Mueller files heavily redacted Flynn 302 interview report

close

Video

Mueller files heavily redacted Flynn 302 interview report

Special counsel files another heavily redacted document in Michael Flynn case; Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett and Fox News contributor Sara Carter react.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 17, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS HOST: This is the upside, too, Tucker.

(LAUGHTER)

Good night, and welcome to “Hannity”. I'm Jeanine Pirro, in tonight for Sean.

Breaking just moments ago, Robert Mueller has publicly released pre-Flynn interview document, the official notes from Peter Strzok and an unnamed agent surrounding their January 2017 interrogation of Lieutenant General Flynn. We're going to break this down, this development, coming up.

But first, disgraced former FBI Director James Comey was back on Capitol Hill today, taking questions from lawmakers behind closed doors. While we don't know exactly what went on inside the hearing, we do know that Comey was pretty rattled during a subsequent press conference where he chastised President Trump, Republican lawmakers, and even Fox News. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: So, another day of Hillary Clinton's emails and the Steele dossier. This, while the president of the United States, is lying about the FBI, attacking the FBI, and attacking the rule of law in this country.

Republicans used to understand that the actions of a president matter, the words of a president matter, the rule of law matters, and the truth matters. Where are those Republicans today? At some point, someone has to stand up, in the face of fear of Fox News, fear of their base, fear of mean tweets, stand up for the values of this country.

REPORTER: Director Comey, the FBI's reputation has taken a big hit over the last year. Do you share any of the responsibility for that?

COMEY: No. The FBI's reputation has taken a big hit because the president of the United States with his acolytes has lied about it constantly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Joining us now with more on what went on during Comey's trip to the Hill is Catherine Herridge -- Catherine.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Judged Jeanine, after nearly six-hour session, the former FBI Director James Comey talked to reporters and he took none of the blame for the damage to FBI's credibility.

COMEY: The FBI's reputation has taken a big hit because the president of the United States with his acolytes has lied about it constantly. But that damage has nothing to do with me.

HERRIDGE: Comey stood by the FBI interview of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, though critics emphasized Flynn was discouraged from having a lawyer and was not warned that any false statements could be prosecuted. Comey also declined to answer Fox's question about whether he mishandled classified information when he shared with his lawyers memos documenting his conversations with the president.

COMEY: I'm not going to talk about it one way or another.

HERRIDGE: Heading into the nearly six-hour session behind closed doors, House Republicans focused on Flynn.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO: For him, it's all about Jim Comey. You can go to last week where he said he got away with not following the rules when they interviewed Mike Flynn.

HERRIDGE: Late Friday, the FBI released his heavily redacted memo used by Comey to brief incoming President Trump about the anti-Trump dossier the DNC and Clinton campaign funded opposition research. The FBI memo described them as, quote, private clients.

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R-N.C.: I think the knowledge of when the FBI and specifically, Director Comey became aware of the involvement of the DNC, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, as it relates to their hiring of Christopher Steele. He indicated -- seemed to indicate the other day that he wasn't aware of that until he read reports long after he was gone. I find that very hard to substantiate based on other evidence.

HERRIDGE: Democrats said the Republican-that investigation is not designed to find the facts, but to damage the special counsel.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMING, D-MD.: They seem to want to play defense counsel for the president and want to do everything in their power to bring doubt regarding the Mueller investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republicans will continue to rake Jim Comey over the coals for as long as they can, and it appears to be at the direction of President Trump.

HERRIDGE: The Comey transcripts should be published within the next 24 hours, Judge.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PIRRO: Thank you. And this brings us to a new development surrounding Christopher Steele's dirty dossier, which we all know was the very document used by James Comey's FBI to prompt an investigation into all things Donald Trump.

The Daily Caller recently found that even a Washington Post reporter admits to the dossier's contents as flat-out unverified still to this day.  And according to this reporter, not even the FBI or CIA believe its key findings. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREG MILLER: The thing that people remember the most vividly about the dossier is, you know, the idea that there is a tape somewhere, some kompromat, of Trump consorting with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow. But we've seen no evidence and it's not for lack of trying. I mean, there is another material in the dossier, we literally spent weeks and months trying to run down.

There's an assertion in there that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, settles (ph) payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. We have had to reporters through every hotel in Prague, all over the place, just to try to figure t out if he was ever there and came away empty. We talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere. They don't believe that ever happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Joining us now with reaction is Washington Times columnist Monica Crowley, and Conservative Review contributing editor Dan Bongino.

Good evening.

Monica, I'll start with you. You've got this Washington Post reporter, who is -- you know, we all know The Washington Post is certainly a liberal newspaper, and the reporter is saying there is nothing that they are talking about with respect to Michael Cohen and Prague, and we didn't get into it come up with the whole is that Michael Cohen went to Prague so that he could pay these Kremlin-related people for information to get into information on the tweets -- or what is it, the DNC information.

Now clearly, this has never been verified, and yet we continue to have this dossier be the basis of a FISA court warrant.

MONICA CROWLEY, WASHINGTON TIMES: And we continue to operate, or at least the left does, on this assumption that the dossier is the backbone of this investigation, and yet you have major reporters from major organizations like "The Washington Post" doing deep dives now for nearly two years and they cannot verify this. They cannot find any substantial facts to substantiate what was presented to the FISA courts.

It's not the reporters from The Washington Post, we've had Bob Woodward writing books, we've had other reporters doing deep investigative work into this and nobody can substantiated it. Set aside the reporters for a moment, Judge, what about what this reporter admitted? That the FBI and CIA, two of the top intelligence and law enforcement agencies, cannot substantiate what's in the dossier.

And still, people are operating under the assumption, including the special counsel, that there is something there to be investigated.

PIRRO: Yes.

And, Dan, after two years, there's been absolutely no evidence connecting this administration, this president, or anyone with any rational collusion -- I call it delusion.

DAN BONGINO, CONSERVATIVE REVIEW CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Yes. Judge, think about where we are right now. Everything Monica just said is absolutely accurate. Despite amounts of resources, international intelligence operations trying to verify it, the press, this dossier still appears to be one big hoax.

But there's the problem: the investigation into Donald Trump, Judge, would not exist without the dossier. Don't take my word for it. I get it, the anti-Trump crowd, they see me an enormous support of the president, don't trust me. Take the number two at the FBI, former number two, Andy McCabe's word for it, who actually said they would not have had a case without the dossier.

Think about where we are. They spied on the Trump team based on a hoax document that the number two at the FBI himself said they wouldn't have had a case without.

How does that not bother everyone listening right now? Beyond me.

PIRRO: Well, and the amazing part of it, Monica, is that you've got Jim Comey -- and we just saw the reaction and that sound, where he is insulted, the president is the liar, the president and his acolytes, when the truth that is Jim Comey and all the upper echelon of the FBI is gone, they are the acolytes, they are the ones who are pushing this false narrative. One is being recommended for criminal prosecution by the DOJ, and that's being McCabe.

CROWLEY: You know, Mr. Comey is a master of projection, Judge. He is so good at accusing President Trump and Republicans of exactly what he himself and his cohorts are guilty of -- lawbreaking, lying, corruption, being uninterested in the truth. He is deflecting from his own behavior and activities by accusing the president and his associates of doing the same thing.

James Comey is the personification of the deep state. Totally ruthless, unaccountable, surrounded by acolytes and flunkies and has assumed throughout this entire amount of time to be untouchable, except they never accepted President Trump to win.

And now, they are being ambushed by history, and that is why you are seeing them double down on the aggression and accusing the president and his team of what they themselves are guilty of.

PIRRO: Well, it certainly is projection.

Dan, you know, is Jim Comey getting away with it? Is the fact that we all know is a friend of Bob Mueller's, will he get away with all of the things that he has done and his corrupt upper echelon of the FBI, in terms of standing in front of the cameras, right in front of us, and trashing Fox News, the president, and everyone else, when it is he and people like Peter Strzok and McCabe, who work for him, who were the ones who were clearly the ones who tried to turn an election?

BONGINO: Yes, listen, what happened today with his disgraceful trashing of Fox News was really an embarrassing episode for Jim Comey. He's disgraced himself. Sadly, he is taking the rest of the FBI with him and that is a shame. There are a lot of good folks working over there.

I talked to a lot of them who are embarrassed by Jim Comey, too.

But here -- Judge, to answer your question, no, I don't think Comey is going to get away with it. And here's the reason why. Let's not forget, there is a very specific, verified procedure called the Woods Procedure to verify information before it goes before the FISA courts. We know that dossier was not verified.

Jim Comey, at some point, had to have signed off on that verification procedure for a document we now know was a hoax. There is a paper trail, Judge.

PIRRO: Dan, I wish I were as confident as you. I don't hear any FISA court judge complaining. I don't hear any judge saying, I want an investigation. I don't hear anyone saying they need to be held in contempt for bringing this before me. I don't even know who it was.

We know that contrary is took the plea on Flynn, which I'm going to get to with Gregg Jarrett and Sara Carter in a minute. But he was taken off the case, and, you know, there is all these dirty dealing going on and nobody is looking at it, and this guy is pontificating, Comey, that is the president who is wrong.

BONGINO: Judge, listen, John Huber and Bob Barr are our last hopes on this one. I cannot o guarantee anything. I'm not a fortune teller. All I can say is there is a paper trail if they want to look and Jim Comey's name is all over at.

PIRRO: His name is all over it.

Monica, last word, I have ten seconds, but I don't have a lot of faith in this guy Huber. I haven't heard a word.

CROWLEY: Well, keep in mind that even though the Democrats are taking control of the House and will shutdown the investigations of the Republican House outgoing, we will be getting a new attorney general in William Barr.  And I do have faith that this new A.G. will go after Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and the whole dirty lot of them, I think.

PIRRO: Monica and Dan, thank you so much.

CROWLEY: You bet.

PIRRO: All right. And joining us now with more in the Mueller team releasing Flynn's interview documents is the author of "The Russia Hoax," Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and Fox News contributor Sara Carter.

All right, guys, I am excited to be doing this. Here we have god just released the new 302 -- we didn't even know if there was a 302, because on Wednesday when Judge Sullivan ordered it be turned in on Friday, we didn't get it on Friday but we get it today. It's heavily redacted.

And the 302, for the viewers, just so you know, it's basically an interview of an individual that has turned into a report, a 302. It is supposed to be done contemporaneously with the report. Now, what we have here is we now have a version of the January 24th interview of Michael Flynn signed February, one version in May, and then we've got one version in August.

Gregg, which one do you believe?

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think you look at the very first one. Usually the first is the most authentic and honest. And it clearly states that these FBI agents who interviewed Michael Flynn determined that he was telling the truth and he wasn't flying. But you know, these prosecutors, Mueller's prosecutors, tried to follow a fast one on this federal judge, Emmet Sullivan, he was having none of it.

Last Friday, they were supposed to hand over these documents. They hid -- deliberately hid -- the 302 from the judge. He noticed it and he issued a minute order today, saying, turn over that document.

So, that's a red flag for the judge, puts them on alert, during tomorrow's jury hearing, he may say why did you hide that document from me?

PIRRO: Well, not only did they hide it, but they defied his order and did not turn in on Friday.

JARRETT: That's right. If you and I did that, we'd be in contempt.

PIRRO: Well, definitely. I someone would be in contempt.

And I'll go to you, Sara. You know, when Mueller withholds a 302, which is the essence of the statement that Flynn made, which is the basis of his lying, as the feds see it, but if they see it to be honest, they said he really wasn't lying. So what we have here is the judge, who, tomorrow, has a decision to make. He can vacate the plea or he can allow the second to go through, which the prosecution is recommending no time.

SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think Judge Sullivan is not just going to sit back and allow Mueller and the special counsel to walk all over him. I think he is definitely going to make a statement. I also want to say, Judge Jeanine, that they didn't turn in the raw notes. That is, the raw notes from the FBI agent, Joe Pietka, who is the other agent who interviewed Flynn.

And that's extremely important, because a lot of times when I was talking to Sidney Powell (ph) about this, a lot of times, the raw materials, those raw notes, are drastically different from the 302s. So, the judge is going to want to compare the raw notes of the FBI agents with these 302s.

And remember, 302s should be done within five days. Why were these 302s -- well, the three of them -- why were they don't consecutively, and so far apart?

PIRRO: And, I'll give you an example of how it supposed to be done.  Hillary Clinton was interviewed on July 2nd of 2016. Her 302 was done that day. Now, we have three 302s that they try h to hide from the judge that they redacted heavily and we don't know which one is the accurate one and there is something that stinks in River City (ph).

JARRETT: And this judge knows it and he has deep experience with prosecutors who lie, deceive, hide exculpatory evidence, and phony up false evidence. It happened in the Ted Stevens case, this judge was presiding.

So, you know, look -- these are prosecutors who don't care about justice and the truth. Mueller's team only cares about getting Trump and winning their cases. But this judge cares about justice and he may turn to the prosecutors tomorrow and say, wait a minute, look at this 302, why did you charge a guy with lying --

PIRRO: When you don't think he was lying? Not only that, the judge has the authority to vacate the plea, the authority to dismiss in the interest of justice, but what is interesting, Flynn did not make any of these motions. The judge will have to do it sua sponte, on his own. Will he?

JARRETT: And notice the judge said, don't turn -- he said, don't turn this over to the defense, turn it over to me.

PIRRO: Right.

JARRETT: I want to see these documents. And the judge may actually turn to Michael Flynn and said, what happened here? If you didn't lie, and the only two witnesses said you didn't like, were you coerced and forced? Did Mueller and his team threaten your son? Did he cause you to essentially go bankrupt and broke? Is that why you pled?

PIRRO: But in addition to that, in addition to that, what he can say is, he can say, you know, you intentionally dissuaded him from bringing an attorney. And although this is not a custodial interrogation, which would require Miranda rights, there is a nuance here, and the nuance is, we may say you don't need a lawyer, and when they try to talk you out of it, Sara, aren't they in as bad a place as if they didn't Mirandize at all?

CARTER: Absolutely they are. And if you look at 302 itself, the lie is at the top of this 302, because they said -- they notified him of the nature of this interview, and that is inaccurate. They never notified him of the nature of the interview because they asked him not to bring an attorney, and they were looking at him for possible criminal purposes, they were trying, in a sense, to a entrap him because they already knew what the conversation was that he had with Ambassador Kislyak and they were going to him.

So, I think the judge is going to be looking at all this. And remember one thing, Judge Jeanine, that there is another FBI agent here. Everybody has talked about Peter Strzok, every has seen what Michael Flynn has had to say but nobody has spoken to the other FBI agent.

(CROSSTALK)

JARRETT: And Rod Rosenstein has refused to make them available, notwithstanding congressional demands. What are they hiding?

PIRRO: They are hiding everything! They are delaying -- you know, I must say that, Sara, when you talk about the beginning of the 302, it says come after being advised of the eight of the identities of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Flynn provided the following information. So you are saying, they said to him, we are looking at you to interrogate you regarding your statement and you are saying that didn't happen.

You have information that that was not a fact. Is that correct?

CARTER: That's correct. That's correct.

PIRRO: Do you want to tell us from where?

CARTER: Well, the sources that I have spoken to and I've written about this, even over six months ago, Judge Jeanine, when he met with those agents at the White House, he believed that he was having a conversation and providing information that was necessary information that they would need, which is the reason why Andrew McCabe said, look, you don't even need to have an attorney there anyways. What would happen is I'd have to notify the DOJ, this is just a conversation.

There was no way at that point in time, according to the sources I have spoken with, that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn thought that he was being interrogated. In fact, throughout half of that interview, he thought they were just having a normal conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

JARRETT: McCabe got on the phone and lied to Flynn about the reason of the interview. Then he pushed him not to have -- oh, you don't need to have a lawyer, we don't need to involve the lawyers in is and they conspired.  Comey, McCabe, and Strzok, and Pietka, apparently, conspired not to tell Flynn they had the transcript of his very legal conversation with the Russian ambassador.

PIRRO: But he already would know that, wouldn't he, Gregg? He would know that he was speaking to the ambassador? Did he know that, Sara?

CARTER: Absolutely, he would have. He was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency previously and then he is the national security adviser. So I think he was very well aware of that phone conversation were actually being recorded. You know, foreign adversaries, I don't think -- or even foreign state actors. I don't think he would have thought at any point in time that he was actually being looked at as a suspect.

According to sources, he never believed he did anything wrong. He never believed he lied, never did anything --

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: In addition to that, the 302 says he was colloquial and friendly.

JARRETT: They set him up. It was such a set up. They lied to him over it.

They had a plan, let's hurt Trump. You heard Comey bragging about, oh, let's take advantage of the fact there is only three and half days into the administration, they don't have their lawyers and all their ducks in a row.  I mean, that is unconscionable, but typical James Comey.

PIRRO: We'll see with the judge does tomorrow.

Coming up, the latest on the children on our southern border, a deal to fund the wall may be close. We're going to have a live report, next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to Hannity.

Congress faces a midnight Friday deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown.

Joining us now for the latest is Garrett Tenney -- Garrett.

GARRETT TENNEY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Judge, tonight, the White House is suggesting it may be able to strike a deal with Democrats to keep the government open. A number of plans are being discussed and at this point, there is still no specific proposal, but as these negotiations continue, it's starting to look like the White House may be softening its hard line on $5 billion for the border ball.

A source with knowledge of the negotiations tells Fox News that one proposal is for a continuing resolution, which would keep the government funded until next year and provides $1.6 billion work border security and about 65 miles of fencing through the Rio Grande section of the southern border. Democratic leaders have already said that they'd be open to such a proposal, but the $1.6 billion is far left to less than the $5 billion the president is looking for.

Earlier today, he stressed the need for a physical wall, tweeting that anytime you hear a Democrat saying that you can good border security without a wall, write them off as just another politician following the party line. Time for us to save billions dollars of year and half at the same time far greater safety and control.

To get the president's wall, sources tell our own John Roberts the White House may seek a legal opinion to see if it can use money from the Department of Defense's budget to start building portions of the wall.  Again, though, we are told that is one of many proposals being discussed and worked out what it is another indication that if the president wants a deal this week to avoid a shutdown, it is likely going to be for far less than $5 billion that he wants.

If a shutdown does drag on into the New Year, several senior Republicans also today pointed out the negotiations will likely only get tougher once Democrats take control of the House -- Judge.

PIRRO: All right. Garrett, thanks so much.

And joining us now with reaction is a syndicated columnist and author Michelle Malkin, along with GOPAC chairman David Avella.

Good evening.

Michelle, I'm going to start with you. You know, the president has made it clear that he has no problem taking responsibility for a partial shutdown, so that he can get the border wall that he has promised. Now, it seems, just as we heard from Garrett Tenney and everything has been happening, that he probably won't get more than the $1.6 billion.

How does that happen with a Republican-controlled House and Senate?

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST AND AUTHOR: Well, for those of us who have watched feckless Republicans in the Beltway capitulate over and over again, this is no surprise. And on both sides of the aisle, what you are seeing with this border disorder and is continued foot dragging and kicking the can down the road, this is a dictionary definition, judge, of border beltway politics as usual. This is the swamp way.

And I got to tell you, my readers who followed my immigration reporting over the last 25 years of it are completely sick of it. They do hope that President Trump is true to who is worried because if they don't feel to the wall, you will fall, and that goes for people on both sides of the aisle.  $1.6 billion? That is laughable. It is a measly, measly down payment on one of the most fundamental duties of this government to protect the states against invasion.

PIRRO: All right, and David, you know I mean, you're in charge of GOPAC, you work with politicians across the country. Why are Republicans not in sync with the President on this?

DAVID AVELLA, CHAIRMAN, GOPAC: Well, somewhat more funding than what the President is asking for, what we have to keep in mind here though is by not funding border security now we're going to be paying a bigger price in the future as more money is going to have to go into fighting the illegal drugs that come into this country, more of the weapons that the criminals are bringing into this country.

I mean, we saw - we heard last week from the department of Homeland Security, how they stopped a 3700 known or suspected terrorists at the border in 2017. They stop 17,000 criminals at the border. They stopped over a 1000 gang members so we can pay the price now or we can pay the price down the line in this.

Now here is the good news, let's say they don't get something done. If the new deal that the President has been able to put together with Mexico doesn't have the economic activity that we think it will, that projections suggest it will, then there'll be new revenue coming in that will give the President actually a stronger hand to say, look, we now have the money coming in that now we should be funding border security.

The last point I want to make is how far Nancy Pelosi has come that during Barack Obama's administration she wanted to pass bills and then find out what was in them and now all of a sudden she has to know everything in any Bill before it passes.

PIRRO: Michelle, what about the idea of using the Department of Defense budget?

MALKIN: Yeah, I'm in the camp of by any means necessary and it is certainly true that you know according to the constitutional mandate in Article 4 Section 4, this is a national security crisis. I mean, we have these migrant invasions and we've talked about this judge, that are coordinated globally. This is sabotage of our sovereignty by I think, menaces inside and outside of our country and if this doesn't constitute a Presidential prerogative for using our defense budget on the border, I don't know what does.

And let's talk about more Democrat hypocrisy because every Senate Democrat in 2013 voted for $46 billion of border security including reinforced steel barriers and Senate Democrats at the time in 2006 including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, who now claims that we don't need physical barriers in order to ensure border security, all voted for the Secure Fence Act which included 30 feet steel bollard fences and walls.

The idea that we don't need physical barriers at a time when countries around the world can't erect them fast enough, it's laughable and they need to be called out.

PIRRO: All right, and David Avella, just quickly how much you think the most the President's going to get.

AVELLA: Hopefully, he's going to give $5 billion but it may not come till 2019.

PIRRO: All right thanks guys and up next, we might be headed for yet another Supreme Court showdown over Obamacare, we'll explain as “Hannity” continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to “Hannity.” Late last week, a federal judge in Texas ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional. Now the case is likely to head to the Supreme Court and many are wondering what Chief Justice Roberts and newly appointed Justice Kavanaugh will do.

Today President Trump offered to work with Democrats on a great replacement if Obamacare is scrapped. The Democrats are already freaking out. Here's what Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: It's an awful ruling, it goes - of course, it does pre-existing conditions, it jeopardizes the tens of millions who are getting good health care in the exchange but it goes way beyond that.

It would knockout funding for treatment of opioids, it would raise drug prices and close the doughnut hole so seniors would pay more for drug prices. It would eliminate a lot of maternal care, all kinds of women's health, it's an awful-awful ruling, we're going to fight this tooth and nail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Meanwhile Democrats are vocal about what they've really wanted all along, Medicare for all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Former Attorney General Eric Holder says, "it's time now to move to some version of Medicare for all and end this nonsense", that was his reaction to Friday's ruling. Do you agree with that?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.: We need universal health care and there are many ways to get that, that is one of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You become President, you're sworn in, you have a Democratic House and Senate, the first Bill, the first big domestic policy legislation you move is?

JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Healthcare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Healthcare. Specifically?

CASTRO: Oh, I believe that we need Medicare for all. I believe that we do, we need to recoup the millions of people that have already lost.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So Medicare for all first thing out of the box is in the Castro administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Joining us now with reaction, Florida Congressman and House Judiciary Committee member, Matt Gaetz, Attorney and Lawyer Differently CEO, Bryan Rotella and RNC national spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany. You know, Congressman Matt Gates, I'm going to ask you this first.

Democrats seem to be excited about the opportunity of fighting for Medicare for all, you think they'd be depressed about Obamacare possibly being unconstitutional but they're like and they're pivoting and they're right on to the next one. Is that ever possible?

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Democrats were happy with Obamacare but now it seems that they won't be satisfied until they have a complete government takeover of health care. There are Americans watching tonight who have seen their premiums rise, they've seen their deductibles become unaffordable and at their jobs, they haven't seen the same career opportunities because Obamacare has been a wet blanket over our economy.

So now with this ruling, it's my expectation that our Chief Justice will have a second opportunity to do the right thing and rule Obamacare unconstitutional. You'll remember Judge that his basis initially for writing an opinion to uphold the law was that it was a tax.

Well, now that we've repealed that tax, the foundation for Obamacare is crumbling and that means we might be able to actually start on healthcare worthy of the great people in this country.

PIRRO: You know Bryan Rotella, I want to talk to you about what since the Congressman brought it up, how you think this vote is going to go in the Supreme Court and what you think of the Texas judge's decision, overturning Obamacare.

BRYAN ROTELLA, CEO, LAWYER DIFERENTLY: Yes, Judge Jeanine, what I would say is there's another rocky movie about this, this is a flat out knockout. I think Sylvester Stallone at his age could come out the way Judge O'Connor, the judge in Texas wrote this 54 page opinion and could get a 9-0 (ph), that's what I'm predicting next June which is when I think this is going to go to the Supreme Court verdict decision upholding what happened in the Texas District Court.

And the reason is this my Congressman alluded to it, Judge O' Connor in the Texas court judge, he laid line and verse, why this baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and that is the individual mandate for the audience, that's what was at issue here is what they were saying.

The folks that were challenging this is when you take that Tax Bill that the President passed with Congress in 2017, that Tax Bill set the individual mandate to zero. By setting that individual mandate to zero, there's no tax. Judge Roberts - Justice Roberts said that it was constitutional because it went to the ability to tax.

PIRRO: Right, right.

ROTELLA: If we have no tax, it's not constitutional, the whole Bill goes away, what we have to think about is, what happens when the Supreme Court upholds this, where does our health care economy go from there?

PIRRO: You know, it's all about severability. I mean, you know, once that individual mandate, the tax piece is gone then that the whole thing apparently fails if the judge's thinking is of help.

Kayleigh, I want to talk to you about what we just heard Chuck Schumer talking about and that was that you know, the sky is falling, there'll be no money for opioid addiction and fighting that, there'll be no money for women giving birth to children and babies.

I mean, it's chicken little, run for the hills.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, NATIONAL SPOKESWOMAN, RNC: Absolutely.

PIRRO: How are the Republicans going to gain say or rebut that kind of message?

MCENANY: By telling the truth which are those are scare tactics. Obamacare is staying in place until it is appealed up to likely the Supreme Court through the fit circuit so Obamacare staying in place, the onus is on Democrats to come to the table. We've put forward very fair minded plans. Graham Cassidy was fantastic.

If Democrats wanted to have a liberal Medicare for all a.k.a. socialized medicine system, they could have done it, however it would be at the state level. Meanwhile the red states would have free market solutions and thriving health care.

It was a fair minded plan but Democrats are not interested in solutions or affordable health care, that's why we have Obamacare where the average premium has doubled, the only one who has taken an interest in solving the health care problem is President Trump who put in place short term health care plans, market based solutions that have actually made this the only year we have not seen premiums rise since Obamacare was put in place.

That is thanks to President Trump and the little he can do from the executive side.

PIRRO: All right and Matt Gaetz finally you know, the Democrats have refused to work with the President on just about everything. I suspect and tell me if I'm wrong that all they're going to do is have this mantra, Medicare for all and they're not going to work to change anything in the run up to the 2020.

GAETZ: They've already voted against tort reform, they've voted against buying insurance across state lines and they've voted against block grants that would unlock the innovation at the state level that Kayleigh was just talking about so I don't know what they're for but they seem to be against the things that would lower prices for Americans.

PIRRO: Okay, thank you, all right. Up next, part two of Sean's interview with Ambassador Nikki Haley, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome to “Hannity.” Here now is part two of Sean's interview with outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEAN HANNITY- HOST: Let me go to Russia here for a second. You know, my good friend Devin Nunes, he actually is very smart and he wrote in 2014 that the Russians are going to try to impact our elections and create chaos.

I don't think anybody disagrees that they have, I believe all of that is true. But I also know that you know, for decades we've also been hacked many times within our government. And I am beyond frustrated that we allow that to happen to us. We have the intelligence to stop that, we haven't done it.

But my question is about Putin, of course, he's a hostile actor, a hostile regime but how do we manage, ICBM pointed at us, we haven't pointed at him, how do we manage that knowing what they try to do to us?

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: I think exactly in the way that the President is communicating with Putin, that needs to continue to go forward but it's very much like the Saudi Arabia situation. We want a relationship with Russia, it's in our interest to try and have communication and relationship with Russia.

They've made that very hard through the poisoning of the Skripals in the U.K. through the fact that we had to go and expel the Russian diplomats, there's been all of these different things that we've had to do and from meddling in the elections.

But we have to communicate what we will deal with and what we won't and once we do that, we develop that relationship and so there are times we have to be very hard on Russia but someone asked me the question, is Russia a friend or foe?

My answer was it depends on the day and our goal is to hopefully have them be a friend more days than they're a foe but it's not going to be because we're being soft on them, it's going to be because they want the relationship back and they are starting to act better now.

HANNITY: Obviously, they're being challenged, obviously a nuclear armed Iran is something the world cannot tolerate, it's too dangerous and - but my greater long term fear would be China and their military build-up has been massive, there's no doubt about it.

But on the other hand, I mean, even this past week, we see that China's moving to make trade concessions with the President on automobiles, on soybeans, things that are important to our farmers, our manufacturers. But what's interesting is the relationship that the President has because every time he's supposed to have a 45 minute meeting, it goes on for four or five hours, there seems to have been a report that has been established.

And they even seem to have been helpful as it relates to North Korea. But long-term I don't know what to make of them.

HALEY: I think that we have to always be cautious of China but I think what has happened has been so much better is the President and President Xi, they're actually friends, they get along and for that reason it hasn't been as hostile as it could be.

But at the same time the President's not going to back down and let China have an advantage and I appreciate the strength that he's shown, I appreciate how he's continuing to push hard, it's what we need from America. They need to know that they can't steal our--

HANNITY: Intellectual property.

HALEY: --intellectual property. They need to know that they can't have unfair trade practices and they need to know that we're watching them and I think you know, whether it's cyber or anything else, China is definitely a country to watch and it's definitely a country that we have to decide what that relationship is going to look like.

But I'll tell you, we're in a good place because at least the President has a communication with the President Xi and he has used it to express good things and bad things.

HANNITY: Yes, these are very consequential times as it relates to the foreign policy issues. I think Mike Pompeo has been a rock star.

HALEY: Yes.

HANNITY: I think you have - had an incredible run here for yourself and I only see a lot of progress that we didn't have, we've reversed a lot of the perceptions as you mentioned earlier. So I've known you a long time, what's next for Ambassador Haley?

HALEY: I think I'm going to take a few days to sleep in which I'm excited about. I'm going to certainly--

HANNITY: Few days to sleep in, that's it? That's all you want?

HALEY: You know, I'm always going to have a voice I'm always going to want to be involved in policy, I'm certainly going to support President Trump's re-election and kind of see where my feet fall. It's been eight years of public service for me, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day so I look forward to seeing what my options are.

HANNITY: Okay, but now the real question. Have you given thought about running for President? Your name is mentioned quite often.

HALEY: I have not and I know a lot of people talk about it and I appreciate that but the one thing I've always done is focus on doing my job and doing it well and I wanted to serve the President and the American people with the best of my ability. I have done that and will do that up until December 31st but it's not something my husband and I've talked about.

It's not anything that were thinking. Just because I think that you know, you can't think too far in the future, you just have to make the best of today and prove what you're capable of and then things fall into place after that.

HANNITY: All right Ambassador, great job, on behalf of the country we appreciate it, thank you so much.

HALEY: Thank you.

HANNITY: And we'll see you soon.

HALEY: Thanks so much. Merry Christmas Sean.

HANNITY: Merry Christmas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PIRRO: Coming up Trace Gallagher with a live report surrounding the former Green Beret who's been charged with murder for killing a suspected Taliban bomb maker, that's next, don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to “HANNITY.” This weekend President Trump announced he would be reviewing the case of Major Matt Golsteyn. Major Golsteyn is charged with murdering a suspected Taliban bomb maker. Trace Gallagher joins us live from the West coast news room with the latest. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, REPORTER, FOX NEWS: Good evening Judge. President Trump says he will review the case of Major Matt Golsteyn though it is very unclear if the President is considering a pardon. Being Commander in Chief means that any involvement could be considered unlawful command influence and could result in the case being thrown out.

Major Mathew Golsteyn was once awarded the silver star for valor for his actions in Afghanistan and was under consideration for the Distinguished Service Cross. Then in 2014 when Golsteyn was interviewing with the CIA and taking a polygraph, he acknowledged killing an alleged Taliban bomb maker who was suspected of killing two marines.

The bomb maker had been detained but under strict rules of engagement, the army was forced to release him. Instead of letting him go, Major Golsteyn tracked him down and killed him, fearing the bomb maker would later target Afghans who were helping U.S. troops.

After Golsteyn's admission, the military launched an investigation but closed it without filing charges. Then he said this in 2016 on Special Report, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER: Did you kill the Taliban bomb maker?

MAJOR MATHEW GOLSTEYN: Yes.

BAIER: You willingly offered up these details-

GOLSTEYN: Right.

BAIER: --at the CIA, right?

GOLSTEYN: That's correct.

BAIER: And that's where it all started?

GOLSTEYN: Pretty much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Partly because of those public comments, the army has now reopened the investigation and President Trump is supporting Golsteyn tweeting, "He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a terrorist bomb maker while overseas."

The Pentagon calls this a law enforcement matter and says it will respect the integrity of the process. Judge.

PIRRO: Trace, thank you. Unfortunately that's all the time we have left this evening. The Christmas season is here so if you're looking for the perfect gift you can pick up a copy of my book, “Liars, Leakers and Liberals.”

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.