Rep. McCarthy: Socialism is taking over the Democratic Party and this country

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," July 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And buckle up. Welcome to “Hannity.”

Big breaking developments surrounding the investigation into FISA abuse tonight, including new information about the dirty dossier's author, Christopher Steele. We'll also bring you some good news for Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and his battle against the witch hunt, which continues.

First, we start with Bob Mueller. Next Wednesday, the captain of the witch hunt himself, well, he scheduled to appear before Congress in his first and only public hearing. Democrats on the House Intel and Judiciary Committees are demanding that Mueller testify. Well, according to our own Chad Pergram, while he is saying, these very same Democrats are now worried that this political stunt is about to backfire and boomerang. Wow, that's happened a lot, and for good reason.

In his only public comments, a rambling contradictory nine-minute presser, Robert Mueller, he stated that he would not expound on any of his findings. He said that the written report will be his only testimony. We are talking about the very same report that cleared the president of collusion, conspiracy with Russia and didn't charge him with any obstruction. And, by the way, he was not charged with obstruction because the attorney general, deputy attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel all said nope, didn't happen.

Meanwhile, Mueller is certainly going to face very crucial questions from Republicans, questions I'd like to have answered and we are going to preview those important questions in a minute. But this now comes as a reporter is now out that the DOJ is blocking House Democrats from questioning two members of Mueller's partisan team in a closed-door hearing.

Here with more is our own Chad Pergram is with us.

Chad, what's the latest?

CHAD PERGRAM, SENIOR PRODUCER FOR CAPITOL HILL: Well, there was a hearing tonight, a meeting tonight by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trying to figure out the structure of this hearing with bob Mueller ne week.

Now, Sean, there's an old saying on Capitol Hill that nothing is decided until everything is decided.

What we do know is that there is going to be a two-hour hearing for members of the Judiciary Committee starting at 9:00. There will be a break and then they'll are coming back with members of the Intelligence Committee. The question is, is this enough time?

And it was very interesting to see members coming out of this closed-door meeting, saying that everything is in flux, that things haven't been decided yet. We were told by multiple members, these are Democrats, that they are still negotiating with Bob Mueller's team about the structure of this.

Members really didn't want to talk as they came out. They were deferring to Jerry Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and many -- Lou Correa, a Democrat from California, also Pramila Jayapal, who's another Democrat from Washington State, both of them said that some of this may not be resolved until the day of the hearing.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a freshman Democrat from Florida. You know, if you cut this down to two hours and two hours, there are some questions about whether the freshman and junior members would get a chance to ask questions. We asked Mucarsel-Powell that, she said, well, I hope so.

The other thing that is still up in the air here is that there would be a closed-door session. Eric Swalwell, who's a member of California, also member of the Intelligence Committee, he said, well, I hope so.

The problem for Democrats here is if Mueller just sticks to the report, the four corners of the report, and doesn't go beyond that, have Democrats overplayed this? You know, there's another expression up here, caveat emptor, buyer beware. Maybe this turns out to be pretty boring if Robert Mueller is just going through dog-eared pages and reading back when he is getting questions there.

Could that undermine the hype in some ways? And that is what some of us here at FOX who have been reporting on this, we've heard that Mueller might be a little bit reluctant to testify, or there might be an effort to limit or curtail his testimony, Sean. But we are told that he is on for 9:00 next Wednesday morning.

HANNITY: All right. Chad in Washington, we'll be watching next Thursday.

Now, let's be clear. Bob Mueller, he is not a king. He was employed by we the American people. The American people also deserve answers to other questions.

For a few questions I think Mueller must answer, why did he hire a team with no Republicans? Only big Democratic donors?

Why did he hire Hillary Clinton's former attorney? Why did he hire the guy, oh, yes, Sidney Powell exposed in "Licensed to Lie", the ever so overzealous prosecutor, Mueller's pit bull Andrew Weissmann to lead the investigation. After all, Weissmann, he was at the Clinton election night party that never happened, likely sobbing with everybody else there. He has an atrocious track record of withholding exculpatory evidence, numerous cases that are overturned, convictions overturned because of exculpatory evidence withheld.

And also, why did Mueller have time to investigate, let's see, taxi medallions, loan applications, FARA violations and tax fraud, but not FISA abuse and not a paid for a Russian dossier? If he cared about Russian interference, and in the 2016 elections, why did he then not have any probe into Hillary Clinton's dirty dossiers, the one with Russian lies, the one that was disseminated to the American people to influence the election?

Now, where was the deep dive into the ex-foreign spy, Christopher Steele? What about Fusion GPS? Their connections to unsavory characters around the world and their founder, Glenn Simpson.

When did Mueller determine that there was no Trump-Russia collusion? Why didn't he stop then? Why did the investigation continue after that contradiction and why did Mueller contradict himself during his nine and half in a press conference?

Remember those special counsel claimed there was no obstruction. He said that you numerous people. Then at the presser, he suggested there might've been obstruction but a sitting president cannot be charged because the DOJ policy.

Now, that was when he released a joint statement with Attorney General Barr's office stating that there was no chargeable obstruction regardless of DOJ policy and the ability to charge a sitting president. So why the confusion, why the change?

Who wrote those words? Who wrote the report? Were you being told what to say by Andrew Weissmann, your pit bull? Because the whole witch-hunt was a disaster from beginning to end, a major distraction from real abuses of power taking place right under your nose.

Just look at the fraud that took place surrounding the FISA warrant. Your buddy, Jim Comey, signed it, the first one, against the Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, and that gave them a backdoor to spy into all things Trump campaign. Then Trump transition, then the Trump presidency.

And as "The Daily Caller" points out, the bureau's desperate attempt to acquire a warrant were totally stalled until Steele dossier came along. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said it perfectly, no dossier, no FISA warrant.

And Comey and company, they were so desperate to find that backdoor the Trump campaign, yes, Mr. Comey, to spy -- that they used phony unverifiable campaign Clinton bought and paid for op research full of Russian lies. That was to obtain a warrant to spy on an American citizen and an entire presidential campaign.

And according to "The New York Times," investigators working for the I.G.'s probe into FISA abuse, well, they asked Christopher Steele, quote, whether the bureau was overly reliant on the Russian expertise of outsiders like himself.

And Steele told them that he believed the FBI was probably underequipped to judge the inherently murky intelligence that he was relating. I don't believe that's true, either.

And "The Times" is also reporting that one of Steele's sources, quote, added his own interpretations to reports from his own sources that he passed on to Steele, calling into question the reliability of all this information. And, by the way, they were all warned about it before the first FISA warrant was signed by Comey in October 2016, the one hat he swore was verified and true, the one in three months later in January of 2017 told President Trump is unverified and salacious.

In other words, a so-called intelligence and the dossier was sourced with second, third-hand information, all turned out to be false, and perhaps just completely made up or maybe as "The New York Times" previously suggested, it was Russian misinformation all along. But Comey, others swore that their intelligence was true and accurate. That is broad, plain and simple, premeditated conspiracy to commit fraud on a FISA court to spy on an opposition party candidate to help one campaign win and the other campaign lose.

And then it became an insurance policy, as we all learned months, well, later. But despite high-ranking government officials turning the most powerful tools of intelligence that we need to keep us safe against enemies, foreign and domestic, well, they turn them on the Trump campaign and other American citizens and the transition team, and on the Trump presidency. We have four separate Russian collusion investigations, all four cleared the president of any wrongdoing.

There is no more ambiguity, there are no questions to ask anymore. House Democrats, they are now conducting what is a fifth and sixth investigations into collusion, so-called collusion that didn't happen. The only collision that happened was Hillary Clinton's dirty dossier. That's how Democrats are spending your tax dollars.

This is nothing more, at this point, then presidential harassment and abuse of power by them. People like Nadler, and the cowardly Schiff leading these brand-new probes, wasting the country's time and they are now having innocent American citizens that have to once again lawyer up, they are going bankrupt in some cases as they are called to answer the same questions for fourth, fifth, sixth time. And by the way, every time they answer, they better answer it perfectly, the way they did the last time or else they will determine that that is perjury. Then they will be charged with that and they will need more lawyers.

My advice to all those people that willingly testify to Congress, that cooperated with the Mueller probe? You know, you can plead the Fifth, and you know what? It won't cost you a dime.

You don't have to hire any more lawyers. You can stand up to this abuse of power. Nadler and Schiff, they are no longer lawmakers, this isn't oversight, this is now them merely content creators for -- well, oh, yes, MSDNC and Roswell Rachel Maddow's nonstop anti-Trump conspiracy hours. It's every second, every minute, every hour over there at MSDNC.

Democrats, well, they should -- what they are doing should sicken every American. Tonight, thankfully, the president can declare victory in at least one frivolous legal proceeding. Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a far left challenge surrounding the Trump Organization.

Joining us now with more details is the president's attorney, Jay Sekulow, and, yes, full disclosure, he has had a minor client in the name of Sean Hannity. But I'm a good client.

How are you, sir?


HANNITY: All right. This had to do with the emoluments clause, and Trump International. First -- the first thing the judge said, why are you here, you have no standing to be here in this court as it relates to Trump International being in D.C.?

SEKULOW: So, look, this was an ongoing case of presidential harassment. This president has taken more incoming on these kinds of frivolous issues than anybody I think certainly in American history. The nature and scope of the actions that are taken in court are frankly something we have never seen.

But here, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals not only dismissed the case but said exactly what you just said. Why are you here? In fact, I'm going to read from the opinion because the opinion speaks volumes.

When plaintiffs before our court are unable to specify the relief they seek, one must wonder why they came to court for relief in the first place. And that's because, again the court said, the deficiency here was remarkably manifested at oral argument, when counsel for the district, that's the District of Columbia, and Maryland, upon being questioned repeatedly unable to articulate the terms of an injunction that the district of Maryland were seeking to address the alleged violations. And that's when the court says, why are you here in the first place?

Then the court says that, you know, Maryland and the District of Columbia are trying to enforce the clause of some kind of wrongdoing here, which clearly there wasn't, and the court says that their claim was attenuated and abstract, that their prosecution of this case regularly provokes the question whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between parties. Then the course dismissed the case with prejudice.

So, this ongoing presidential harassment, whether it's the emoluments cases, whether it's trying to get tax returns, or a recently now, California saying you cannot be on the ballot unless you release your tax returns if you're running for president of the United States, which not only is absurd but completely unconstitutional. The Constitution sets forth the parameters of the requirements of what you must have, possessed, natural born citizen, 35 years of age, to be running for the president of the United States. The states can't add to those requirements, which is what California has done.

What is fascinating about that case, which we will be in court challenging very, very soon, is that the previous governor, Jerry Brown, vetoed the law because he said it was unconstitutional. I never thought I would say this, Jerry Brown is absolutely correct. The law is unconstitutional.

But this is ongoing presidential harassment. New York state passing there, we are going to give you the president's state tax returns, than the House says, oh, we don't want that. Why? Because it is going to show the subterfuge of what this was all about.

Sean, they are trying to get the president's tax returns and this is what they are saying. They are saying, we are checking to see if the IRS is actually engaged in the appropriate oversight and audits of the president in their IRS capacity.

Do you think they would ask the IRS exactly what the audit procedures are? They did not. What did they ask for? They asked for the president's tax returns. Which president? Donald Trump. Did they ask for President Bush's tax returns more recently or how did you audit the previous presidents? No, they did not.


HANNITY: Jay, let me ask you. What do you make of the New York legislature and the New York governor saying that the state tax returns could be handed over to congressional committees now? They want those tax returns in the worst way.

SEKULOW: Pure presidential harassment. It is illegal. It's unconstitutional. The idea that you would pass special legislation to impact one person who happens to be the commander in chief shows political animus. That's what we say in the law, that is in our view illegal and unconstitutional.

But it's part of a pattern. There is a pattern of practice here that you see going on. It's -- you're right, the Mueller report comes out, no obstruction, and no collusion. Then what we do? Well, we're going to have these hearings.

So, they've had two so far. What happened with those hearings? Nobody tuned in. Why did nobody tune in? Because the report itself is incomprehensible. I mean, that's just a fact.

If you read it, most people haven't, I have -- it's incomprehensible. Why is it incomprehensible? Because the legal theories that were being put forward, and people ignore this part.

You know, Bob Mueller in his report says we don't make a conclusion here of criminal acts. We do not find that there were criminal acts. Then they used that exoneration line which, of course, is not what prosecutors.

But, Sean, there is something very important here. They said it is difficult questions of law. When you got difficult questions of law, guess what you don't do? You don't bring a case.

But again, this is part of the ongoing presidential harassment.


SEKULOW: We got to beat it back in court, which we did in Fourth Circuit, and we're going to continue to do it.

HANNITY: Well, you're a man manned with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

SEKULOW: With prejudice, yes.

HANNITY: It's over. Full, complete victory.

SEKULOW: Yes, absolutely, 100 percent.

HANNITY: The plane landed in that case.

Jay Sekulow, good to see. Thank you.

And tonight, more good news from a federal court. U.S. district judge also smacked down the DOJ's request to designate Lieutenant General Michael Flynn a coconspirator in an ongoing case against his business partner. Remember, prosecutors attempting to issue this coconspirator designation after Flynn refused to compose. In other words, lie about what the federal want them to lie about and give testimony he can consider to be false, which we told you a little bit about yesterday, but with an update.

FOX News investigative reporter Sara Carter, that is a huge update in this case.

SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, it's huge. So, late last night, Judge Anthony Trenga issued what they called an 11th hour Hail Mary, a 38- page report that was basically scathing to the government, saying you haven't presented enough evidence to show or to prove that Michael Flynn is a coconspirator in this case. You've been basically calling him, and this is Trenga's argument, you've been calling him a cooperating witness from the beginning. So, unless you show me something, unless you give me some evidence to show that he is a coconspirator, we are not going to do it.

He also stated in his brief and in his opinion that the government had no evidence whatsoever that the government of Turkey paid the Michael Flynn Intel Group. And remember, this is what this was all about. His partner, Bijan Rafiekian, is now in trial and this is what this is all about.

They want Flynn to testify against Bijan Rafiekian but then they backed away from that this week, saying they are not going to have him testify and try to designate him a coconspirator -- and all because they want him to compose, Sean, just as you said. They want him to compose.

I can tell you that according to his defense attorneys, Sidney Powell is leading the case here, he is cooperating fully with the government and he will continue to cooperate.

HANNITY: All right, Sara Carter, investigative reporter, thank you.

Joining us now, ranking member of the House Intel Committee, Congressman Devin Nunes.

Congressman, let me first go back, this came up with Judge Ellis in the first trial of Paul Manafort. And what was that? We know why we are really here, because you want to put the screws to this guy, Manafort. That's why you are dragging up old tax returns. You guys really don't care about that, let's be honest. And then he said, so he'll sing or compose, so that you can get the president.

So, now we have this new filing by Sidney Powell, the new attorney for Lieutenant General Flynn saying, yes, they wanted him to say this. I have a problem with overzealous prosecutors offering something of value, freedom, to say what they want you to say. That to me would be bribery in any other circumstance, and a very dangerous offer for anybody that's facing jail time.

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Well, that's what this entire investigation has been about. It was an obstruction trap set for the president. You had people that were put under investigation like General Flynn, likely even before, back in the Obama era days but for sure, at some point, they brought up these bogus charges and had some Russian girlfriend. I think there is a very interesting case that has been filed in Virginia where the supposed Russian girlfriend is suing many companies for libel and defamation because she had nothing to do with General Flynn.

And then at the end of the day, it was get Flynn for saying that he lied even though the inspector and investigator said that he didn't lie. So -- and let's not forget over all of that, you have one of the biggest leaks in U.S. history, raw intelligence, transcripts of General Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador.

HANNITY: Let me go to these new developments. The attorney general suggested that we would expect the inspector general report on FISA abuse in mid-May, but now, we have last-minute developments, as we've been reporting. Catherine Herridge has been reporting, and others.

And one is the people that weren't willing to talk are now willing to talk. Others that did talk, my sources telling me they decided they wanted to go back and get more details. I assume they were thinking they were in trouble.

Now, we have Christopher Steele, 15 hours. Christopher Steele, I can't imagine, would contradict testimony he gave under oath under the threat of perjury, and that case in the interrogatory in Great Britain. I don't see that, do you?

NUNES: No, I don't and I think that's what is taking the inspector general longer. They had the interview with Steele, and then don't forget, we had the top level number two at the State Department and the European division, who, we finally found her notes. So, this was Kathleen Kavalec. So, when her notes, clearly now we know and the inspector general knows that the FBI was informed that Steele had some problems with his credibility long before they went to spy on Carter Page. So, that's why I think is slowing down the process, Sean.

HANNITY: All right. You mentioned Kathleen Kavalec, that was almost two weeks before Comey signed the first FISA warrant. But we know that the FBI, DOJ, even Andrew Weissmann, everybody was warned by Bruce Ohr in August of 2016, Kavalec two weeks before the first FISA warrant signed by Comey. That means they were warned Hillary paid for it.

They should've put a big, bold headline, neon lights for the judges in the FISA case, in the application. They didn't. But we know from Steele's testimony under oath, it's an unverifiable document. So, the bottom line is --


NUNES: Let me try to tie this all together. So, let's go back to the store that just broke yesterday. So, four favorable stories about Steele, supposedly some sources who know the matter, that means it was Steele himself talking to these reporters that Steele was a cooperating witness.

We also know that the FBI has told Congress that they didn't know anything about the Steele dossier until September of 2016. Another lie because we know from the interviews with Bruce Ohr and others and even Andrew Weissmann, the pit bull for Mueller, that he was actually briefed on the dossiers in 2016.

So, there is a lot here for the inspector general to get a hold of but what really needs to happen is the U.S. attorney in Connecticut needs to get all this information quickly as possible, and then interview all these people under oath in front of a grand jury.

HANNITY: Devin Nunes, ranking member, House Intel Committee, thank you.

By the way, one of the great things about life television is in the middle of the show somebody can text you and say, Sean, I think your flag is upside down and I get to fix it. Not on purpose, I promise. We respect Old Glory.

Coming up, more investigations. Media trying to tie President Trump to the convicted Jeffrey Epstein, but they ignore the Clinton connections that were extensive. Wait until they hear the connections he does have. Pam Bondi, Jeff Lord are next.

Also later, there's an all-out war breaking out. Congresswoman Ocasio- Cortez, her public feud with speaker in name only Pelosi is escalating in a circular firing squad forming, and it's gone to a whole new level. We'll break that news, straight ahead.


HANNITY: All right. The Jeffrey Epstein case unfolds before our eyes, the liberal hate-Trump media, what they've been trying to do is their very best to link Trump to Epstein and his atrocious crimes and the allegations. However, their claims are actually the opposite of the truth. Court documents claiming in fact the president banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after an alleged assault on an underage girl at the club. That was years ago.

Meanwhile, the Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, he was the U.S. attorney for Florida at the time that Epstein was tried and secured a lenient plea deal in '08, well, he is defending his role in the case as the literal media tries to use it to bludgeon the Trump administration. Now, this, as a 1995 report is resurfacing today, shows that, well, Bill Clinton, interesting the media didn't care in 2016 when they want to Bill Clinton's wife to be the president -- Bill Clinton dined with Epstein years before the official statement claimed, and we already know that the flight logs show the former president, well, he was on the Lolita Express, as the "New York Post" has dubbed Epstein's plane, a whopping 26 times.

Well, now, the media mob is scrambling to turn the scandal around on Trump because they desperately to run an appearance with their fellow liberals, especially Clintons.

Joining us now with reaction, author of the book "Swamp Wars," conservative columnist, Jeffrey Lord, from -- former Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi.

Pam, let's first look at the press conference today, and maybe you can explain the legal aspects of this because you had all these young kids in one case, there's a "Daily Mail" article that said I was 14 and I had braces, and what is described as predator, pedophile behavior.


HANNITY: The question is: why didn't the local -- why didn't the local prosecutor go after him? And when the feds got involved, what were they able to do or not do and was this really a sweetheart deal?

BONDI: Until you have walked in the shoes of a sex crimes prosecutors, it's difficult to comment on one of these cases and I have working with them for years. First of all, the Palm Beach state attorney, I'm going to defend him, too, Krischer. What he did was take it to a grand jury.

All these victims -- and a grand jury only hears evidence most favorable to the prosecution. Yet, a grand jury, Sean, still came back with only one count. That shows how difficult these cases are.

And Alex Acosta in the FBI, they jumped in to try to help. They didn't have to get involved in this. They jumped in and they tried to help prosecute him.

HANNITY: If you have these young girls think this happened, this happened, this date, this date, others corroborating the coordination of meeting these young girls, then the testimony of people that were on the flights with young girls were on as well. You would think that that would be powerful testimony.

BONDI: Sean, I have been there when sex crimes prosecutors, two separate ones, have tried cases that were much better than the east approved and lost them. These guys walked scot-free. By the way, the woman is still in the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida who was in charge of this.

She is a bulldog tough prosecutor, to this day, she suggested the 18 month plea along with the FBI, and the best part about it was to guarantee that this pedophile is deemed as a sex offender the rest of his life. They have no idea the Department of Corrections would let him out on work release, which is horrible, and let him out early.

HANNITY: Both of you warrant in a southern district of New York is long known as one of the toughest- I mean some of the best lawyers have come out of there. Rudy, Andy McCarthy, these are real prosecutors.

BONDI: And now they have new evidence.

HANNITY: In the new evidence being what they found in the safe? Let's go to the media side of it. Jeffrey Lord, we have all of this information in 2016, the media doesn't want to touch it. They get one little clue that Epstein New Donald Trump and they are running with it. But they don't tell the truth that Trump was the guy that found out about something and threw him the hell out of Mar-a-Lago. They kind of missed that big part of the story.

JEFFREY LORD, "SWAMP WARS" AUTHOR: Yes, this is just one more attempt to get the President. That's basically what this is. Combined with something else Sean, I think there was a real panic in the Democratic establishment. This business of going after Alex Acosta I think it is designed as a distraction.

Chuck Schumer took thousands of dollars from this guy for his Congressional and Senate campaigns. Is he being asked to resign? Where is the pressure for that, that he should resign his minority leader or Senator from New York? What about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative that he was so involved in?

Are they going to give him money back? What about all the other Democratic politicians? They've really got a problem on their hands. Here I think this is Harvey Weinstein times ten and they are going to have to deal with it. That is why they are desperately flailing to pin the blame on President Trump when there are court documents out there saying he threw him out.

HANNITY: So when you look at what the Southern District of New York has Pom, do you see that they have a case?

BONDI: I think they have a very strong case now that they have all the photographs; they did the raid on his apartment, and ironically, that conviction, that registered sex offender, even though he served a short time, that can be used in the new case against him. So that is even more powerful now and this guy needs to be buried under jail for the rest of his life.

HANNITY: Now we actually seemed to see why was Bill Clinton -- we already know Bill Clinton's history. Monica Lewinsky was pretty young at the time. She was an intern in the White House. Smoke, fire, Jeff?

LORD: Exactly. And of course, when you mentioned Lewinsky, we all remember that memorable pointing of the finger, I did not have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky and then of course we found out that was absolutely not true.

HANNITY: Indeed I did.

LORD: Now we get a statement that he -- now we get a statement that he was on the plane four times when he was on over 20. I mean, typical.

HANNITY: Typical. We are going to follow it. Media mob strikes again double standard. Thank you both. When we come back, all right, it's getting crazier by the day. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, speaker Pelosi, it is now all out warfare getting really nasty. You won't believe what AOC just said about the speaker. Later, a city council in Minnesota banning the pledge of allegiance really? Lawrence Jones went to the North Star State to see what is really going on. He hit the streets. We will have a full report.


HANNITY: Tonight, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taking direct aims at Joe Biden in that bombshell audio just ahead. But first, with her battle with Speaker of the House in name only Pelosi, is now a daily occurrence and it's getting uglier and more intense every hour. Breaking moments ago, Ocasio-Cortez, tonight is now slamming Pelosi for being "outright disrespectful," even accusing her of "explicit singling out of newly elected women of color." in an explosive interview with "The Washington Post."

This comes after a closed-door meeting with lawmakers earlier today. Pelosi took her biggest shot yet of Ocasio-Cortez, reportedly saying "so again, you've got a complaint, you come and talk to me about it. But did not tweet about our members and expect us to think that's just okay."And when asked about the infighting, Pelosi told "The Washington Post," I have no regrets about anything regret is not what I do".

And just hours ago when Ocasio-Cortez was asked if she would tone down her Twitter use, she replied bluntly, no according to the daily mail. And it doesn't stop there. Because in a recently with the New Yorker Ocasio-Cortez was asked about her relationship with Pelosi. She didn't hold back at all. Take a listen to this.


REPORTER: What is your relationship like with Nancy Pelosi? Tell me how that works, what are the dynamics of it?

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: You know, I think sometimes people think that we have this like, we have a relationship.

REPORTER: Are you saying you don't?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Not particularly. Not one that is I think distinguished from anyone else I was assigned to some of the busiest committees and four sub committees. So my hands are full and sometimes I wanted them keeping me busy.


HANNITY: Now, like usual, the media mob they didn't get it. We've been ahead of the curve. We told you this would happen. Now, that there is real resentment and those deep wounds well would be exposed more and more. It is happening. Full on Civil War in the Democratic Party, a circular firing squad has formed.

Ocasio-Cortez has her own enemies list, as we told you last night in other words targeting fellow Democrats and the freshman lawmakers going after the Democratic front runner, sleepy, creepy Uncle Joe, because in the same interview Ocasio-Cortez even went so far as to question his mental capacity after being asked about the age of Bernie Sanders and Biden. Listen to this.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think that when it comes to age, I think age gets used as a proxy for capacity. So I think there are some folks that are of a certain age where you can kind of question their capacity.

REPORTER: Joe Biden?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think Joe Biden his performance on the stage kind of raised some questions with respect to that.


HANNITY: What does this all mean? It means that every times Pelosi tries to grab her gravel back the fight is only going to intensify. As I've been saying, speaker in name only. Every blunder Biden makes, the new extreme freshman Democrats are going to be there to jump all over him.

Remember, they are the ones, they are setting the agenda, they are pushing a platform that is actually being adopted by all the 2020 Democrats, like saying walls and borders they are immoral, you should take them down. Amnesty, abolish ICE. Today, Ocasio-Cortez suggested getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security. That's brilliant.

Backing health insurance for illegal immigrants, who is going to pay for that? Abolishing private insurance for American citizens free college, free retirement, free child care, free health care, government guaranteed healthy food, and a job for life even if you are unwilling to work.

By the way, no oil, no gas, we will get rid of planes, fossil viewers, the combustion engines. You want open borders, entitlements, extraordinarily high taxes that will chase everyone out of America. It is impractical, logical, destructive, dangerous, and it will literally destroy the economy if ever they attempt to implement it.

Pelosi and Biden have no power over this new radical wing the party will move further and further left and further away from the views of common sense Americans. One other big problem the Trump economy, well we have the best employment situation since 1969, record low unemployment for African- Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, women in the workplace and youth employment. That's important because when I was young and I had a job it kept me out of a lot of trouble.

Anyway joining us now with reaction is the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. From your vantage point and from the President's vantage point, if they want to run on the new green deal and everything is free, you can't have private insurance, we are going to pay for illegal immigrants' health insurance, we are going to tear down all border wall's and then we are going to eliminate oil, gas, the combustion engine and everything else, I think that is a pretty good platform to run against, myself.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R-CALIF.: It is a great platform because think about what President Trump has done. Gave us the greatest economy we have had in 50 years. What he has been able to achieve, but what this is really about Sean, this is socialism versus freedom. This is not the Democratic Party this is a socialist Democratic Party. And you are 100% correct about that relationship.

Think about that relationship with AOC and the speaker. Just a few months ago they were on the cover of "the rolling stone." now they are throwing stones at each other. This isn't a family fight, this is war. AOC's Chief of Staff has just questioned the voters to challenge them, name one thing the Democrats have done to achieve anything, and then questioned its legislative mastermind, the so-called speaker Pelosi. Unheard of --

HANNITY: Its 25 years, and I was the MC, relatively a young man, the night Newt Gingrich became the speaker the 25th anniversary this year the contract with America. And I'm thinking that the House Republicans they kind of do a better job than Senate Republicans, and terms of trying to help the President and his agenda.

Maybe it would be a good idea to put the top ten items on paper, nationalize the election you would be the next Speaker of the House, Mitch McConnell would run and win in Kentucky, easily. Then we would have promises that can help the President so he doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting by himself, which too often I think is the case.

MCCARTHY: Exactly. This President has to do so much. But you're correct these House Republicans they are with this President. The President the promise he has made in the campaign, this is where America is so surprised. He is one of the first Presidents that has kept his promises. He likes to joke - he has kept more promises than he made.

HANNITY: Shocking.

MCCARTHY: He has kept more promises than he made. But we should put it on paper, we should tell the American public what he should accomplish and we have to battle this socialism because it is overtaking, not just what the Democratic Party used to be, but they are trying to challenge and take over this country.

HANNITY: It ought to be consensus, White House, your house, and the Senate. We do that, you make the promises and you keep promises, it's an amazing thing. The American people like politicians when they keep their word. If keeping your word is good politics. You get to stay in power, which it seems most people want when you get there.

Kevin McCarthy, good to see you. Thank you. When we come back, you can't believe this story. City Council, Minnesota, banning the pledge of allegiance. Unbelievable. We sent Lawrence Jones to the state to see what the residents think of that. Later, breaking news tonight, Fox News confirming that the Iranian revolutionary guard tonight earlier trying to seize a British ship we'll have a live report, stay with us.


HANNITY: All right, following protest, the St. Louis Park, Minnesota, City Council now reconsidering a decision to actually do away with the pledge of allegiance before meetings. Now the council claimed it was creating a more welcoming environment to serve a diverse community by getting rid of the pledge. I think the one thing that we can all agree that we live in the greatest country God gave man but apparently not. We sent our own Lawrence Jones to St. Louis Park to ask people there what they thought in that council, take a look.


LAWRENCE JONES, CONTRIBUTOR: In St. Louis Park, they are getting rid of the pledge of allegiance before the city council meetings. How do you feel about this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pretty horrible. Because aren't we a part of a government that should be doing that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People have a right to express their opinions about it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't have to say the pledge of allegiance. I want respect being taught to people, whether they are saying words, it is more actions.

JONES: The St. Louis Park City Council says that the pledge of allegiance shouldn't be there. You agree with that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, everyone understands it and they know what we felt first.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really think it is. I think that we can all identify as Americans and we all really have the same true values and at the heart of that is democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say is not reflective of the values of the community. It is not diverse enough.

JONES: How do you feel about this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I may be old-school but I'm not sure I agree with that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My son is in the cub scouts, they still do it. My husband is in the military, we stand for the flag. When you are American you should be doing the pledge of allegiance.


HANNITY: I'll try to understand creating a more welcoming environment to serve a diverse community. It's the greatest country God gave man. Lawrence Jones, by the way Fox News Contributor. He has more frequent flyer miles than anyone else in the network also Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw. But seriously, there should be one thing that you would think we all agree on but it is not the case.

There has always been the blame America first crowd. Now there is this hate America contingency out there Lawrence and I'm trying to understand why. What country would they prefer we model?

JONES: Yes Sean, we are sitting here right now outside of St. Louis City Hall right behind us where patriots descended there and said look, it only takes 15 seconds to say the pledge of allegiance. Obviously this is a liberal town, so you had mixed reaction. Some liberal said look, we want to hear the pledge of allegiance, some of them says it is discriminatory towards some citizens in this country.

The bottom line is this Sean, we have issues in America but at the end of the day, we should be united on the causes of America. It's the constitution that gives us so much protection. Look Sean, this starts on the college campuses. There is a growing movement of professors and academics that are teaching these young people and teaching the public at large to hate America.

HANNITY: They don't even teach American history.

JONES: Not - the land of the fruit.

HANNITY: And look at--

JONES: And it's such a slanted view.

HANNITY: Look at the reaction for the President and his 4th of July honoring of military with a great history of taught. And it's that's the military that beat back communism, fascism, imperial Japan and Nazism. And I'm thinking wow, have we really forgotten that this country is as great as my friend Barry Forber (ph) says he has never been a country in the history of man that has accumulated more power and abused it less than the United States?

We are not perfect and I would add there has never been a country that has accumulated more power and used it to advance the human condition more than this one. We can't say a pledge?

REP. DAN CRENSHAW, R-TX: That is exactly right. There is a disturbing trend that we keep on seeing. We have to wonder where we are right now. We can't even say the pledge of allegiance? What is it about the pledge of allegiance that infuriates people so much? Liberty and justice for all, not for some people, but for all and how that is not inclusive and diverse is beyond me.

We have to get to this point where we start to appreciate who we are as Americans and what brings us together. It is not necessarily geographic area, it is not necessarily skin color, or religion, or ethnicity, it is the red, white, and blue and there are certain things that connect us. Some of those things are the pledge of allegiance, the National Anthem and the American flag. We have to recognize that those traditions and symbol.

JONES: The bottom line is where are these people going to go? Where they are going to go if they are not going to be in America? If you can't get freedom here, where is the next country that is going to defend all the other nations there is a will?

HANNITY: Thank you both. When we come back, breaking now, Iranian aggression escalating this time against Great Britain we'll have a live update straight ahead.


HANNITY: This is a Fox News Alert, Iranian aggression escalating yet again tonight. Joining us now live from our West Coast News Room, Jonathan Hunt with a very latest. Jonathan this time didn't work out how the way they wanted, but dangerous nonetheless?

JONATHAN HUNT, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Sean, a senior U.S. Defense Official confirming to Fox News tonight at five Iranian Islamic revolutionary guard called "Gunboats" tried to seize a British oil tanker. The incident happening when the tanker British heritage was at the northern entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, but the Iranian boats apparently backed off after a British ship approached and threaten to open fire.

Spokesman for U.S. Central Command confirming the U.S. is aware of the actions and adding threats to international freedom of navigation require an international solution. The world economy depends on the free flow of commerce and it is incumbent on all nations to protect and preserve this linchpin the global prosperity. Sean back to you.

HANNITY: All right, Jonathan the lifeblood of our economy, oil and gas, we can be energy independent, and we can help the world's allies. It's important and it will increase the standard of living for every American. We will never be the destroy-Trump media mob. Let not your heart be troubled.

Laura, how are you?

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.