigators working for Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Mark Meadows, they discovered these text messages at the DOJ's headquarters and this is part of the outrage. According to Sara Carter of the 1.2 million documents the DOJ inspector general has acquired, the House Oversight Committee has only received just over 3,000, quote, unique documents. That means the DOJ never ever wanted the stunning information to get out. They have been trying to hide it.
Remember back in January, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein begging in the final hours before they had to turn this information over, begging Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, allow the DOJ not to turn over the documents related to the Russia investigation to Devin Nunes and these congressional committees. It's now clear why Rod Rosenstein, yes, that guy that appointed Mueller now did this. It's all part of a year-long pattern of obstruction, of stonewalling, noncompliance, and Congress' enforce, by the way and constitutional duty to investigate and oversee the actions at the DOJ. You know, it's called checks and balances.
Think about this for a second. If Rod Rosenstein had his way, we wouldn't know about any of these scandals. People now need to be held accountable. This is why people like, oh, Grassley and Tillis and Cornyn and Graham are demanding as we have been demanding for a year a second special counsel to investigate the investigators. They can't investigate themselves.
As for that very important context, we learned that Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends and that Judge Contreras oversaw the Flynn case which after he accepted the plea, it was a mystery. Why did he recuse himself?
Now, we still don't know the exact reason why, but this could have something to do with it. We also know that Peter Strzok was the FBI agent. He oversaw the January 2017 White House interview of Lieutenant General Flynn and here's what we really need more information on, Strzok is the former FBI counter intelligence official who signed the paperwork to start the entire Russia investigation.
And as these new text messages revealed, Judge Contreras was on the FISA court. And sources have been telling us that Judge Contreras may have signed off on one of the FISA applications to approve the warrant to spy on Carter Page, Trump associate, which means the Trump campaign which likely gave the FBI access to Trump campaign communications.
This is stunning. It is corrupt. It is an abuse of power. And it shows inexcusable biases and conflicts of interest that the Department of Justice has tried to conceal.
Now, we need to know all the communications between Strzok, Page, and Contreras, as a matter of fact, release all the Strzok/Page text messages, everything you have got. We need to find out if Strzok was involved in putting together the FISA application for Carter Page. He was a former high ranking counterintelligence official who was bragging about it.
The FISA warrant for Page was signed in October 2016. Strzok was fired from Mueller's team in august of 2017. So, it is time for Strzok to tell us what did he know? When did he know it?
How does this guy have a job? And don't forget, Lisa Page was advising Andrew McCabe.
Now, we did also reach out to Judge Contreras for comment. He didn't get back to us.
And also breaking right now, USA Today is reporting the Justice Department is considering publicly releasing parts of the FISA surveillance order against Carter Page. How about releasing all of it? Now, this would mean we would get to see exactly how that fake news dossier, the bulk of which was used to get the FISA warrant against Page was used and how the FBI misled on purpose, purpose live omitted information to FISA judges about Clinton, that she bought and paid for fake news phony Russian dossier.
And also tonight, a significant new development speaking of Christopher Steele, Fox News tonight reporting a British court is now ordering Steele to sit for a videotaped deposition as part of an ongoing legal battle against BuzzFeed, the website that published the fake news dossier.
Now, to call this huge is a massive understatement. Now, Steele will likely be forced to try and verify the dossier that he and Fusion GPS and the FBI never verified, never corroborated. So, in other words, Steele will under oath have to admit whether or not he knew the dossier was full of lies from his phony Russian sources, but gave it to the FBI anyway.
And according to a new book, Steele told friends that it was kind of 50/50 about the most salacious part of the dossier. That's the part that involved the hookers at the Ritz Carlton urinating on a bed. And we also have learned more about Steele's use of current and former Russian government sources. We're going to be following this story very closely.
But also breaking right now, new details on the timeline for former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to be fired and lose his pension. Now, we're learning that the deadline could now be Saturday. And as we have been explaining the fact that McCabe is even in this position is stunning. It is inexcusable. It means he did something drastically radically wrong.
Our sources are telling us McCabe could end up facing multiple criminal charges. Forget about the pension. Just a few months ago, McCabe was put on leave after current FBI Director Christopher Wray was reportedly informed that McCabe was going to be exposed in the upcoming inspector general's report. I can't wait for that report.
And also tonight, as we have predicted for months, the disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey, he's prepared to cash in on his new found fame. I did predict that. You know, in just a few weeks, Comey is going to kick off his whirlwind book tour. He's got tough interviews with Stephen Colbert, Clinton sycophant George Stephanopoulos, and a cozy sit-down with the ladies of "The View."
And according to that you report from Axios, Comey is planning to come out hot and correct all the so-called lies about him and the FBI. For months we have literally been bringing you the American people on a nightly basis breaking news, hard-hitting, investigative reports about the corruption at some of the highest levels of our government including the shocking details about the abuse of power at the very top of the FBI.
Now, James Comey, you want to come out hot? You want to answer hard, important questions? You're welcome on this program.
Tonight, I am officially opening up an invitation to James Comey. You want to sell your book? Come on this show. We'll give you a full hour. You name a day, we'll make it work. We'll work with your schedule.
I'll give you three hours on my nationally syndicated radio show which by the way is on 575 radio stations around America. So, everybody can hear from you. And we'll ask you the tough questions -- the ones that Stephen Colbert might miss.
For example, did you in fact tell a closed session of Congress that you believed Michael Flynn did not lie to the FBI? Did you think he's being unfairly prosecuted? Why did you draft a letter exonerating Hillary Clinton of charges in the email investigation months before she was interviewed by the FBI and 17 other important people?
And will you explain the lies and omissions to the FISA court? Why did you tell Trump that the dossier was unverified and salacious three months after you allowed the same dossier to be presented to the FISA court when you didn't tell the FISA court Hillary bought and paid for it and you knew that? Why did you withhold the fact that Clinton paid for the dirty dossier?
And how do you explain your unlawful leaking of classified information to the media after you were fired, you know, through that Columbia professor, you wanted a special counsel?
Jim Comey, if you are looking for fame and fortune, you want to sell books, by all means, have fun on "The View." Have a great time yakking up with Colbert. Hang out with George Stephanopoulos, go get a beer afterwards.
But if you want to really want to reach all Americans, defend your honor, if you really want to tell the truth, we've got a lot of questions for you, come on this show. A full hour, three hours of radio. That's the best deal you're going to get. We'll lay out all the facts, we'll lay out all the evidence, we'll give you a chance to respond. And as we say here at Fox, well, we report, we will let our audience decide if you are telling the truth.
Here with reaction, Fox News contributor Sara Carter, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.
I'm looking at all of this. Let's first start -- I think this is important as it relates to text messages.
GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Well, it's pretty clear that Peter Strzok was intending to manipulate a federal judge who is also a FISA judge and had -- and may have made one of the decisions to spy on Carter Page to the damage of the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency.
And we know that Peter Strzok is the head of the counterintelligence at the FBI, so he had to have been involved in that FISA application.
Did Contreras know and if he did know, I would think he would have to know, why didn't he recuse himself? And why didn't he recuse himself in the Flynn case because Peter Strzok, his pal, is a key witness in that case.
HANNITY: That is such an important point. What do you think, right?
All right. Sara, you did amazing work today. I think it came out at noon. I think your article on SaraACarter.com was up like two hours later. I don't know how it you were able to pull it together so fast.
Let's get your take and your understanding based on your sources and conversations. Jim Jordan will join us in the next segment. But, obviously, if it wasn't for Jordan and Meadows, we wouldn't have this information because Rod Rosenstein doesn't want us to have this information.
SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, absolutely. I think this shows diligence and hard work on the part of the House Oversight Committee and their investigators. They have been going back and forth DOJ. Now, the DOJ has kept a lot of these documents, these semi-redacted documents.
And once again, I stress it's over 1.2 million documents that Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been sifting through. And so, any time anybody from the committee want to see a semi, just as very less redacted version of the 3,162 pages that they got, they have to go over to the DOJ and then try to put the pieces together.
This is incredible. This piece of information was not privy to national security, and it was not something very personal. This was something that would have answered a question, a question that a lot of people have been asking for some time now. Why did Judge Contreras recuse himself? Why was he recused?
You know, we have to have these questions answered because in December 1st, 2017, General Flynn sat before him and pled guilty. And then seven days later, he has to recuse himself. So, something happened.
And one more point, Sean, on Strzok. Remember, in 2016 is when they share these text messages. Strzok is head of a major division, counterintelligence division of the FBI and he's focused on Russia. So, we know that he was dealing with a lot more cases, not just this case in specific. And he admit, with Page himself, that meeting with Judge Contreras could put Judge Contreras in a precarious situation where he'd have to recuse himself. I mean, they say that.
HANNITY: But they're going to do it anyway.
CARTER: But they're going to do it anyways. What does that tell you about them?
JARRETT: It tells you that the stench in Washington is just overwhelming. Everybody is in bed with everybody else. They don't recuse themselves amid glaring conflicts of interest, and this is a perfect example.
You know, when I used to appear in front of judges occasionally, they would recuse themselves, but they would explain their recusal on the record to be honest and forthright. Contreras didn't do that. He kept it a secret. And that invites the question if you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding?
It's also curious he didn't recuse himself until after week, after Flynn pled guilty. My question is, did Flynn know that the FBI agents who interviewed him do you think went back to Comey and Yates, and said he's innocent, he told the truth.
HANNITY: And Comey said it.
HANNITY: So, what does that mean for Michael Flynn?
JARRETT: Well, I would predict that -- Judge Sullivan is the new judge -- may get to the bottom of this. He has demanded that Mueller turn over all exculpatory evidence and those interviews would be exculpatory. And if it is true that Flynn and his lawyer didn't full know that they had actually been exonerated by these agents, then his guilty play ought to be set aside.
PARKER: According to my sources, Sean, he did not know. He did not know about this bit of information. So, that's going to be very interesting and what Gregg said is very important, because, remember, Flynn was cornered and even after Strzok and the other agent interviewed Flynn, according to the sources, according to James Comey himself, they believed that he did not lie.
So, special counsel Robert Mueller did find a way to get him to plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. I have think there is a lot more questions here than answers and I think we're on the road to finding out what those are.
JARRETT: Mueller squeezed him and he ruined his life.
HANNITY: By the way, the guy has to sell his house now.
JARRETT: He has to sell his house.
HANNITY: And I bet you they threatened his kid.
JARRETT: They did. My sources tell me they did threaten his son.
And so, you know, this is over zealous prosecutors and the power government that can ruin you financially and destroy your life. It's no wonder that Michael Flynn finally threw in the towel.
HANNITY: What about Christopher Steele? I mean, this is the guy behind the Trump hoax. You know, he went to Russia and Russian government sources.
HANNITY: Clinton paid for it all. And we are told, reported this week, he didn't even believe his own salacious report.
JARRETT: I read the interrogatory answers in the British court case. And he makes it clear that all of his information is completely unverifiable that would be denied by his sources. Sure, the sources didn't exist and if you read very closely and carefully, Steele is really admitting that his entire story was a fairy tale.
HANNITY: Sara, I cannot believe what I just heard.
CARTER: It's very disturbing. And, look, the lawsuit against Christopher Steele is very important, because Christopher Steele slandered a lot of people in that dossier. And then it was solidified here in the United States after it was briefed to both President Obama and President-elect Trump and then leaked by BuzzFeed and posted on BuzzFeed.
And he attempted to leak that to a number of other news agencies beforehand. People have a right to regain their name back and get to --
HANNITY: You guys have been amazing. All right. More on the special edition of "Hannity."
Congressman Jim Jordan, Congressman Ron DeSantis, Tom Fitton, as we continue.
HANNITY: All right. Joining us now was we continue our special investigation and reacting to today's breaking news, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis, and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.
Congressman Jim Jordan, let me start with you.
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: Sure.
HANNITY: This is an amazing thing that Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller, who is the same guy that extended the FISA warrant with the phony dossier, which was the bulk of information, that he is -- he did not want Devin Nunes to get any of this material and that only because of digging by you and Congressman Meadows and your staffs were we able to find the latest Strzok-Page messages which show all of this, you know, collusion, if you will, to use a term or at least relationship with this judge that recused himself after he accepted General Flynn's plea.
JORDAN: Right. Exactly right, Sean. Three key points --
HANNITY: Help me out here.
JORDAN: You said it well. The judge recuses himself in the Flynn case. That same judge, the text messages make very clear had a friendship and relationship with Peter Strzok, the guy who was deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI and the -- excuse me, the Justice Department made it difficult for us to get that information. In fact, the copies that we got, the documents that we got were redacted. We had to send staff, Mr. Meadow's staff went in there and found the information which shows the relationship.
So, he recused himself as you said after the case, not before. He had a relationship that judge had a relationship with Peter Strzok and the Justice Department and didn't want us to find it out. The key question is why?
HANNITY: Well, let's go through that key question. Ron DeSantis that is a key question, why? Why? A judge doesn't take on a case, then recuse himself and then we find the judge is best friends with the guy at the heart of everything, Peter Strzok.
REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLORIDA: Yes, Sean. Just remember, this was such an odd case from the beginning with Flynn. They rushed in to interrogate him in the White House in January of 2017. Obviously, he ends up pleading guilty but he probably didn't know all that was going on with Peter Strzok.
And so, this thing just is not -- does not sit well with me. And I also have an issue as Jimmy said with the Department of Justice. They fought us tooth and nail on everything pretty much, including this right here. Why were they heavily redacting this portion? That was something that we were entitled to see, in conducting oversight. They tried to hide it from the American people.
HANNITY: Yes. And, Tom Fitton, you have struggled and your organization has struggled. And this gets -- so, why are they trying to hide, remember, Devin Nunes waited until the final five minutes before the subpoena of this information from the DOJ that should have been handed over much earlier and now, Congressman Jordan, Congressman Meadows, Congressman DeSantis, they have to send their entire staffs over. They can't even take a picture of anything.
It's like don't they have oversight, isn't that part of checks and balances oversight committees are to check and balance to make sure that things don't go wrong.
TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, they were just oversight not only from Congress and Department of Justice and FBI do, but also from the courts. I mean, we're in federal court asking for these types of text messages. We're asking, why haven't we gotten them yet? We know you have them, why don't you turn them over, on McCabe and Strzok and Page?
We've asked for them months ago, and we're getting the proverbial hand to the face. There is this culture of arrogance at the FBI and Justice Department that impedes virtually any oversight either by Judicial Watch to the courts or Congress through its constitutional powers. And it's real concerning that this isn't happening during the Obama administration but by appointees President Trump, you know, Jeff Sessions has got to step up and take back control of the Justice Department.
Rod Rosenstein has a personal interest, it seems to me, in keeping this information away. And Director Wray is completely out to lunch on these issues where is he more concerned about the institution of the FBI and protecting its reputation than cleaning house in terms of the corruption issues.
You know, and now we have got this issue now about the court. You know, we have been -- I know a little bit about the judicial ethics process. I can tell you it's unusual for a court to recuse themselves from a case like this without an explanation. It's unusual and these new text messages --
JORDAN: But this is key.
FITTON: -- raise questions about what was going on and why the court recuse themselves without telling the public, what was the reason for doing so in such a high profile case.
HANNITY: Jim Jordan, you want to weigh in. Go ahead.
JORDAN: Yes. Sean, it's unusual for the judge to recuse himself at any time. It's really unusual for him to recuse himself after that the case has been decided.
HANNITY: Well, what do you make of -- what do you make of Judge Contreras relationship with Peter Strzok in all of this.
JORDAN: And also Peter Strzok's relationship with Michael Flynn. He was there at the interview of Michael Flynn when Michael Flynn said something false to the FBI. So that's -- I don't know how all this fits together. That's why all we're saying is these three key facts happened.
There was a recusal, there was a relationship between the judge and Peter Strzok a central figure in this whole of fair. And the Department of Justice was making it very difficult for Congress to as both Tom and Ron have pointed out to do our constitutional oversight. Those three facts are indisputable. So, let's ask why that was the case. Why can't we get the information and why in fact did this judge recuse himself?
HANNITY: Let's go back to this new reveal and it says, Congressman DeSantis in a text message with Strzok, Page to Strzok, "Rudy, meaning, Judge Contreras, is on the FISA court. Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago." And they discuss other things and of course Peter Strzok says, "We did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him."
This is -- these two hate Donald Trump. And then they are best friends with the judge on the FISA court. Now, there were four separate FISA court judges that were all lied to because they never informed the judges in the application that Hillary had bought and paid for unverified, uncorroborated what turned out to be many Russian lies to influence the election. Congressman?
DESANTIS: Well, I will tell you, you know, Peter Strzok has done so much damage to the reputation of the FBI with his arrogance. I mean, him and Lisa Page are sitting there saying well, let's manufacture a social setting or a dinner party so I can talk with him and he won't have to recuse himself type of deal.
But you are right. We need to get all the documents about all the FISA application. I know Contreras was probably one of the judges. But we don't know which one. The Justice Department will not give us the transcripts. They won't give us the documents. And, you have to ask yourself why would they not want to do this, if this was all on the up and up. Wouldn't you want to clear the air so the American people can move on, but yet, they fight us tooth and nail on every issue?
HANNITY: And what other information are you looking for, Tom Fitton.
FITTON: We want the FISA applications too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.
FITTON: You know, what was interesting is that we understood the FISA court was misled. These two new text messages now raise questions about whether the FISA court process was corrupted internally.
And I don't know if any judge did anything wrong, but certainly, there's enough for the court to begin an internal investigation of how the judges communicated with the FBI, were all the communications appropriate and disclosed in a way that the public can be sure -- assured that there was the fair administration of justice in the operations of the FISA court.
I tell you, this corruption at the Obama Justice Department and FBI which continues in some way today, not only ruined the Justice Department and FBI it's now splashed onto the courts. What a disaster.
HANNITY: I would only, Congressman Jordan --
JORDAN: Yes, because -- go ahead. Go ahead.
HANNITY: You got to send your staff over every day.
JORDAN: Yes. Yes, we did.
HANNITY: If that's the only way we can get the information that has to happen now every day.
JORDAN: I want to be -- I want to be real clear. We do not know if judge -- if this judge in any way signed off on any of the four FISA warrants. What we do know is these series of facts raises concerns and raises the obvious question of why it happened. That's what we're trying to get --
HANNITY: One of the biggest Trump haters in the country that has so much power bragging about his relationship and that, in fact, the judge knows all about what he does.
FITTON: Yes. Sure is. It's terrible.
HANNITY: Thank you all. I appreciate it.
FITTON: Thank you.
HANNITY: All right. When we come back, Dr. Sebastian Gorka and Sean Spicer how the media is completely smearing -- smearing President Trump's pick to lead the CIA she's too tough on terror as we continue this special edition of Hannity.
HANNITY: So the mainstream media anti-Trump echo chamber. They're at it again and this time they're trying to take down the president's pick to head the CIA. Her name is Gina Haspel. Now Haspel is a career intelligence officer who has been praised by colleagues for her very important work after 9/11 and she would be the first woman to serve as the CIA director if confirmed.
The mainstream media, liberal democrats they seem only interested in smearing the long serving intelligence official. ProPublica was recently forced to issue a correction on a report accusing Haspel of overseeing the waterboarding and abuse of a detainee being held a CIA black site, Abu Zubaydah.
The New York Times was forced to issue a similar correction. But prior to those retractions identical stories were echoed on multiple media outlets including fake news CNN. And that's not all. Some on the media are even denigrating Haspel's achievement as a woman. Vox is calling her selection quote, "not a feminist choice."
And the New York Times published and op-ed entitled, "Gina Haspel's rise is no victory for feminism."
Wow, here with reaction, Fox News national security strategist, former deputy assistant to the president, Sebastian Gorka, and former White House press secretary Sean Spicer. I can't believe that you have to be a liberal woman, Dr. Gorka. Is that what it is? In order to advance, you know, women's rights, you have to believe in certain fundamental issues or this does not advance feminism.
And then I heard Hillary this week say, the reason I lost is because white women listen to their husbands, to their bosses and their sons before voting for Donald Trump.
SEBASTIAN GORKA, NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIST, FOX NEWS: Let's just put to the side for a moment, Sean, that Hillary Clinton insulting 30 million American citizens who just happen to be women and then ask a very simple question. What has catching terrorists undermining the enemies of the United States and being a professional intelligence officer got to do with feminism?
We don't run the intelligence community based upon ideology. That was John Brennan. That was under the Obama administration. We need to know one thing about this woman and it's clear that she has it is whether or not she is qualified to be one of the most powerful government officials in the most powerful nation in the world. The only problem with this woman is, Sean, it's very simple. She's a woman who is working for Donald Trump. That's the only problem.
HANNITY: But it's actually worse than that Sean, we lost thousand Americans on 9/11, 2001. There was only three people waterboarded in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed it led to the courier. The courier led to Bin Laden. Without waterboarding KSM there is no Bin Laden. What part of that do liberals disagree with we're too tough on terrorists? That's why they don't want her?
SEAN SPICER, FORMER UNITED STATES WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think Dr. Gorka is right on this. If she was working for Barack Obama, they would call her imminently qualified. And let's look at who is calling her qualified? Leon Panetta, Hayden, Morrell, all of these folks that are sort of at the top echelon of the intelligence community in a bipartisan degree, one administration over the next, all support her because she is imminently qualified with over 30 years experience.
But to your point, Sean, here's the thing. When if you don't fit the category that liberals think you're in depending on your race or your gender then you don't count. So, Gina is not qualified to be CIA director because she is not a liberal.
You look at what happened yesterday, the left-wing Democratic outfit American bridge assaulted, assaulted and was arrested a male staffer for them attacking a female member of the Trump administration. And did you see any coverage of it today? No, nothing in the Washington Post. Nothing in the New York Times.
There was a man arrested for assaulting a female member. And Dr. Gorka is right. Why? Because she works for Donald Trump. If this had been the administration, it would have been leading the evening news today. The hypocrisy and double standard is unbelievable.
HANNITY: I just really -- we look at these times you have, Dr. Gorka, this cannot be emphasized enough. The biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of the country. It's literally sitting right there on a tee for the media. The media all they care about is Stormy Daniels and Russia-Trump collusion and after, what, almost 18 months we have no evidence.
This is all that they cover. And it's amazing that here with all the evidence we have Hillary fixes a primary. Hillary has criminal activity that is fixed for her. She purchases lies and a phony Russian dossier, lied to the American people. It's used to obtain FISA warrant and, of course, they don't tell the FISA judge that Hillary bought and paid for it so we can spy on opposition party candidate and campaign. How about covering real news for once?
GORKA: Well, look, that's not their job. These are propagandists. And if you look at the FISA gate scandal, what we have is Hillary Clinton, the DNC affecting a successful Russian operation because that file was full of Russian misinformation. That's the enormity of what we are talking about.
These people aren't interested in the truth. This is perhaps the biggest scandal that we have seen in a political election since 1776. And let's just remember one thing, Sean, if she had won, we wouldn't know any of it, none of it. Not FISA gate, not Uranium One. It would have all been covered up. And that's the scary thing.
HANNITY: All right. Sean Spicer --
SPICER: Well, I think -- I think you're missing --
HANNITY: Go ahead.
SPICER: I was going to say, I mean, look, we got more great economic news today if it wasn't for the president tweeting it out to his followers we wouldn't know about it. They're more worried about whether one staff could or should be fired by the end of the week whether there can be a mix up.
I mean, there's more time spent confirming whether or not somebody is actually in the office today. The White House pool sent out a report today that they cited H.R. McMaster, the national security advisor. Meantime, the economy continues to hum along and people are living better lives in this country.
HANNITY: All right. Unbelievable. And I don't know how you did your job. I would have explode it -- exploded. I couldn't do it and you --
GORKA: There was --
HANNITY: -- and what Sarah Huckabee does every day. God bless you both. You are better people than I am.
All right. The next story is going to make your blood boil. Coming up, the illegal immigrant who got away with killing Kate Steinle is claiming the federal case against him was vindictive and he wants it thrown out. We'll have more on that on this special edition of Hannity straight ahead.
HANNITY: So the story will totally outrage you. The five time deported illegal immigrant who got away with killing 32-year-old Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier, this was back in July 2015 is now asserting, quote, "vindictive prosecution and collusion in the federal government's case against him."
Garcia Zarate's federal case came, a California state court acquitted him in November 2017 of first and second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter of Steinle. Garcia Zarate is facing federal charges of possessing a firearm while being a felon and being here illegally.
In an attempt to prove his, quote, "vindictive prosecution and collusion agreement," Garcia Zarate's cites comments President Trump and the Attorney General Jeff Sessions had made in the past regarding his case and is seeking all communications that the U.S. government has had with local law enforcement agencies.
Additionally, Garcia Zarate is claiming double jeopardy claiming that while he was already tried for being a felon possessing a firearm in state court.
Joining us now is former Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu is with us, and radio talk show host and Fox News contributor, Leslie Marshall. Paul, is there any doubt in your mind that this person was guilty based on the facts as we know them?
PAUL BABEU, FORMER PINAL COUNTY BORDER SHERIFF: Absolutely not. He is guilty. This is a sick twist in the fact that here this criminal illegal, who has been not only deported five times, he was wanted for six times before the sanctuary policies released him before turning him over to ICE.
But the sickness here is that now is he crying as the victim that there is vindictive prosecution that he is going to be held accountable for crimes that he committed. He had been convicted in the past of numerous felonies for drug violations, heroin and other drugs. And he shoots Kate Steinle in the back with a stolen handgun from a federal agent.
And now his attorneys and he is claiming more rights than you and I as citizens. And that he is the victim of prosecution and even collusion between the state, the local prosecutors, and the federal government.
And anybody who has been watching the news regardless if you are a conservative like us or liberals, knows there is little to know collusion with anything in California in the federal government.
HANNITY: Do you have any problem with this case? Leslie?
LESLIE MARSHALL, CONTRIBUTOR, FOX NEWS: Well, quite frankly, I do. And the reason I have a problem with it is you have got to give the attorneys an A for effort on behalf of their client but this is absolutely ridiculous, Sean, and sorry, I'm not going to disagree with you guys on this just from a legal factual perspective. There are two things the attorneys are going after here. And from my little legal training I can tell threw is no double jeopardy and there is no vindictiveness.
When you look at the law it's very clear what he was acquitted of is not what the federal government is going after him for, which he clearly has been guilty of which is entering the United States illegally and illegal possession of a firearm. So the federal government is within its right, although his attorneys, I think it's crazy they are going to lose both of these in my opinion, they are doing their best for their client.
HANNITY: Why is there the mysterious reluctance and how is it that the Oakland mayor can literally warn criminal illegal immigrants, ICE agents are coming. We are not talking about DACA, we're not talking about Dreamers. We're not talking about people that just want to better their lives. We are talking about people that not only didn't respect our laws and sovereignty but then came here and committed more crimes, and in many cases violent crimes.
Why -- why aren't -- why isn't the Oakland mayor arrested? How does -- why should California get one federal dollar being a sanctuary state which is basically aiding and abetting law breaking?
MARSHALL: Well, if you are asking me, Sean, I would tell you first of all if there was anything there criminally, the cuffs would be on. And I think you'll see there isn't. One of the reasons she has --
HANNITY: Aiding and abetting -- is that tipping off criminal illegal immigrants.
MARSHALL: No, I don't say aiding and abetting --
HANNITY: Is that aiding and abetting and obstructing justice?
MARSHALL: Sean, what we are hearing --
BABEU: I believe it is.
MARSHALL: -- what we are hearing from ICE is that there were nearly a thousand people that could have been detained in less than a 48-hour period absolutely impossible one.
MARSHALL: And that all of these people had criminal charges.
BABEU: All right, hang on. Absolutely.
MARSHALL: I want to see the evidence of that.
BABEU: Absolutely. Any time in law enforcement you can be a patrol officer, you know that when you interfere with lawful authority and this was lawful authority of the federal government and they are sharing private information in law enforcement and she goes out there because she is privy to that and announces it publicly alerting known criminals who don't even have citizenship in our country that hey, the cops are coming. You better get out of town, that's a crime. That should be -- that should absolutely be prosecuted.
BABEU: Jeff Sessions should pursue her and hold her to account. Because any future crime that these criminals commit, how can she not be held liable and responsible as an accomplice to those and have blood on her own hands.
HANNITY: All right. Thank you both. When we come back, we'll have more of this special edition of "Hannity" straight ahead.
HANNITY: All right. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening. We do thank you for being with us. Don't forget you can follow me on Instagram at Sean Hannity. Same at Twitter at Sean Hannity. And by the way, please our movie that I produced, "Let There be Light," you can get it at Wal-Mart this weekend, Amazon.com. A whole family can watch it at Hannity.com Hope you have a great weekend. We'll see you back here. A lot of news we expect on Monday. Hope you'll join us.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.