Ken Starr reacts to Robert Mueller agreeing to testify in front of Congress

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

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Tucker, great coverage.

Thank you for being with us. Welcome to “Hannity.”

Breaking tonight, it appears one of the world's most powerful companies is clearly hell-bent on stopping Donald Trump from winning in 2020, or anyone like him forever winning in the future. It's all on tape. We have a full report coming up later, right here exclusively on this show. You do not want to miss this tape.

First, we do have breaking news on multiple fronts in our quest for equal justice, and, of course, to hold those who abuse power involved in incredible corruption accountable. As we turn our attention tonight, first, to Judicial Watch. They have filed a brand-new Freedom of Information Act request for records between the FBI and former disgraced FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, related to his book, which is filled with a deep state revisionist history, in my opinion.

According to Judicial Watch, the FBI has been stonewalling, so far refusing to hand over documents relating to an apparent prepublication review requirement by the FBI and any book by McCabe. What secrets he didn't the bureau want McCabe revealing?

Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, they are the driving force behind this apparent effort to clearly overthrow the results of the 2016 election after many tried to rig it ahead of time. Ever since, by the way, McCabe has been trying to rewrite history.

Remember, he is at the center of this apparent attempts now by many to undermine a duly elected president. He served as Jim Comey's right-hand man for years, at the very center of the FBI's witch hunt into so-called, not provable, four separate investigations, Trump-Russia collusion.

Remember, on March 16th, 2018, he was fired from the FBI, why? For lying, for leaking multiple times, under oath. I thought people got put in jail for that. I guess only if you're a Republican.

Now, read that 2018 DOJ inspector general, that Horowitz report, McCabe is mentioned a whopping 800 times, and not in a favorable way. It said, he, quote, lacked candor. In other words, he lied.

And remember, there is so much more evidence we have not even begun to see yet, so much more information. The forthcoming Horowitz I.G. report on FISA abuse, now the Durham review. Remember, he is going to interview Christopher Steele. We've talked about six separate buckets. We've talked about exculpatory material that will be released, Gang of Eight material. The question is not if, it's just a matter of when.

There is no stopping this at this point. I am told tonight, the biggest shoe to drop may be coming tomorrow. What I know is more than I can say, but I will be able to give you a sneak preview with John Solomon. We'll have more in my opening monologue in just a minute.

First, joining us now with this rig breaking news is Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

Tom, let's talk about this request. Great questions. How long are they stonewalling? And this might get to the heart of -- you know, what are they trying to hide?

TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Yes, it's been stonewalling for months. The same thing happened with Comey's book, we sued and were trying to get documents for the prepublication review process for Comey.

Look, the FBI is very secretive when it comes to text messages. They don't want us to see text messages. They don't want us to see Obama's 302, the interview report of his interview by the FBI in the cell of a Senate seat. When it comes to allowing Comey and McCabe to publish competence as they gained as a result of their work at the FBI, it's a rubber stamp process.

So, we want to figure out why the double standard? Secrecy in terms of the government accountability, but they're willing to let these guys who have records of corruption, as you point out, go out and say whatever they want about meetings with the president and things like that, that typically we would have to sue for under the Freedom of Information Act, and we probably wouldn't get.

HANNITY: Yes. Well, what's really important is the Freedom of Information -- we had last night, the American Center for Law and Justice, and what they discovered. My little birdies are telling me that we might get a lot more information as it relates to unmasking, surveillance, and all of these things -- all the things we talked about almost from the beginning, March of 2017.

What do you see on the horizon for you?

FITTON: Well, you know, the question is, is the FBI going to continue to stonewall documents about what Andrew McCabe was texting about, what Strzok and Page were texting about? And the FBI also has been forced by a court to turn over email communications between Strzok and Page? They haven't been able to withhold those, and those are coming out almost monthly.

This scandal is only deepening because of new information we are learning as a result of the Freedom of Information Act transparency law. You know, Congress is frozen because the House Democrats are trying to protect their involvement in this most significant government corruption scandal in American history, so it is up to independent groups on the outside, and reporters, to figure out what really went on.

And this is the way to do it through FOIA, and basic shoe leather reporting that John Solomon and Sara Carter are doing.

HANNITY: All right. Thanks so much, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Thanks for being with us. We really appreciate it.

Now, we are continuing to lift the curtain on what we say is act two. Remember, the Mueller report is over, the attorney general determined, and of course the Mueller report determined, no collusion. No obstruction. It's done. He's done.

They've had their time. Fourth separate investigation, but the deep state's day of reckoning, it has only just begun. The curtain has come up.

As we just mentioned, the American Center for Law and Justice, yesterday providing the most damning evidence yet of the rush by Clapper, DNI, too, in the last weeks of the Obama administration, totally, completely overhaul, buried in the incoming administration with something they would never burden themselves with, the entire intel sharing apparatus, which goes from three agencies sharing information -- oh, to 17? Why? To undermine the incoming president.

This was happening just days before Donald Trump's inauguration. The DNI, the NSA, with the approval of the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, they want to draw intelligence into as many hands inside the deep state as possible. Why? Clearly, to make it harder to seek out the leakers, harder to trace the information, harder to find out who did what, when, and where?

And the Obama deep state cabal did not do this for eight years. They would never want to do that to themselves. And the level of intensity, urgency, and decision to do this -- remember, this was Barack Obama's executive order, 12333, and the final moments, drastically expanding the sharing of this raw intel, signal intel, from three agencies to 17, just days before President Trump is inaugurated.

They were literally scrambling to get it done before -- we've got to get it done before January 20th, the day Donald Trump became president -- using an executive order, as I said, 12333 -- well, as its basis, with no input from the incoming administration. Of course, this just the latest evidence, a big piece of the puzzle, of what is the biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal, and yes, abuse of the intelligence weapons that only 1 percent -- the 99 percent do incredible work every day to keep us safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, but they cannot try most powerful tools on the American people.

FISA abuse, the dirty dossier, oh, a rigged investigation, clear crimes committed, clear obstruction of justice bear the use of secret informants abroad, unmasking, raw intelligence, all of this, leaking law intelligence. There was a 350 percent increase by Obama officials just in the year 2016. Why is that?

It all now connects. Inch by inch, we are moving closer and closer to what is going to be real accountability. A big news is coming, possibly, likely as soon as tomorrow. It may be the biggest missing piece of the puzzle yet. I am told this will be a nexus that has been missing that is huge.

And just breaking moments ago, Chairmen Nadler and Schiff announced special counsel Mueller will testify pursuant to a subpoena on Wednesday, July 17th, 2019. We're going to have more of this in my monologue in just a minute.

But first, joining us now with reaction to all of this is "The Hill's" John Solomon.

I think we have a lot of the same friends. Just guessing, you probably know a lot about what is very possibly going to break tomorrow. One, they let you get without --

JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: I do.

HANNITY: -- without revealing sources, not ready, but it's very clear it's coming. And it goes back -- if I or member correctly, to this show, and you and Sara Carter in March of 2017.

SOLOMON: That's exactly right. If you remember, that is when we began reporting on the market increase in the 2016 election in unmasking by the Obama administration, and eventually, we learned that Samantha Power, the U.N. ambassador, was the unmasker in chief, making hundreds of request to take the names of Americans that are supposed to be redacted intelligence reports, and unmasking the names.

Tonight, I have these documents that I'm going through, Sean. These are the official emails of Samantha Power, and what I can report is that Samantha Power has the same sort of anti-Trump bias in her government emails that we have saw with Pete Strzok and Lisa Page at the FBI. The FBI was investigating Trump, and they were railing against him in their official government emails and text messages.

I can tell you that Samantha Power and her colleagues were doing the same thing on the official state email system, and when you see her tomorrow, what she was saying about Trump at the same time these unmaskings were going on, I'm certain it's going to trouble the American public.

HANNITY: Let's go back to the American Center for Law and Justice yesterday, their report yesterday.

SOLOMON: Yes.

HANNITY: And get your reaction, how big a piece to the puzzle is that? Because that executive order 12333, again, this program, we saw this as a big issue in 2017.

SOLOMON: That's right.

HANNITY: Now that we have discovered a rigged investigation, we also saw an effort to use a phony Russian dossier -- not verified -- to influence and election, leaked by intel people to influence the election, Russian disinformation, as "The New York Times" suspects.

SOLOMON: Right.

HANNITY: And then it went further in terms of being used as the bulk of information to spy, not just on Carter Page, but the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, and then the Trump presidency. You put all of that together, and now it takes on a whole new level of significance because why would you go in the final weeks of your presidency, sign an order that shares intel with 17 agencies, instead of three, and an urgency to do it for the incoming administration. Rules you would never live under.

SOLOMON: It is remarkable. Think about this, the U.N. ambassador, who doesn't really have an intelligence operation, was unmasking all the time under Obama, and then in the final days of the administration, after two years of the intelligence community raising concerns about who should have access to this information come after the Obama administration went to the FISA court I belatedly disclose hundreds of violations just before the election, they make the decision that they are going to disseminate sensitive intelligence to more people -- not less people -- expand the universe of people who can gain it and potentially beat it at the beginning of the Trump administration.

That is the concern, and I think the documents Jay Sekulow's group got yesterday are significant find, they put into perspective this rushed effort to spread intelligence to people whose jobs that did not require it.

HANNITY: All right. Thanks, John Solomon, investigative reporter, also vice president -- managing vice president of "The Hill".

Also developing tonight -- it never ends -- the president continues to make clear Tehran will be held accountable for any further aggression than provocation. It's not going to be tolerated. The day before use the words, they will be obliterated.

Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You have a back-and-forth with Iran this morning via tweet. What message do you want to send to him?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: There is no message. You know, I will tell you what the message is: when they are ready, they will have to let us know. When they are ready, they'll let us know. Very simple.

REPORTER: Ready to negotiate you mean?

TRUMP: Ready to do whatever. It doesn't make any difference. Whatever they want to do, I'm ready.

It's too bad this is happening. They are living badly right now. Their country is not doing well economically at all. That can be changed very quickly, very easily. But they have to get rid of the hostility from the leadership.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Now, the president has been very clear, very consistent, as he said in the campaign, he does not believe in these foreign entanglements. He doesn't want boots on the ground, and he has shown a patience and perseverance -- remember, the military computers of Iran just happened to get hit hard this weekend, and, of course, all options as the president has set her on the table.

But the president does understand that it is important, imperative, that this country recalibrate how we fight wars. President clearly understands that an American first foreign policy does mean avoiding unnecessary, endless boots on the ground conflicts. It does mean that America now must develop -- which is why he fought so hard to increase dramatically the Defense Department budget, this next generation of weaponry, sophisticated weaponry that will outpace any potential enemy, ever.

It means continuing to be energy independent. Think about this, the Strait of Hormuz has never been less important to the United States. We are energy independent because of the president's policies. For the first time in 75 years, we are now a net exporter of energy.

Wow, that's important. The Straits of Hormuz, strategically, prior to this, was the lifeblood of the world economy. Not ours.

Also tonight, another big story we are following, because breaking tonight, we have some of the clearest evidence yet, efforts by the search giant to literally meddle in our election, to try and stop Trump in 2020. An apparent whistle-blower inside of the company Google has come forward, speaking to Project Veritas to expose just how dangerous this radical liberal Silicon Valley agenda really is.

Take a close look at all of this. Shocking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, PROJECT VERITAS)

GOOGLE INSIDER: Donald Trump won the election in 2016, the company did a complete 180 of what they thought was important. Before they thought self- expression was important, but now they are like, hey, there's a lot of hate, and because there is a lot of hate, misogyny, and racism, that's the reason why Donald Trump got elected.

And so, we need to fix that. We need to start policing our users because we don't want to have an outcome like that. We don't have an outcome like that to happen again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: So think about this. We do have regulations about in-kind contributions. When you think of the massive amount of influence and power Google has, and if they are going to use this power to favor one party over another -- it would be incalculable, in terms of the donation, the contribution to the DNC, this new crop of radical, extreme, socialist Democrats.

And it appears that Google is literally training their algorithms to turn out more votes for Democrats. Little doubt they have the ability to mold voting behaviors in a major, massive way. Google may be creating a far left filter to just try and steal an election. And just let that sink in for just a second, all of that power, because what is clear is just how powerful a tool Google is. Literally, over a trillion searches a year.

Now, Project Veritas' James O'Keefe says more whistle-blowers are coming. He usually goes day one, day two, day three -- we kind of know how James O'Keefe works. And we will continue to monitor the story.

But first, joining us with reaction to other breaking news that we have, Robert Mueller has agreed to testify pursuant to a subpoena. Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera, former Secret Service agent and Fox News contributor Dan Bongino.

Dan, I don't think we can go back to Geraldo on Tehran, because I think we both, you know, love him so much that we may end up having a brawl if possible the next time we see each other, which is not true.

But in all seriousness, let's start with Mueller. Mueller was clear, the A.G. was clear, Mueller's report on the issue of collusion, conspiracy -- that was the fourth time we heard no. Now the Democrats want a fifth bite at the apple. Now they are harassing and abusing their power, they are harassing the office of the president.

This isn't oversight, this is now try and harass the president time, and more importantly, the A.G. said that decision is determined by him, Rod Rosenstein, and even the office of legal counsel weighed in. No obstruction.

So I guess the question here is, Mueller has said -- I'm just going to tell you what is in the report again and again and again, so why?

DAN BONGINO, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, this may be a golden opportunity.

Number one, why -- Nadler is not really that bright, Sean. Nadler screwed this thing up from the start -- you know, from bringing in people from the Nixon era who proceeded to humiliate themselves in front of congressional hearings, to asking Hope Hicks, calling her Mrs. Lewandowski. Nadler has humiliated himself, and believe me, the Democrats know this.

Why are they doing this? Because Nadler is running (INAUDIBLE).

But here's the key question, this is why it is going to blow up in their face. One Republican, I'm sure, is going to ask Mueller the key question: when exactly did you know the collusion fairy tale was a hoax? And the answer, if Mueller is going to be honest, is the day I hired Andrew Weissmann, because Andrew Weissmann, Sean, was briefed a year earlier, 2016, on the problems of the dossier.

HANNITY: August of 2016.

BONGINO: 2016.

HANNITY: His pit bull, number one guy one guy --

BONGINO: Yes!

HANNITY: Oh, by the way, he was at Hillary's victory party. Let's add this.

BONGINO: Yes.

HANNITY: Who also "Licensed to Lie", Sidney Powell's huge book, exposing all of his corruption, was, you know, there for the world to read, and I urge people to read it. Geraldo, after the nine and a half minute -- well, Robert Mueller statement, that then Attorney General Barr, the special counsel's office had to clean up badly, and I think frankly, the attorney general threw Mueller a lifeline, because didn't remember what he said or he didn't write it, or he doesn't know, which is even worse.

Why do I suspect -- this is not going to go well for him at all?

GERALDO RIVERA, CORRESPONDENT-AT-LARGE: It isn't. We are going back down memory lane.

You know, Nadler and Schiff remind me of high school athletes, they graduated from high school, and now nobody recognizes them. They are offended that they are outside the mainstream of public consciousness now. Nobody knows who they are or what they are doing. They have been forgotten.

So they are desperately questing for attention. They're dragging back Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller has already told them, in no uncertain terms, that his testimony will stick exactly to the Mueller report. It's there all in writing, and people are truly interested in it, I'm interested in the conclusion.

The conclusion said there is no collusion. That the president of the United States is not a traitor to the United States. The president of the United States is not a spy for Vladimir Putin. The president of the United States has been wrongly accused for two and a half years, had his administration just so bothered, so harassed by these political operatives and yet he still managed --

HANNITY: Let me ask you this --

RIVERA: -- more or less to be successful.

HANNITY: Let's imagine Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Matt Gaetz, Doug Collins get a chance to question Robert Mueller. They get a chance to talk, too. And I'm thinking, they're going to want to know when Mueller knew there was no collusion. Then they're going to say, well, you had a broad mandate, Mr. Mueller, how did you have time for FARA violations which are never invoked, and taxi medallions, and loan applications, and tax violations -- by the way, always pay your taxes, don't lie on loan applications, we've got it.

But with the broad mandate, he didn't look at all into the Russian dossier, with "The New York Times" suspect was always Russian disinformation? How does he answer, legitimately, that question? Because I don't think there is any good answer to that question?

(CROSSTALK)

RIVERA: Nor is there a good answer -- I'm sorry, Dan. Go ahead.

BONGINO: I just wanted to bring up this point. Remember, Mueller was hired in May 2017, Sean. In July of 2017, Horowitz turns over to Mueller's team the Peter Strzok text. How does Mueller continue his investigation at that point?

Notice what he does after that, Mueller doesn't stop the investigation -- he doubles down. He raids Manafort's house in the morning, he goes and picks up Papadopoulos at the airport, has his FBI agents do it. Mueller's investigation was a hoax from the beginning. The report is the same.

HANNITY: OK, I got another question.

Geraldo, how does he possibly answer the question -- Andrew Weissmann, his pit bull, OK, he was at Hillary's victory party. Andrew Weissmann is pit bull, "Licensed to Lie" talks about how he withheld exculpatory evidence, how tens of thousands of Americans lost his job, he lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court, sent Merrill executives that were innocent to jail, that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit, and he also hired Hillary's attorney at the Clinton Foundation, and they were all Democrats appeared he couldn't find one Republican?

How is Mueller going to answer that one? I don't think that is going to be very comfortable for Robert Mueller.

RIVERA: How is going to answer -- how is he going to answer the question: how dare you ruin the lives of people like General Michael Flynn? How dare you --

HANNITY: Bingo.

RIVERA: -- when you knew that there was no collusion with the Russians? You stuck with this thing, you made these people work themselves into perjury traps, you slammed them with these procedural offenses, you wrecked their lives, you distracted the American people.

I think that the price that this testimony will cost the Democrats will be grievous to them. They will rue the day that Nadler and Schiff let their ambition get ahead of their common sense, their political sense, and drag this man back into center stage of the American public.

(CROSSTALK)

RIVERA: -- issues to deal with right now.

HANNITY: Now we know that Flynn talks to the deputy FBI director, McCabe, because FBI guys come in to see him. He asked, do I need a lawyer? Oh, no, you don't need a lawyer. OK.

Then, Comey is bragging, in his way, oh, I took full advantage of the chaos, something I would never do in the Obama or Bush administrations. I sent my guys in there, what, to screw a 33-year veteran who served in combat, this country? And then there is more to it --

RIVERA: And do it in the White House. They did it in the White House. That's how obscene this was.

HANNITY: But they are bragging about setting him up --

(CROSSTALK)

RIVERA: Don't tell anybody what is going on.

HANNITY: They knew everything he said, and said you don't need a lawyer. And the FBI still didn't think he lied to them. But he got bankrupt, threatened his kid and his family, we will take your son down with you, and he fell on the sword like any good father would do.

Dan Bongino, I know you would do it. Geraldo would do it. I would do it.

BONGINO: Yes, and, Sean, even worse, you look at Peter Strzok's texts from the day that Lindsey Graham asked Sally Yates and Jim Clapper about the unmasking of Flynn, Peter Strzok in his texts to Lisa Page says, hey, this unmasking thing is the incorrect narrative.

Sean, I ask you, what do you think he means by that? Is it possible there was a FISA on Flynn, too? I think that might be one of the next shoes to drop. Stay tuned for that one.

HANNITY: Wait a minute, it was leaked intelligence on Flynn, raw, leaked intelligence, and they had what he said, and they told him no lawyer, and bragged about setting him -- all right, I got to let you both.

Geraldo, thank you. Dan Bongino, thank you.

Now on the phone to react to this rigging news, there is a lot of it. Good, Mueller has agreed to testify in July 17. He is a counsel for the president, President Trump's attorney, Jay Sekulow, also the president of the American Center for Law and Justice, and on with us last night.

Jay, I have a few questions for Mueller that I think guys like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Doug Collins and others would ask. You know, for example, when did he know that there was no collusion? Why did he have such a broad mandate to focus on FARA violations, taxi medallions, lone applications, you know, years and years and decades old tax issues?

But -- well, he knew about the dirty Russian dossier. How does he answer the question about why he never, ever -- you know -- looked into that? I don't think there's a good answer for him.

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY (via telephone): Well, the first thing he needs to answer is his own conflicts of interest. He was interviewed for the FBI director's job, didn't get it, and becomes a special counsel the next day peered so that is one. As the president said, had a business dispute that was long-standing, so you have that one.

And then you have -- it was interesting in the last panel, the discussion about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. I've asked this question: what happened to the evidence that they gathered for over a year on this counterintelligence investigation? So the special counsel is going to have to answer that.

Now, what's interesting is Bob Mueller send my report is my testimony. And what is the report? The whole bases upon which this investigation began was concerns over collusion, conspiracy with the Russians and the Trump campaign.

And what was the conclusion? There was no collusion, conspiracy with the Trump campaign. That was the legal conclusion reached by Bob Mueller. As it relates to obstruction of justice, as Bill Barr said so perfectly, correct, legally, no obstruction.

So those are the two questions for the fact that Bob Mueller is going to testify, I don't think you are going to see anything different in his testimony than what's in his report which is at the end of the day, there's been no collusion and no obstruction. So --

HANNITY: But here's the problem, he had said to multiple -- he had said to multiple people --

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: Republicans have the right to ask questions -- hard questions -- about Strzok and Page. Who gave conflicting testimony right now? Who fired Peter Strzok for this? Andrew McCabe said he did. Bob Mueller's office said he did.

Well, one of them did and one of them did not, so somebody is not telling the truth. We will find that out. That's number one.

So, you put that in the context of everything, it will be an interesting hearing. I don't think the conclusion is going to change anything of what happens here, but people will hear from Bob Mueller. I don't think we will get anything different than the statement he made a couple weeks back, but again, he's going to answer some real questions, ones that have gone unanswered so far.

HANNITY: Jay, I watched that 9-1/2-minute press conference, and -- well, God bless our media mob, conspiracy theorist, liars, hoaxsters, because for a few hours they thought they had it all. Wait a minute, Mueller said that the reason he couldn't consider indictment because of DOJ policy, and constitutional issues.

And then a few hours later, there was a press release. It was from the Attorney General Barr, and it was from the special counsel's office, and basically said, oh, never mind, we said just the opposite many, many times before. And I thought it was a great embarrassment to Robert Mueller -- and I will be honest, as I watched him, I got the feeling, watching back, he had neither read the statement, was stumbling over the statement, or did in the member what he said.

SEKULOW: Here is why he was stumbling over that -- the whole report is incoherent. OK? Legally incoherent is the way that -- let's be honest. I mean, a legal theory that was absurd, obstruction by tweet was kind of a theory out there. That was absurd.

To be complicated by the fact that (INAUDIBLE) burden of prove, we couldn't prove you innocent, therefore we are making allegations. That's not what the law is.

Everybody forgets the part where he did say, we are not saying the president committed a crime, because the president did not commit a crime, but we are not exonerating him, either. The job of the prosecutor is not to exonerate. They either bring a case or they did not. They did not, that is what is important here.

And Bob Mueller is going to have to testify that they did not. And we'll hear what his theory is. I can't imagine it's going to be any different than his report, but I'm going to say this, Sean, again, there are a lot of questions that have to be asked here and have to be answered. And let's just hope his testimony, will find out what that's going to be.

But I don't expect it to be any different in this report peered at the end of the day, what the report finds: no collusion, conspiracy, however you want to phrase it. No obstruction.

HANNITY: How does he --

SEKULOW: And what Bill Barr said with Rod Rosenstein at his right, that there is no obstruction of intent. And the theories that were being floated around that a lot of the media talked about were, in my view, absurd.

But you know what, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because the case is closed. It's done. No testifying. He will have to answer questions -- and it's going to be hard questions for him to answer.

I mean, I've liked -- I've always wanted to know what happened to the evidence that Strzok -- what happened to Peter Strzok's evidence that he gathered for a year and a half.

HANNITY: By the way -- Jay -- Jay let me interrupt. Remember they led--

SEKULOW (via telephone): I want to know where his phone went--

HANNITY: They sent back Strzok and Page's phone to the manufacturer--

SEKULOW (via telephone): How did Peter Strzok's phone, when it was turned into the Special Counsel's office--

HANNITY: Yes.

SEKULOW (via telephone): --gets wiped out and nobody kept a record of what was on it? How is that even possible?

HANNITY: --well, the McCabe is lying--

SEKULOW (via telephone): --can you imagine going into audit and saying I don't have receipt. It's the same thing. This is a -- in the real world this is not supposed to happen. How did Bob Mueller's office allowed that to take place? That Peter Strzok, at that point he was fired, phone was put on a shelf and not -- would not catalog -- when the whole issue was, the messages going back and forth.

So there's a lot that have to be answered. But there's another one. So, I mean, I can make a list of 100 questions. But I'm sure the Congressman can and as well and will.

HANNITY: By the way, I think you should write a column about, how does he justify Andrew Weissmann and Hillary's victory party, didn't turn out that way. Only Democrat--

SEKULOW (via telephone): You know what I find about that, Sean? Even with all of that--

HANNITY: Andrew Weissmann's atrocious history--

SEKULOW (via telephone): --even with all of that staff that he had -- listen -- hang on a second -- and the 2,800 subpoenas and the 500 witnesses and all of it this. What was -- the basis on the investigation was what? Collusion, conspiracy. And what did Bob Mueller conclude? There was none -- even with those people.

And I want to know the same thing, when did you this was not the case? And it had to be very early on, because even Peter Strzok said early on, there is no there-there. That was Peter Strzok's words.

Of course, they won't be able to show that in his text messages anymore, because they let the phone get wiped out before they -- when he left.

HANNITY: All right, Jay Sekulow.

SEKULOW (via telephone): --and reissued the -- one of the phones to somebody else, because, I guess, the federal government can't afford an iPhone.

HANNITY: Let me -- this is not going to work out the way they think. Trust me. Jay Sekulow, Counsel to the President. Also, big news yesterday, there's other news coming up tomorrow that I'm hearing about, that is going to take what you were able to get from the Freedom of Information Act request or the ACLJ has and even take it further. Jay, thank you for being with.

All right. Joining us now with more reaction to the breaking news, Mueller has agreed to testify. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, yesterday by the way, you asked -- you said the American people must be able to see it all.

I agree and you can make it happen. But it was your key question to the Attorney General that I have played over and over again. I don't have time with all the news. Well -- but I played it probably between radio and TV 60 times. And the question was crucial, because you asked--

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: I won't rule all these--

HANNITY: --did Robert Mueller have the resources, did he have the time, did he have this --?

GRAHAM: Right, right.

HANNITY: --are you certain? Then you said, do you care about a rig -- possibly rigged investigation, FISA abuse, I'll let you take it from there.

GRAHAM: Well, bottom-line is, after all you're looking, and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No. Do you stand by your report? Yes. Did you turn it over to the Attorney General to decide about obstruction? And the Attorney General said I did and I'm not going to revisit it.

So it is case closed for me. So they can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.

HANNITY: I think -- now let's go back to some of the other questions. How do you justify hiring Hillary's attorney -- only Democrats -- Andrew Weissmann, he couldn't find one Republican -- not one?

GRAHAM: This will blow up in their face. This will blow it in their face. The conclusions can't change. There is no collusion, that's what the whole damn thing was about to begin with. There's nobody on earth to bring an obstruction case based on these facts.

The President gave 1.4 million documents to Mueller. McGahn, his lawyer, testified for 30 hours. He made everybody available to Mueller that Mueller wanted to talk to. And he submitted question -- answered questions in writing. So this President did nothing to stop Mueller from finding the truth.

HANNITY: If you go back -- I mentioned to Jay Sekulow that nine and a half minute press conference he did. And boy, the media was so quick, they thought that conspiracy theory came back to life. It's serious and significant, though.

GRAHAM: Right.

HANNITY: I watched it and I was like, number one, I knew he had said the opposite, waiting for people to catch out.

GRAHAM: Right.

HANNITY: And number two, when you think about the attorney -- I thought the Attorney General Barr was being very gracious to the Special Counsel and threw him a lifeline. They released a joint statement, basically say, I didn't mean what I said for nine and a half minutes. That's -- that ought to be very troublesome for Robert Mueller, because--

GRAHAM: Right. But I hope people understand what you're talking about, because when Mueller came in to tell Barr that he couldn't decide, he couldn't make a decision about obstruction, he was going to leave it to Barr.

And Barr asked him point-blank, "Is this because of the DOJ policy you don't indict a sitting President?" He said, "No". He said, "Complicated facts and complicated law would not allow him to reach a conclusion".

So after two years and X amount of dollars and FBI agents, if he couldn't decide on obstruction of justice, why do you think Barr would reach a different conclusion other than you can't prosecute?

HANNITY: OK. So let me go -- and I want to ask you specifically, because you were the one saying it last week. First of all, I am very happy -- you have pledged the American people all of these issues starting with the rigged investigation and the Hillary--

GRAHAM: Right.

HANNITY: OK. And by the way, I don't think you delete subpoenaed e-mails and clean the hard drive, I would say that's probably the best case of obstruction of justice I've ever seen, but it's only -- it only matters if it's Donald Trump.

But you're going to go back to the beginning--

GRAHAM: Right.

HANNITY: --tell us what else specifically you're interested in and that you will get to the bottom of?

GRAHAM: OK. I want to hear -- I want to see the Horowitz report about did the DOJ and FBI defraud the FISA Court, that did they lie to the FISA Court to get a warrant against Carter Page? I want to find out why they opened the counterintelligence investigation against Trump?

And I really do believe the only reason Clinton wasn't charged with anything is because that if you wanted her to win, how do you charge her with a crime in the middle of a campaign?

HANNITY: These are really good questions and I think the FISA abuse is--

GRAHAM: Stay tuned.

HANNITY: --really just the tip of the iceberg. But think about this. We already know what Christopher Steele is going to say, because he's ready said it in an interrogatory. So here is the big question, so in January of 2017, there's James Comey in Trump Tower saying, "Well we have this dossier. It's salacious, but it's unverified". January 17 -- before he becomes President.

October 2016, he signs the first FISA application that we now know, because of Steele's testimony. I have no idea of any of its true under threat of perjury. Means it's an unverifiable document. At the top of a FISA warrant -- I've been told, I've never seen one -- it actually says verified.

Now the question is, does that sound like a premeditated fraud on the FISA Court judges and the does that -- well, we know Comey lied. He lied in October 2016 to January 2017. But he had to lie in October 2016 because Steele undercuts his story.

GRAHAM: Right. So what we know is McCabe said, "Without the dossier they'd be no warrant against Carter Page". Here's the question that I ask anybody, is the dossier verified to this day? We now know that you know Steele said, "I don't know if it's true or not".

Comey tells the President in January 2017 it is salacious, unverified. It's the same document they said was reliable and trustworthy in October. It doesn't add up. The dossier is a bunch of garbage. I can tell you without any doubt it's a bunch of garbage.

And it's used to get a warrant American citizen and somebody's going to be held accountable for that.

HANNITY: All right. Senator Graham great to see you. By the way -- Oh Trey Gowdy said he's going to treat us to (inaudible), because he's been very reluctant to my show only when Jason Chaffetz is hosting. I am fan of Trey Gowdy. He is a great guy. All right, good to see you.

GRAHAM: He is a great guy, but I'll believe it when I see it.

HANNITY: I think we'll all have to pay. Because if Hannity pays there's going to be some controversy somewhere, somebody's going to write it out. I'll be in trouble. All right. Good to see you Senator. Thank you.

Joining us now, Fox News Contributor Karl Rove. I want to look at the magnitude of this Karl in -- through a political prism. We are going to watch this week, because we got a preview speaking of South Carolina this weekend of how radical, how extreme this Democratic -- new Democratic Socialist Party has become. But, more importantly, they're all creating a circular firing squad. They're all trying to out socialist the next one and destroy their opponents.

But add to this, this all happened on Biden-Obama's watch. You add to, this Devin Nunes warned about this in 2014, the Russians would do this. They let it happen. They did nothing to prevent it.

KARL ROVE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that's not exactly right, because we have the President Obama saying that he was going to speak sharply to Vladimir Putin. I'm sure that Vladimir Putin left that meeting with President Obama's shaking in his boots and asking himself why he'd never even thought about trying to interfere in the U.S. elections.

I'm, obviously, being a little sarcastic here. The President Obama now says that the reason -- and his defenders now say that the reason that he did not issue a more public denunciation of the Russian efforts was they didn't want to draw attention to it.

But, look, you're right, if this happened on their watch -- I hope and every indication is, is that the government is going to take firm steps to keep any foreign government or foreign actors from participating similarly in the 2020 Presidential elections. And I'm sure every American thinks that's wise.

HANNITY: Karl you're a pretty smart guy. You've been around politics so round or two, maybe longer, like me. And you know you see the Democrats so excited to have Mueller and I'm thinking, I know Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows and I've read their closed-door questioning of many people involved in this, and it's been fairly -- to be honest brutal. And they have exposed a lot.

I don't believe, in the things we talked about, how does he justify hiring Hillary's attorney, only Democrats, how does he answer the question about is nine and a half minutes press conference that he screwed up badly? How does he mentioned the question they had time for FARA, taxi medallions, loan applications and taxes, a broad mandate that didn't include a dirty Russian dossier paid for by the other candidate?

ROVE: Well, I that -- that's one way of looking at it. Can I look at it from a different way?

HANNITY: Sure.

ROVE: Since the Mueller report came out two things have happened. The President's favorables and unfavorables have stabilized and the percentage of people who say they don't want to go through impeachment and don't think impeachment is justified has risen dramatically.

So what has happened with the Mueller report is the American people heard all it. Many of them went out and bought copies of it. Many of them heard about it on cable TV and on the internet for enormous amount of time.

And what they did is, they said they've decided essentially, unless you are a hardcore Democrat, unless you have already condemned Donald Trump, not only to impeachment but to prison -- if you're if you're a normal and ordinary American who doesn't have those strong partisan opinions that Mueller report led you to say it's over.

Now this is a problem for the Democrats. The longer they talk about impeachment, the more they appear to be bent upon investigating the President. And that alone, the more the American people are going to conclude, "Hey, those people don't have our best interests at heart".

And think about this. The number one message of the Democrats today is investigate and impeach. Number two, message and growing up -- getting close to it is, the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Democratic presidential candidate message of free everything.

Free college, we're going to forgive your debts, we're going to have a guaranteed basic income -- $1,000 through check every month for every American. We're going to have Medicare-for-all, abolish your private insurance, have the government take it over. I mean free everything -- guaranteed federal job.

All these lunatic proposals that we hear from the campaign trail, that's the second message. Where's the winning message for the Democrats in either one of those two things?

So Mueller's appearance before the Senate -- before the house, excuse me, I think sure Republicans are going to ask him some tough questions and they deserve answers on those.

HANNITY: Oh, I can't wait.

ROVE: But I think that general -- the general impression is going to be, this is over. Why are we keep talking about it?

HANNITY: And by the way, he said, all he's going to do is repeat that. So--

ROVE: Absolutely.

HANNITY: --except now he will have to do it accurately and not have the Attorney General bail him out of a joint statement later. Karl Rove, good to see you. Thank you for being with us.

All right. Here with reaction to all the breaking news -- yes, Robert Mueller agreed to testify -- former independent counsel. They changed the law to the special counsel law. Ken Starr is with us.

You worked under a very different -- a very different circumstances. You didn't have an option as it relates to testifying. The issue of you were compelled to release this. Interestingly, it was people like Jerry Nadler who didn't want your report to be public, although the law compelled it.

And you took a lot of heat -- if I recall correctly, Mr. Starr for doing your job.

KEN STARR, FORMER UNITED STATES SOLICITOR GENERAL (via telephone): That's exactly right, Sean. It was for me the longest day back in November of 1998. And I think Bob Mueller is going to now I have a very similar experience.

And there will be, just as there were for me, from the Democratic side of the aisle at the time -- there's going to be, as you've been saying and Senator Graham was saying -- there's gonna be very hard questions for Bob Mueller. And that's right, it's the way it should be.

I should have caught up to testify. Bob Mueller should go up to testify. And I greatly respect to Senator Graham's over (ph). But in light of the fact that some 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives are crying for an impeachment inquiry, this is a logical step and I think it's going to be an important day for the American people.

HANNITY: Yes. Well, I do think there were some very, very tough difficult questions for Bob Mueller. I don't understand, for the life of me, with that broad mandate as I've been saying.

FARA violations, decades old taxes -- by the way, everyone pay your taxes, don't lie on loan applications. We got it. Don't lie under oath. But how do you ignore a bought and paid for Russian dossier that was leaked to the American people by, we believed, the intelligence community to impact the election.

Russian lies, whose own author says, he can't -- he didn't know of any of its true, which makes it unverifiable, but becomes the basis to spy on not only Carter Page and there was other spying abroad, but the Trump campaign transition to presidency.

Now that was all based on something that is unverifiable, based on the own author, how did he ignore that sir?

STARR (via telephone): Right. Well, it's a very good question. And I think what Bob Mueller will say is, "Look, this was handed to me. I did and a have occasion to go back and look it". How it came to me is just, "Hey, here's the job, now go do the job as opposed to looking at the background of the job".

Again, I think, these are fair questions that you're raising, Sean. There's so many questions about the investigation itself about why, the wherefore, you've raised some of them here tonight. And I think it's going to be a really an important day -- I keep coming back to the concept of accountability.

Because when Bob Mueller held his press conference, but didn't take questions, I think we should be concerned about that. Why won't you respond to questions from the press? And now I think it's most appropriate that he goes over to the people's House, I think both sides of the aisle, Democrats, Republicans wanted this. And I'm glad that it's -- that it's going to happen.

HANNITY: Do you think he has a hard time -- do you think he has a hard time answering the people he appointed Weissmann? How do you appoint Hillary Clinton's attorney? How do you only appoint Democrats, no Republican donors? How does he answer that?

STARR (via telephone): Yes. And I've raised concerns about that really from the get-go. And just very briefly, Sean, when questions were raised back during my investigation that, "Oh, you're a Republican". I reached out specifically to the other side of the aisle, because the appearance of fairness and even-handedness in the administrative justice, it's very, very important.

So we brought in Sam of Dash of Watergate fame on the Democratic side. We brought in a Deputy Independent Counsel -- terrific guy Mike Chui (ph), who is registered Democrats, voted for President Clinton.

It's important give the public assurances that what you're doing is fair its even-handed, and that's I think a very important question for Bob Mueller to answer.

HANNITY: I was not impressed with this nine and a half minute disastrous press conference. This is going -- is not going to be what the Democrats think -- tell you that.

Although, Bob Mueller's people apparently, according to Fox News is just breaking, the subpoena is a friendly subpoena. He will only appear and stick to the four corners of the report. He's not going to say a thing.

When we come back, our top story tonight, Mueller will testify in front of Congress and much more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right. More on tonight's big breaking news, we're learning from our own Chad Pergram that a Mueller subpoena is "A friendly subpoena". That the special counsel will stick to the four quarters of the report in this July 17th testimony.

Well, we do know that, in fact, if he goes a ride, may not work out well like that press conference. Joining us now former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi; Fox News Contributor, Lisa Boothe.

I've laid out my questions that I have and I think he's going to have a very hard time answering them, Pam.

PAM BONDI, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes.

HANNITY: I want to pick the legal brain. What are questions you would like to have answered?

BONDI: Sean, I've been a state prosecutor and I've also been a special prosecutor assigned to cases. And first of all, you don't basically kiss and tell. You don't do a report and then come out and talk about it.

His report is his report. And if he wanted to say that President should have been charged, but for executive privilege, he should have said that. And I think Bill Barr would be a great person to come in to say, he told him otherwise. Bill Barr said, Mueller told him flat out that, that was not why he was not charging the President, because of executive privilege.

There was nothing there. No evidence of collusion. You know what questions I'd like to ask him? Why did you keep all these horrible investigators on the case after you found out that they were totally biased against the President of the United States? I would loved to cross-examine Mueller.

HANNITY: I'd like to know why he sent Strzok and Page's phone back to the manufacturer to get cleaned.

BONDI: Exactly.

HANNITY: And by the way, is he -- did he fire them or was it McCabe? Because McCabe says it wasn't Mueller.

BONDI: And, Sean, he needs to tread very carefully. He needs to tread very carefully in this hearing or he's going to be the subject of an investigation.

HANNITY: Let me tell you something. I don't think Bob Barr can bail him out any more than he did the last time, that's my humble opinion. That was my read on it. Was that your read?

LISA BOOTHE, CONTRIBUTOR: I got a pretty simple question for Robert Mueller, when did you know there was no collusion and why did the investigation go past that point? I think a lot of people want to know the answer.

I would also call into question his political motivations? What motivated him to go out and give that press conference, if it wasn't just to give more fuel to Democrats for impeachment? His report had already been out in the public domain -- almost in full.

The Attorney General and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, already came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence there for obstruction of justice, so what motivation did he have for going out there, giving a press conference, when all of this information was already out there if it wasn't politically motivated to help out the Democrats?

HANNITY: You know that's such a great point. All right. Lisa, thank you. Great job by the way on "The Five", congratulations.

BOOTHE: Thanks Sean.

HANNITY: --for being with us. Pam is going to stay with us. First, we have some breaking news live from the Capitol. Capitol Hill has her own Chad Pergram. Now Chad is like one of these geniuses.

And, although, I've never been on the Fox computers, because, well, I just don't know how to -- I don't want to be on it and I and thankfully I have people to help me with that. But he sends out the most detailed, fascinating, play-by-play, everything that goes on in Capitol Hill.

This guy's so checked into everything, I'm amazed that how well you do. And you know there are a lot of lazy news people, they don't do anything. They don't even pick up the phone. They miss the biggest story in our lifetime, in my view.

But anyway, you do a great job and I wanted to let our audience know that.

CHAD PERGRAM, POLITICAL REPORTER: Thank you.

HANNITY: What do you got?

PERGRAM: Thank you. Well, right now you know they are trying to process what this subpoena means. Now I am told in just the past couple of minutes, from senior sources here, that this is a friendly subpoena. In other words, that this was pre-baked before they went in.

I am told that Bob Mueller would only appear if he was subpoenaed and will stick to the four corners of his report, that's what he said in his statement several weeks ago when they released the report.

Of course, you could imagine Democrats wanting to get at him and see if there was distance between him and William Barr, the Attorney General.

The other question, though, of course, is what Republicans are going to ask? They're going to want to know the genesis of the Steele dossier, the Page and Strzok text messages. Also one source said to me tonight -- a Republican source, how many informants were on the campaign and what were they looking at?

Those are going to be key questions and if Bob Mueller sticks to the four corners of that, Republicans are going to say, "Look, he doesn't look very credible". This is the comment here from Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff as they put this together.

They said Americans have demanded to hear directly from the special counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined and that's why they want him to appear, that's very key.

And I tell you, Sean, we've had some pretty explosive hearings on Capitol Hill before. You think of James Comey testifying, you think of Jeff Sessions in the Senate a couple of years ago, you think about Michael Cohen in February here. This will dwarf that. The magnitude of this will be off the Richter Scale, Sean.

HANNITY: It's amazing. It's funny. I know I talk a lot and I've actually played on radio and TV, Pam. I have a tape recording of real Russia collusion. The cowardly Schiff talking to somebody he thinks is a Russian to get dirt to influence our elections.

Now, I don't I understand the "Media Mob" wants to protect the cowardly Schiff, but he has lied to the American people he -- repeatedly. He has pushed conspiracy theories and the hoax. I've offered him four hours, three hours of radio, one hour of the TV and he won't come on.

But I hear that, and I also see that Hillary's Russian dossier, and Robert Mueller didn't bring up any of that, why?

BONDI: I think you answered the question. He had no intention of bringing that up, because he and the people on his team were going after President Trump and they had nothing there. I think another major question that Mueller is going to have to answer -- I think it's a huge mistake for him to come in and testify, by the way.

He's going to have to answer, "The second you knew that information about the -- how that FISA warrant was obtained, by false information -- and he knew it, why did you not go back to that court? You had an obligation as the chief prosecutor on this case -- an ethical and moral obligation to take it back to the FISA Court and he did not do that as far as we know.

HANNITY: I mean, does he justify that, but he but he got--

BONDI: He can't.

HANNITY: FARA violations, that's pretty broad man -- that's a pretty far stretch. Taxi medallions--

BONDI: It is.

HANNITY: --OK, whatever, wherever, that was a broad mandate. But you're not going to deal with the Russian dossier that is unverifiable, that was used to spy on, let's see, the opposition party and then the transition and then the President of the United States of America? How did he miss that little detail?

BONDI: He didn't miss it. He didn't miss the detail. In my opinion, he just chose not to bring it out, because it hurt the case. And he's going to have to answer to all that. He's going to have some really, really tough questions.

HANNITY: Did you think, when you watched him for that nine and a half minutes -- I almost felt he had not read his own -- what he was -- I felt that he was reading it for the first time. He was stumbling all over the place--

BONDI: I mean--

HANNITY: --or he didn't know what it was, somebody else wrote. I didn't know what to think. What do you think? I only have five seconds -- 10 second.

BONDI: I do you think he's a smart man and I thought he was going to get away with it maybe in his opinion. I used to think he was an ethical man after all this. I just -- it's very, very sad and it's sad how his career is perhaps going to end.

HANNITY: All right. Pam Bondi, thank you. I had my suspicions from the get- go. We will never be the media mob. Let not your heart be troubled, the news continues.

Laura Ingraham, big news night for you tonight as well.

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.