Mueller investigation criticized as being 'one-sided'

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," August 24, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS HOST: Welcome to this special edition of "Hannity: The Left's Agenda."

I'm Jeanine Pirro, in tonight for Sean.

For the hour, we'll show you how Democrats, the deep state and the media are all working together against President Donald Trump. First, we'll address the special counsel's partisan probe into Russian collusion. While this administration pushes a sound conservative agenda, Mueller's witch- hunt is dividing the country and wreaking political havoc day after day.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is nowhere to be found. He's recused himself from all things Russia almost immediately after taking office and now, the relationship between President Trump and his absence the attorney general is at an all-time low.

Today, the president mocked Sessions on Twitter writing, quote, Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. Jeff, this is great. What everyone wants. So look into all of the corruption on the other side, including deleted emails, Comey lies and leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, FISA abuse, Christopher Steele and his phony and corrupt dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump campaign, Russian collusion by Dems, and so much more. Open up the papers and documents without redaction. Come on, Jeff. You can do it. The country is waiting.

Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz is slamming Sessions for perpetuating our two-tiered system of justice. Take a look.


JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Donald Trump is right and Jeff Sessions is wrong. Jeff Sessions, to say he hasn't had done any political considerations is totally false. He hasn't done nothing to go after what Congress has been asking for and giving the documents up he. Has done nothing to pursue what is known to be false statements to Congress.

I was the chairman of the Oversight Committee and Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we sent a letter the department of justice asked him to look if Hillary lied under oath, never gave a response. That's because of politics, not because he's not do -- he's just not doing his job.


PIRRO: Even Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Sessions ally, is questioning his ongoing tenure as attorney general. Take a look.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: Every president deserves an attorney general they have confidence in. As to Jeff Sessions, I've never met a finer man. He was a great senator. He's great lawyer. I think he's been a good attorney general.

But this is not working. So I hope the relationship gets better, if it doesn't, I would imagine the president is going to look for a new attorney general because what's going on is unsustainable. I'm not blaming anybody. I love Jeff Sessions.

But from my point of view, the country is not being well-served with as much friction.


PIRRO: Meanwhile, with Sessions MIA, Mueller's partisan team of Democratic donors have aggressively targeted Trump and everyone around him.

Clinton pollster Mark Penn is writing the Cohen's plea deal is merely an attempt to set up Trump and "The Wall Street Journal's" Kimberly Strassel highlighted the FBI's one-sided investigation in a brand new report writing, quote: The country has watched the FBI treat one presidential campaign with kid gloves the other with informants, warrants and eavesdropping.

Joining us now to break all of this down is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, the author of the New York Times bestseller "The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump", Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, and former Clinton pollster and advisor Mark Penn.

All right. Good evening to all of you.

I'm going to start with what Jason Chaffetz said that we just heard on that sound where he talked about sending a letter to Jeff Sessions and saying he never got a response with respect to his investigation of all of the wrongdoings or apparent wrongdoings of the Clinton campaign.

And I'll go to you, Attorney General Pam Bondi. Is Mueller's probe a one- sided probe?

PAM BONDI, R-FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, of course, it is. Because they're only looking at the president of the United States and that's -- that is their target. And anyone who gets in the way is collateral damage. That's what they're doing.

But all of these other issues have to be examined. I mean, we live in a nation of laws and we have got to look at the Clinton emails, everything that you listed in your opening monologue. Everything President Trump said. We've got to look at Strzok, Page, everything, the FISA warrant, everything.

But especially these FBI agents who either, like Lisa Page, got to resign or even the ones who are fired. I'm sorry. They don't get off that easy. They have to be investigated as well.

PIRRO: Well, they have to be investigated and -- but, Gregg, you and I both know that there is no attorney general who's interested in investigating him.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Jeff Sessions is either an unwitting dupe or he's incompetent. It's got to be one of the two. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is equal justice under the law. It's on the pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court. That's how important it is.

But under Jeff Sessions and the previous Department of Justice, it is nothing more than a charade. The president rightly named more than a dozen things Sessions should be investigated for especially, Hillary Clinton and her conduct. James Comey twisted the facts, contorted the law to clear her. Both of them should be in front of a grand jury.

PIRRO: You said something interesting. You gave me two options you said Jeff Sessions as either an unwitting dupe or incompetence.


PIRRO: Or could it be possible that there are people who have convinced him that it's not in his interest to look at potential problems on the Democratic side?

JARRETT: That would go to incompetence because it was so --

PIRRO: That would be sold out. There's a difference between that and --

JARRETT: That would be corrupt.

PIRRO: Right.

JARRETT: For political purposes, you are making decisions about law and justice, which are two polar opposites.

PIRRO: OK, Mark Penn, I'll go to you on this. You know, you your article that we'll get to in a little bit is excellent, I read it. But in terms of, you know, your being someone to work with the Clintons, you know how they work, you know now that it appears or that there is a deep state here that is protecting them.

Am I right in that assumption?

MARK PENN, FORMER CLINTON POLLSTER AND ADVISER: Well, I don't know whether there's a question of whether they're protecting Hillary Clinton or not, but they sure -- they sure are going after President Trump.

PIRRO: No, no, let's back up.

PENN: That's clear, right?

PIRRO: That's not the answer. What I'm looking for, is it the woman at a foundation that was not investigated no one has had there is no kind of forensic accountant -- counting (ph) other than my people who are connected to the Clinton Foundation, that along with money going to the Fusion and that's campaign funds being paid for a dossier that's totally fake. Shouldn't she be looked at?

PENN: Well, look, every schoolchild knows when you look at this that the most cursory tools and investigations were done on the allegations against the Clinton and the Clinton cache, and you're seeing the absolute entire state machinery of prosecutors FBI, CIA, all combined, going after Trump. So, there's no question that there's an unequal scale here that almost everybody in America sees.

PIRRO: So then what do we do about it, Pam? I mean, you're an attorney general. How do you resolve this kind of thing?

BONDI: Well, and again, we know we're not in a perfect world. But given all of our backgrounds, in a perfect world, what should be happening right now, Hillary Clinton should be in receipt of a target letter, Huma Abedin should be in receipt of a target letter, all of these people, and frankly, the American public shouldn't really know what's going on in a clean honest investigation.

So, that's what should be going on. They should be under active investigation right now.

PIRRO: Yes, but they're not.

Go ahead, Gregg.

JARRETT: The only way to do that is to replace Jeff Sessions. Look, when you have lost the confidence of your boss, the president United States, when you've breached that trust, the good and honorable and right thing to do is to submit your letter of resignation, and that's what Jeff Sessions should have done a long time ago. He apparently did it a year ago but the president at the time felt it was unwise to accept it.

PIRRO: Well, that's President Trump. I mean, he gives everyone a chance. I mean, yes, no, you didn't even look at the one who just wrote the book. He gave her a chance and it -- you know, he believes in people, he believes in raising people up.

But you know what? I'm going to go to you, Mark, on your -- on your article where you write about Cohen's plea deal is an attempt to set up Trump.

All right. So, we now know that Michael Cohen has pled guilty and at the end of the plea or one of the last pleas had to do with the reference to campaign finances. What was your take on that? How does that set up the president?

PENN: Look, I think, given what the -- it seems the prosecutors found, for a -- probably Cohen would have pled guilty to the Lindbergh kidnapping had they asked him to. I think at the end of the day, they said, look, plead guilty to this, we'll reduce your sentence, we won't go after your wife. I think that was even now I understand on the table.

And those things that he pled guilty to are not crimes. So, by getting him to plead guilty, they can now create an unindicted co-conspirator conspiracy kind of theory for impeachment on something that's not a crime.
This was established with Clinton. It was established with Edwards very clearly when even the FEC ruled that these payments were not campaign contributions.

And frankly, had they paid them out of the campaign, they'd probably be indicted for misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes.

PIRRO: Well, there's no question about what Mark is saying, Pam, and that is that you know if you paid for it for personal purposes out of your own money -- I mean, there's no campaign violation. They want to interpret it as meaning who's trying to meddle with the 2016 election. I find that stunning as a prosecutor.

BONDI: And we see it. We see CEOs. We see corporate executives all the time who women want to -- women, men want to extort money from them, and they have -- always my advice is go to the police. But they never want to go to the police because they have families or it could affect their stocks.

PIRRO: Right.

BONDI: So what they do is they hire a private attorney, and with that attorney, they do a lock solid non-disclosure. And that's a good attorney.

This is a bad attorney who represented his client poorly.

JARRETT: We had all the members of Congress who paid money to accusers sexual harassment and in exchange for NDAs. Now, obviously, it would benefit them in their reelection, but no prosecutor ever accused them of a campaign crime.

PIRRO: That's very interesting. Yes, for all those people who paid off, but you know, the young interns are move never they sexually arrest with our taxpayers money, I would remind you --

JARRETT: I talked to a career lawyer at the Department of Justice who has since left. He spent half of this time on campaign violations. He said this isn't a crime. It's not a campaign violation.

PIRRO: Of course not.

JARRETT: And it's outrageous that Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein would have authorized a plea guilty for a non-crime.

PIRRO: And the truth is, Mark, that there is no civil or criminal precedent to bring charges on something like this. Is that not correct?

PENN: There is -- look, the precedent was Edwards and he both got off, and the FEC ruled that these payments were not properly campaign payments, and so, all the donors were off the hook.

Look, just think about it for a minute. One of them he's accused of coordinating, not actually even making the payment. And imagine if Michael Avenatti coordinated a payment to Stormy Daniels with CBS to air it to help Hillary, then that would have to be a campaign contribution just as a payment not to air it would be a campaign contribution.

PIRRO: Exactly, exactly..

PENN: All of this, which is why the whole thing's absurd.

PIRRO: The whole thing is absurd and in the end, you know, is lady justice, did she have it in for Donald Trump? And are there are two systems of justice in this country?

I'll ask both of you, 30 seconds.

BONDI: That's what we're seeing. That's clearly what we're seeing we're seeing a vendetta against the president in the United States because he won an election fair and square.

PIRRO: You know what's interesting, Pam, and you and I both been prosecutors. I mean, you know, you we have to be believers. If we weren't believers, we wouldn't be doing the jobs that you're doing that I did.

BONDI: Right.

PIRRO: It's, you know, and it is so frustrating because this is not the white justice is supposed to work.

BONDI: No, and especially when you see a guy like Michael Cohen. We all know, he is a zero as a witness. He's useless.

That guy --

PIRRO: He was a witness and a lawyer.

BONDI: Right. He's told so many different stories, so many stories.

PIRRO: Yes, go ahead, Gregg.

JARRETT: Partisans have ripped the blindfold off of Lady Justice.

PIRRO: Or she's looking through the bandages.

JARRETT: And they have jumped on the scales of justice and they have tipped it in their favor for political purposes, that is anathema to our rule of law in the system of justice.

PIRRO: So, given that, don't you think that if we get no justice in our justice system? Will we get justice in the 2018 elections, quick yes or no, Mark?

PENN: Well, look, I fought strongly for President Clinton.

PIRRO: That's not a yes or no. That's not a yes or no.

PENN: Right. Look, we all get justice every time people vote, instead of having our politicians locked with prosecutors.


JARRETT: No way to know.

PIRRO: Good answer.

Anyway, great panel. Thanks for being with me tonight.

And coming up on this special edition of "Hannity", the liberal media and Democrats have been calling for President Trump to be impeached. We have the tape, next.

And don't forget to by copy of my book "Liars, Leakers and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy".

We'll be right back.


PIRRO: Welcome back to special edition of "Hannity": The Left's Agenda.

All week, Democrats and the liberal media been hysterically calling for President Trump to be impeached. Last night, one MSNBC guest even argued that the Founding Fathers would support Trump's impeachment. Take a look at this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did the Democrats trying to do? Should they be talking impeachment now finally after all this action of this week?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you had asked me that a few months back, Chris, I would have said no, that Democrats should hold off on talking about impeachment because we need to see all of the facts. And I still think that we need to see all of the facts, but I think Tuesday changed things fundamentally in this country.

I think that Democrats can start talking about impeachment not saying that we should just remove the president without going through the full two-step process, right? But I think that if now is when we can't talk about impeachment, when can we talk about impeachment? The president was implicated in a crime and I can't imagine a scenario that is -- could be any more ripe for a serious discussion by responsible adults. It's exactly what the framers would have wanted.


PIRRO: And over on CNN, one host claimed it was President Trump who was playing the politics of fear by mentioning impeachment. Take a look at this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I first just want to get your take on what we heard from Giuliani and President Trump, talking about impeachment. The president forced to address his own impeachment.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, it sounds like they're playing politics of fear right out of that playbook.


Rudy Giuliani, remember, is not playing legal counsel per se to the president. He's playing political advisor. And in -- for stoking these fears among the electorate, that if Democrats win the House, they'll try to impeach the president, that's for turnout. That's a good message. That's a good fear for Rudy Giuliani and Trump to convey to Republicans.


PIRRO: What they failed to mention is that it is the left and the media that's been obsessed with impeaching President Trump. They mentioned the word "impeachment" hundreds of times, just over the past few days.

Here are just some examples.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Given the events of today, the likelihood of impeachment, I'm not saying it's high necessarily, but it certainly went up.











UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. He should resign his office or be impeached.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today, the Trump presidency took a giant step toward impeachment.










UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Impeachment implications are now in the air.





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it is a crime, it certainly is an impeachable offense.





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Impeachment is a word in play here in Washington today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The impeachment.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Impeachment here.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should the president be impeached?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are Democrats who say there's more than enough to impeach.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is itself an impeachable offense?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Consider something as serious as impeachment.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Impeachment process.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president will be removed from office after an impeachment trial.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the impeachment issue.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Talk about impeachment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to talk about impeachment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Impeachment right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do not talk about impeachment.


PIRRO: Joining us now with reaction is FOX News contributor and Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis, and Judicial Watch director of investigations, Christopher Farrell.

All right, gentlemen. I'll start with you, Congressman DeSantis. You know, I -- the truth is that they don't like President Trump, and they want to impeach him for any reason. So, I don't know if it's Russia or if it's Michael Cohen or what it is. I mean, have they even come up with anything impeachable?

REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLORIDA: Well, Judge, we actually voted down an impeachment chance in the House earlier this year that included things like his tweets and the fact that he criticized NFL players for kneeling. They actually -- Democrats wrote that into this thing.

I also find it a little curious, you know, I was one of the guys who blew the whistle on what Congress was doing by using taxpayer funds to pay secret sexual harassment settlements. And that was a bad practice. I blew the whistle on it we stopped it in the House.

But I would reckon that some of these Democrats who were talking about impeaching, you know, they probably could potentially have been involved in that.

I mean, so Congress does this stuff by using tax dollars and they're going to say a private settlement is somehow an impeachable thing? To me, that doesn't make any sense.

PIRRO: All right. And, Charles Hurt, I'll go to you. I mean, the truth is that they've been banging the drum of Russia collusion for how many months since the president been in, anything on that out there?

CHARLES HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, no, and it doesn't matter to them. They don't need a reason. They just hate the guy and they want to get rid of them any way possible in there and they're stunned that American voters voted for him and put him in office in the first place.

You know, that montage you just ran, Judge, was -- if it weren't so -- if it weren't so hilarious, it would be truly alarming to think that that these are serious people who met -- many of whom have been elected to assume a once serious party in America. But I do think that it's important to remember, you know, we can have an argument about high -- what high crimes and misdemeanors means, I would argue that you at least have to have a crime. And right now, we don't even have a crime.


HURT: So, I don't really know how you reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

But one thing is for certain and that is that that Democrats are the ones who get to determine that if they win control of the House next year.


HURT: And if they win control of the House next year, we now know that's what they're going to do. They're going to pursue impeachment and if Republicans don't show up at the polls, and, you know, keep Republicans in power, then that's what we're going to be doing for the next two yes.

PIRRO: But, Chris Farrell, don't you agree that all of his banging of the drum and impeach him, they basically hate him for any reason, they hated him before even started, does that make the president stronger in 2020? Does that make Republican candidates stronger in 2018?

CHRIS FARRELL, JUDICIAL WATCH: They've been looking to impeach him since election night, and you know, fear and hate are the playing the political playing cards at the left. And so, as you could work through the midterms, should the Dems take the House, and actually I think puts President Trump in a stronger position because the American public will be fed up with the transparency of the lie wrapped around the hysteria of this impeachment quest because it'll be 24/7. and it'll be fatiguing and people will realize it's nonsense.

And so, as the president moves towards 2020, I think the net effect will to be actually to strengthen the president politically going towards that 2020 election.

PIRRO: All right. And, Congressman DeSantis, I mean, the reality of it in Congress, given the makeup of the Senate, doesn't make it possible.

DESANTIS: Well, I mean, if the Democrats take the House --

PIRRO: Right.

DESANTIS: -- I mean, they can try to do an impeach with just a bare majority of the House. Now, I mean, it depends on how many members they have. The Senate, you would need 2/3 to convict.

PIRRO: Right.

DESANTIS: And I can tell you, that the stuff that they've been floating thus far, you know, I don't think you'd get a single Republican to support any of that. So, this is all being driven by a very radicalized left-wing base. The party -- the Democratic Party has gone very far to the left, and that's what they're reacting to.

So, I think it is important that Republicans come out to vote. I mean, we're making a lot of progress in this country. Do you really want to go down with this clown car and have this political sideshow? I don't think so.

PIRRO: Well and, you know, Chris, what the congressman is talking about is the fact that let's assume that the worst thing they have right now they're talking about, oh, Michael Cohen, you know, he's going to turn against Donald Trump. Well, he can't get his story straight. He did one in front of a congressional committee and said, you know, the president knew nothing about his son meeting that meeting at Trump tower and then he comes out and says, oh, yes, he knew everything about it, you know?

And even his lawyer Lanny Davis can't figure out what the truth is. He said, yes, no, they're both yes, no -- it's about getting Donald Trump.

FARRELL: Exactly. Look, at this point, they're putting the squeeze on Cohen. He would admit to being on the grassy knoll at this point. You will say anything.


FARRELL: He will say anything to get out of the predicament that he's in, and they know that. And sadly, our Department of Justice and our FBI --


FARRELL: -- will do virtually anything to get the kind of scalp that they're looking for, and that speaks really about a need to reform an incredibly corrupt set of leadership in both of those departments, that department and bureau.

PIRRO: You know, I got to tell you, Charles, that when I think about the effort made by some congressmen to get rid of Rod Rosenstein to impeach him, and then you've got the leadership in Congress, i.e., Paul Ryan who wouldn't even allow it to come forward, don't you think that, you know, it is about the establishment? That it doesn't matter, Trump is still the outsider party is irrelevant, facts are irrelevant, crimes are irrelevant. There's no crime yet.

HURT: Right, and I think you're exactly right. And that's why all of these die were cast literally on election night when all these people woke up and they couldn't believe that the establishment in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, were being threatened by this outsider who really did intend to come in and shake things up.

People -- a lot of people voted for Donald Trump who maybe don't like his tweets, maybe don't like the way he talks. But they like the fact that he wants to come and change the way things work in Washington. And I would say that the silver lining here for Republicans and for Donald Trump right now, with all this impeachment talk, is why all these Democrats are going insane and making complete fools of themselves, with all of this impeachment talk and over here, Donald Trump is talking about the economy, talking about the border wall --


HURT: -- talking about all these important issues that American voters actually care about. It's -- the juxtaposition is just -- it plays very, very well for Donald Trump.

PIRRO: All right. And, Congressman, Adam Schiff -- do you ever run into him and say, gee, where's that Russian collusion thing? The guy who couldn't stop himself from running in front of a camera every 24 hours and talk about it's coming, it's coming. Have you asked him like personally the lunch rule, was it coming?

DESANTIS: Well, I was just going to say, Judge, I don't think you can ever get to him except when he's in front of a CNN camera. So, just isn't something that's feasible.

But there's obviously been no collusion. Two plus years, and here we are.

PIRRO: Do me a favor, ask him for me, will you?

And finally my last question to Chris. Look, you're with Judicial Watch. You guys are looking for all the evidence and all the facts. You get them sometimes quicker than Congress. What do you think you're going to be able to get in the next couple of months before the election?

FARRELL: I think some Bruce Ohr material that's going to be coming to us will be very revealing. He's the linchpin behind this entire game between his wife at Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and we've already uncovered very damning messaging between Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr freaking out about what Comey was going to say under oath and their need to hold the firewall. I mean, this is very damning stuff. Ohr is the lynchpin behind this all.

PIRRO: Well, but the interesting thing guys, I am just going to wrap it up with this is that the more bad stuff comes out, the more the Attorney General refuses to do his job and be objective and look at both sides. All right, gentlemen. Thanks so much for being with me.

And coming up, on this special edition of Hannity, President Trump urged Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo not to travel to North Korea next week due to insufficient progress on denuclearization. Morgan Ortagus and Dan Hoffman are next.


PIRRO: Welcome back to this special edition of "Hannity." The left has a track record of bowing to dictators, but President Trump maintains a peace through strength policy and that was on full display this morning. Trump tweeted, quote, I have asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to go to North Korea at this time, because I feel we are not making sufficient progress with respect to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Additionally because of our mush tougher trading stance with China, I do not believe they are helping with the process of denuclearization as they were once were, despite the U.N. Sanctions which are in place.

Secretary Pompeo looks forward to going to North Korea in the near future, most likely after our trading relationship with China is resolved. In the meantime, I would like to send my warmest regards and respect to the chairman (inaudible). I look forward to seeing him soon. Joining us now with reaction, National Security Global Affairs Analyst, Morgan Ortagus and Fox News contributor and retired CIA senior intelligence officer, Dan Hoffman.

OK, Morgan, I will start with you. Yesterday, Mike Pompeo is going to North Korea along with a special envoy indicating that we're ready to continue serious negotiations with North Korea. Now today something very unusual happened when the President asked Secretary of State, Pompeo, not to go. What happened and how do you read this?

MORGAN ORTAGUS, NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, good evening, Judge Jeanine. Great to see you as always. I think what we're seeing happen is that Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State briefed the President today and it seems that the President got fed up and is frustrated with what he sees as a lack of progress on these talks. And the president we saw did this in the line up to the Singapore talks where he cancelled the meeting with Kim Jong-un and then the North Koreans came back to the table in a way that is efficient from the president's perspective and the meeting went forward.

So, I think we're really seeing here is so many different geopolitical things at play, Judge Jeanine. We are seeing trade talks happen with the Chinese, which I think are very tough and it did not seem to make a lot of progress over the past few days. The Chinese are playing Hardball, but so is this President more than any other President has.

We're all seeing something a very strange dynamic that I think that we need to be aware and that is the South Koreans. President Moon is the -- for lack of a better word, he is the Barack Obama of Asia. And I think that we have to be very careful about what the South Koreans are doing. They made a speech last week, in which they're trying to build this inert- Korean peninsula. Almost similar to European Union of Asia.

They want to land bridge to China and to the rest of Asia. So, I'm worried that the South Korean and the President and his very liberal stance is trying to push a position that is counter to the U.S. interest in the region.

PIRRO: Dan, how do you see what is going on in North Korea with Kim Jong- un. In his own country, what are the dynamics that are going on there?

DANIEL HOFFMAN, RETIRED CIA SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Well, you know, first of all, we've submitted proposals for a pathway and timeline for denuclearization. And as far, Kim Jong-un has resisted those. He is trying to exact maximum economic gain without giving up the nuclear arsenal in which his regime's security depends. And that really does reflect the fact that his economy is in free fall. He needs immediate help and he has to play to his own stakeholders. And the military -- you may recall that just before the summit, Kim Jong-un removed three top defensive officials, including his chief of intelligence and his minster of defense. He is got to be very concerned and aware of the reaction from his own -- for lack of a better word, military base. He is been ruthless about suppressing his own people and ruthless about killing those who get in his own way, including his half-brother in Malaysia.

PIRRO: You know, if Kim Jong-un, I'm going to stay with you, Dan, for a minute. If he is in a free fall, the economy, how does he juggle all of this?

HOFFMAN: It's a delicate balancing act, but he is getting a lot of help right now from China, as well as from Russia. And that is -- I agree with the President. That is the real challenge for us is we need to step up those sanctions. I think it might be a time for us to consider reinstitute those military exercises just to put more pressure on Kim Jong-un and also China and Russia and show them that we're serious.

PIRRO: OK. So Morgan, I'm going to go back to you on what you open up with -- in a couple of minutes go and that is the interaction with China. How do we juggle that?

ORTAGUS: It's an incredibly complex issue, but I think that the way President Trump is countering China is the single most important thing that if from the foreign policy perspective that he will do in his presidency, Judge. We have not had the stomach to do what it takes to counter China. And we tend to look at North Korea and China. We look at trade, we look at sanctions, and we look at these issues and silos. I think what's really smart about what this administration is doing -- and a lot of people would disagree with me on this, but I think the fact that we're looking at the Chinese, looking in this I.P. Looking at sanctions on North Korea, and trying to negotiate with them in a package.

I think is a smart strategy, but mind you, this is not something that is going to happen that President Trump is going to win in the next month or maybe even the next year. This is something where we have to have sustained pressure against the Chinese, because most of the world thinks that when the going gets tough, that America cuts and runs. That is certainly our reputation for the last eight years.

PIRRO: Right.

ORTAGUS: Look what happened in the Middle East. Look at Russia invaded Ukraine and President Obama did nothing. Our reputation is that when it gets tough we leave and people don't believe that President Trump is necessarily going to keep the required pressure on China and on North Korea. I believe he will. I believe this is a president who means what he says. And I think that the Chinese and the North Koreans are wrong to test him.

PIRRO: And Dan, what do you think the long-term game plan should be with respect to North Korea and China by the United States?

HOFFMAN: Well, I think Morgan's points are spot-on. The North Korea challenge for us is intertwined with everything else in the region. There's no question that China and Russia would like to reduce if not eliminate altogether our military presence and our influence in the region. And so, we do need to demonstrate in it for a long haul. We also have to have realistic expectations.

One more point, judge that I would highlight is when the president is making his decision, he had Andy Kim in the room. Andy is the chief of the CIA's Korea Mission Center, along with Secretary Pompeo. This shows the President making a very deliberate decision based on intelligence and the best diplomatic advice he could get from Secretary Pompeo. And I think we should be reassured by that process, which was spot-on.

PIRRO: All right. Second thought, Morgan. What about the satellite imagery that seems to indicate that they are still working on -- North Korea's still working on its nuclearization? Don't they know we can see that stuff?

ORTAGUS: You would think they would know that by now for sure. And we also saw that Secretary Pompeo went to the U.N. just a few weeks ago and called out the Russians and called out the Chinese for these ship to ship oil transfers in which they were evading sanctions. So I think that the President might need to consider going back to the maximum pressure campaign. I think clearly from his tweets today he is still trying to keep a relationship with Kim Jong-un, because from his perspective, Kim Jong-un promise denuclearization that might be time to go back to maximum pressure.

PIRRO: Clearly. All right. Great discussion. Thank you guys.

ORTAGUS: Thank you, Judge.

HOFFMAN: Thank you.

PIRRO: Up next on this special edition of Hannity, we have highlights of President Trump's speech night in Ohio. He warned what would happen if the Democrats win in November. Doug Schoen, David Avella react next. And don't forget, pick up a copy of a book if you like what you're talking about tonight. Liars, leakers, and liberals. Stay with us.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, it's interesting. We have the strongest economy in the history our nation. I hear about a blue wave, I say why is there a blue wave? We are doing better now with jobs. Today there are more people working than at any time ever in the history of our country. So, I don't think there's going to be blue wave. I hope there's a red wave. They keep saying that whoever's president they don't win the midterms. I just don't get it. That no president has ever had this economy.

You have left-wing haters and radicals trying to tear down our institution, disrespect our great American flag, demean our law enforcement, think of that, our flag, a law enforcement, ICE, denigrate your history and disparage our great country.

And they are going so far left and they are being drag left. I remember Schumer when he was like somebody you can talk to, but he has been brought so far left, he is not even rational anymore. But we're not going to let it happen, because we need our law enforcement, we need respect for our national anthem and for our flag.


PIRRO: Welcome back to this special edition of "Hannity." That was president Trump earlier tonight at the Ohio Republican Party state dinner slamming the left ahead of the midterms for their obstruction and attacks on law enforcement. Joining us now with reaction, Fox's news contributor and former Clinton pollster, Doug Schoen and GOPAC chairman, David Avella.

All right guys, I will start with you Doug, you are sitting with me -- I was struck just then by what the president said about Senator Chuck Schumer from New York. He said that he is been brought left. I wonder if he is been brought left and what was the president trying to say? He seemed relatively calm about Schumer. He used to call him crying Chuck and Chuck has been an obstructionist.

DOUG SCHOEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think the President understands that for him to fully succeed, he needs some degree of bipartisan success legislatively. And if Schumer and the Democrats don't cooperate, it makes it tougher and tougher. And I have seen Schumer move to the left and the President is not incorrect in saying that he's caucus has moved left, his party had move left and so is Chuck.

PIRRO: But, David, the chances of Chuck Schumer moving to the left are like slim to none. I mean, moving to the right, I mean, in an effort to have some kind of bipartisan efforts in Congress. I mean, it is resist and obstruct on the part of the left.

DAVID AVELLA, GOPAC CHAIRMAN: Schumer is not going to move towards the right and he is not looking to work with this President, but it was completely appropriate that the President today is in Ohio where we finally got declared the winner of the Ohio 12 special election, which was the Republican nominee Troy Balderson. Because you may remember this was the definitive race. This was the race that was going to show that Democrats, we are going to clean the slate this year and Republicans didn't have a chance.

And what happened? The Republican won. Which goes along with the other news we found out this week that in Wisconsin, (inaudible) who is challenging incumbent Pam Bondi is within the statistical margin of error. Rick Scott is up in Florida. Kevin Cramer is up in North Dakota. I mean, race after race, particularly in the senate, the Republican is beating the Democrat. This big discussion about the Democrats picking up a whole lot of seats, today those numbers don't seem to be there.

PIRRO: But given what Doug, given what David is saying, I mean the truth is that the more the left pushes and pushes, I mean, Michael Cohen and then you've got David Pecker getting immunity form, you know, all of these other individuals that seem close to Trump, I mean, they're pulling all the stops right now.

SCHOEN: And that is really the problem the Republicans have, because the answer to the question the President posed, why won't there be a red wave?
If all of the news is about Pecker, Cohen, Manafort, the economic news doesn't come through and the polling shows that the House is likely today to go Democratic. If the Republicans don't have a unified message, there's not going to be a red wave.

PIRRO: But Republican do have a unified message. And David, it appeared the president is you know, banging the drum saying, you know, we've got more people working than in any other time in history. I mean the president is a smart man. He understands what he needs to say and he is also a tough guy. This isn't going to get him off his game. Make them, bang all they want on the left, but he knows, he talks about law enforcement, he talks about the flag, and he talks about the economy. Those are almost like buzzwords.

AVELLA: Every time someone opens up their investment account or paycheck, or gets another benefit at work, and goes to look for a job and realizes there are more jobs than workers right now in America, they get that it's been this President and the Republicans in Congress that have put those policies in place. And let's also not forget, there is a reason why the Democrats and many in the media need to talk every day about investigations and impeachment and the President is not up for being President, because if they actually focused on what Democrats say, they have no shot. You've got the Senate candidate a work down in Texas, who is out saying that NFL players should kneel before if they feel like it. You've got Elizabeth Warren with absolutely disgusting comments about immigration on the day that Mollie Tibbetts or we found out that Mollie Tibbetts was killed by an illegal immigrant. If we focus on the Democrats, they would have no chance of winning elections this year.

PIRRO: You know, Doug, one of the things that David mentioned is this Democratic Senate candidate in Texas who talked about how great it was to take a knee.

SCHOEN: Acceptable and appropriate for the choice to be there.

PIRRO: Yes, yes. I disagree totally, but is that going to fly in Texas? I mean, isn't that stupid?

SCHOEN: Polls now show him within two to four points, Judge. So Betty O'Rourke is doing pretty well and Ted Cruz is in trouble. If there is something of a blue wave, Cruz could lose?

PIRRO: Is Cruz in trouble David, if Doug is correct. Based on something he is done or is it a changing electorate in Texas?

AVELLA: Ted Cruz is not going to lose, just as it would be disappointing if Republicans don't pick up two or three Senate seats this year. Let's go through the numbers again. Rick Scott is winning in Florida. Josh Hawley is winning in Missouri. Kevin Cramer is winning in North Dakota. There is three. Leah Bootmer (ph) is within two in Wisconsin. Max Rosendale and Patrick Morrisey in Montana West Virginia respectively running competitive races. Republicans are running strong run.

SCHOEN: I've never heard him say anything that suggests that the Democrats have any chance to win anything, yet the Democrats almost certainly will win the House, win a bunch of Senate seats.

PIRRO: I hate to break this, Guys, I've got to go. More of this special edition of "Hannity" right after the break. Stay with us. And thanks, guys. Great debate.


PIRRO: Welcome back to this special edition of HANNITY. Unfortunately, that is all the time we have left this evening, but be sure to pick up a copy of my number one New York Times best seller, Liars, leakers, and liberals. The case against the anti-Trump conspiracy. Chapters 2 and 12 of my book cover Trump's negotiating skills and how he is applied them to his presidency. Ties right into the news tonight.

And President Trump telling Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo not go to North Korea this week, next week. And don't forget to watch Justice tomorrow night at 9:00 Eastern. Anthony Scaramucci, Governor Mike Huckabee, (inaudible) will join me. I hope you'll tune in. Sean is back on Monday. "The Ingraham Angle" is next. Have a great weekend.


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.