This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," November 28, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Welcome to "Hannity."
All right. Buckle up, this is a chockfull hour.
Mueller's partisan witch hunt will soon come to an end but not before he makes a Hail Mary attempt to damage, destroy and disrupt the presidency of Donald Trump. Now, the screws are being turned on two Trump supports. Both of whom will join us tonight, Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone.
Mueller is threatening them with what could ultimately be a life in prison sentence, laying perjury trap after perjury trap around every corner. He wants them to do what we call testi-lie against each over but there is no evidence, up in of any crime being committed. As a matter of fact, we'll have a full legal analyst tonight.
This is now a rogue prosecutor who has lost any and all perspective, any objectivity and appears to be flailing around all in a desperate attempt to indict anyone who doesn't say what he wants them to say. People are now risking their lives in jail rather than tell lies they want told. Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone will be here and we'll talk to them and they will describe it in their own words.
At this point, it is a full blown political prosecution. Tonight, we have a lot of big news to cover. We have a mini monologue tonight at the ongoing crisis at the southern border.
Let's get started. Buckle up. A lot of information tonight. Time for our breaking news opening monologue.
HANNITY: Let's start with this tonight. It is not a crime to get oppositional research against a political opponent. If it were, every politician would be in prison.
But here we are, 560 long days into the Mueller witch hunt, Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone are in the hot seat for what? Trying to find dirt on Hillary Clinton?
According to leaked special counsel documents, Mueller is investigating communication between Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, including an e-mail on or about July 25, 2016, where, quote, person one, we know as Roger Stone, sent a message to Jerome Corsi with the subject line, "get to the founder of organization 1, aka, WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
Now, the body of the message read: Get to Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and get the pending WikiLeaks e-mails. They deal with foundation, allegedly.
OK. So you heard that Assange, remember the DNC leak just before the convention, may have had more information, in this case, on the Clinton Foundation. And they want to know what he has. Roger clearly didn't know exactly what the e-mails contained in any way. In no way did he urge anyone to steal or hack the Clinton campaign or John Podesta e-mails. No evidence of that. Jerome Corsi flatly denies ever having contact with Julian Assange.
In fact, Jerome Corsi voluntarily handed over his computer and cell phone, access to all of his e-mail and social media account, in order to cooperate fully with the special counsel's investigation.
Now, that's how investigators gained access to the e-mail we just showed you. And now, Mueller's investigators, they are trying to get Jerome Corsi to testi-lie -- say what we want in other words -- and we'll go easy on you. If not, he is 72 years old, he may spend the rest of his life in jail. This is what we described as a perjury trap and ask Corsi to recount details about years-old email chains that he obviously didn't remember.
Now, sadly, now, this is now my advice to everyone I know. Never talk to, in spite of your love of law enforcement, FBI, truth, investigations, don't talk to them ever, without the advice of legal counsel, because if you say the wrong thing, if you forget an e-mail from two years ago, clearly, you are in legal jeopardy and they will throw your ass in jail.
Now, here you have an American citizen facing years in prison all because he received an e-mail from Roger Stone about a rumor and then forgot the e- mail existed two years earlier. Now, what have we now become as a country here? Is Jerome Corsi really a threat to the nation? Is this what Robert Mueller thinks is justice and what it looks like? You know, 17 investigators, multimillion dollar budgets, 600 days, 72-year-old man facing life in prison for receiving an e-mail and not remembering it?
This is a disgrace tonight. This is a danger to every American tonight.
Corsi is fighting back. He tweeted out, quote: In a memo to my attorneys, I have instructed Klayman and Gray to file with Acting AG Whitaker a criminal complaint against Mueller special counsel and the DOJ for prosecutorial misconduct in my case. Jerome Corsi turned down a deal from Robert Mueller to plead guilty to lying under oath. Not Russia collusion.
And rightfully so, I think anyone could not remember an e-mail for two years ago. Neither did Roger Stone. So if trying to access information that people might have and you care about politics and you like one candidate over another, then almost every media outlet would then also be guilty.
Let me give you an example. 2016, nearly every paper, news organization, they accessed WikiLeaks documents surrounding the stolen Podesta e-mails. Just like the DNC ones. And many, included the "New York Times", they actually provided direct links to the leaked e-mails inside of their articles. They did what WikiLeaks did.
In a similar situation, let's take you back. A "Hannity" history lesson, 1971 is the year. "New York Times" published a top secret federal report of the Vietnam Wars. It's called the Pentagon Papers. The report was stolen, given to "The Times" by federal employees. Other news outlets subsequently published the papers.
The Supreme Court upheld the media's right to publish the stolen "Pentagon Papers" in a 1971 ruling 6-3 majority ruling. Oh, well, they didn't steal, they didn't conspire to steal it. OK. It wasn't ruled wrong by the Supreme Court. There is the precedent.
Now, if Roger Stone or the "New York Times" or anyone else wanted to find out if there really were smoking on the Podesta e-mails in 2015, that says it's not a crime unless they steal it. They hack or they conspire to steal it. Nobody has even suggested that happened.
Now, this is important. With that said, according to leaked information surrounding the president's written answers to the special counsel, Roger Stone never informed Trump about the existence of the WikiLeaks e-mails.
Roger Stone will join me in a few minutes. He told me on the radio show today Trump absolutely told the truth on that answer. But as I said earlier, looking for dirt on a political opponent is not a crime. That's exactly what Democrat, oh, Adam Schiff, the soon to be chairman of the House Intel Committee is caught on tape doing -- Robert Mueller, pay attention -- when he gladly fielded a call from somebody he believed to be a Russian claiming to have secret embarrassing information about Donald Trump.
The call turned out to be a prank. But listen to Schiff desperately trying to dig up elicit Russian dirt on Donald Trump.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: He was in Moscow in November 2013, he met with a journalist?
CALER: Well, she's poor journalist. But anyway, she became famous because Putin is her godfather.
SCHIFF: OK. Putin godfather, OK.
CALLER: She also known as the person who provide support for oligarchs. She met with Trump and she brought him one of Russian girl celebrities, Olga Buzova, who's also known as person who has strange reputation.
SCHIFF: Olga, and how do you spell her name?
CALLER: Olga Buzova.
SCHIFF: And what's the nature of the Kompromat?
CALLER: Well, there were pictures of naked Trump.
SCHIFF: And so Putin was made aware of the availability of the comprising material?
CALLER: Yes, of course.
SCHIFF: Thank you very much. We will be back in touch with you with the staff to make arrangements to obtain these materials for our committee and for the FBI. And I appreciate you reaching out to us.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HANNITY: What's the nature of the kompromat? We'll be getting back to you.
Now, is Mueller going to be launching an investigation into the biggest liar on television every day, Adam Schiff, on Russia collusion? What about Hillary Clinton, the single, biggest, most outrageous part of all of this and it is a national disgrace and a double standard.
Yes, Russian collusion took place in 2016 election. In fact, the Clinton campaign spent millions of dollars funneled through a law firm to hire an op research firm, to hire a foreign national -- I thought that was wrong -- to dig up Russian lies on Donald Trump. Again, they funneled the money through a law firm, cover up their actions, hire a foreign agent to get in touch with his Moscow connections, write a report about Trump, a phony Russian dossier spread throughout the highest levels of our government, leaked to the American people. Why? Because they wanted to influence the election with Russian lies.
And don't forget about the foreign governments that likely hacked Clinton's private server with the top secret classified information. That she acid washed, deleted, Bleach Bit, obstructing of justice investigators and real crimes violating the Espionage Act. And clear obstruction, there has never been a clearer case of obstruction of justice. She goes free.
But Mueller, his merry band of Trump-hating sycophants, they don't care that Peter Strzok started this witch hunt and thought Hillary should win 100 million to zero. They haven't even literally begun to look in the direction of Hillary Clinton. And we have real evidence in that case, real crimes, real Russian interference, bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC, and those lies were rejected even by Christopher Steele himself when pressed in an interrogatory in Great Britain under the threat of perjury.
Then it's used as the basis of a bulk of information to get FISA court warrants but they didn't tell the FISA judges, oh, Hillary paid for it all and none of it is verified. And Mueller's investigation, this is not about Russian collusion or they would have gone after Hillary about her Russian collusion. This is all about, has been about destroying Donald J. Trump, your duly elected president.
Now, what else should we expect? Look at the team I've been warning about that Mueller put together -- 14 of 17 registered Democrats, 12 donating to Democratic campaigns including Hillary Clinton. One attorney, Jeannie Rhee, actually represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Mueller's pit bull Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton's election night victory party in Brooklyn and, of course, supported Sally Yates' insubordination against the president.
The conflicts of interest are too unbelievable to be true. Now, of course, you're not going to see this in the mainstream media, because they're just an extension and the cheerleaders for their friends on the special counsel and all things Democrat and pushing the single biggest, most absurd collusion theories you'll ever here.
But while the left gleefully cheers for Team Mueller, American lives tonight are being ripped apart because without any underlying crime, the screws were turned, you will remember on General Flynn. He ran out of money. He lost his family home. He had to sell it, face bankruptcy over the mounting legal bills before pleading guilty to lying to investigators.
The only problem is, the FBI never thought he lied. They probably threatened to go after his son. So, good father falls on the sword, forced to admit to something the FBI never thought he was guilty of. This was the thanks I guess you get for serving your country for 30 years.
Low level volunteer, campaign adviser George Papadopoulos also coerced into pleading guilty to lying to investigators. He is in jail for two weeks.
Paul Manafort, convicted of collusion, nope. Financial crimes, oh, loan applications, tax issues, going back to 2007. And now, the special counsel, if you look at this case accusing him of breaking the deal and planning now to throw the book at him. He now by not going along may face life in jail.
None of these charges have anything to do with Russian collusion. None of the real Russia collusion is ever looked at. And it doesn't stop the left from dreaming and cooking tunnel conspiracy theories. Look at The Guardian this week posting a fake story about Manafort many meetings with Julian Assange supposedly at the Ecuadorian embassy. The biggest problem is, we have Paul Manafort's passport and it doesn't show that he entered London in the years The Guardian claimed. Little background might work for them once in a while.
And both Manafort and Julian Assange vehemently deny the meetings. They are both preparing lawsuits. And tonight, President Trump is fighting back, telling the "New York Post" that endless investigations will be met with a forceful response, including the declassification of the important DOJ, FISA, special counsel documents and the other piece of information that are, quote, devastating to Democrats.
The president should act. What is happening in Washington, the swamp, the sewer, the greatest travesty of justice, corruption, abuse of power we have ever seen. You're witnessing a partisan witch hunt. That is what it is.
But not into any crime. Not into any collusion. Into a single man that they hate won the presidency, and that's Donald Trump. And you got investigators, almost all of them Democrats, you know, singularly focused only on him, and loving Hillary Clinton supporters. She gets a pass. Schiff who you just heard gets a pass.
The Constitution gets shredded. No equal justice under the law, no equal application of our laws.
It's all to destroy the president you elected. And they are willing to destroy lives of anyone and everyone who dares get in their way.
A lot of ground to cover. Joining us now, Republican strategist Roger Stone.
Roger, welcome back to the program.
Let me start with the e-mails that go back here. Word is -- and this is, you know, word is a friend in the embassy plans two more dumps. Corsi wrote on August 2, 2016, referring to Julian Assange. One shortly after I'm back and 2nd in October. Impact planned could be damaging.
What do you know about that?
ROGER STONE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it's speculation from Jerry Corsi who is an excellent investigative reporter. Nowhere does it say John Podesta's e-mails have been stolen and will be published.
Jerry said last night on "Tucker Carlson" that he had told me and other people that. I have no memory of him telling me that. I don't know who those other people might be.
But I think it's despicable that they have tried to pit Jerry Corsi and I, both strong supporters of the president, against each other when the bottom line is neither one of us received anything whatsoever from Julian Assange --
HANNITY: Have you ever talked to Julian Assange?
STONE: Or anyone else.
HANNITY: Have you ever talked to him?
STONE: No, never.
HANNITY: Never meet him?
STONE: No, never. Never met him.
HANNITY: All right. Did you get to Assange at Ecuadorian embassy in London, get the pending WikiLeaks e-mails over read the e-mail, et cetera, et cetera? Did you send that Corsi?
STONE: Yes, I did, but there is some back story. I had gotten an e-mail from Charles Ortel, which was a forward from James Rosen of Fox, who had said he had a tip that the coming disclosures pertained to the Clinton Foundation. That turned out, by the way, to be false.
I did know that Jerry's associate Ted Malloch, nice fellow, who I'd met in New York, and mentioned that he knew Assange. I think it may have been just name-dropping. So, I asked Jerry to see if he could get it. Jerry didn't respond, did not send me anything.
We are trafficking in political gossip. We're trying to find out like, every politico, like every political reporter in America what it was that Assange has, because he had teased it on CNN. He had teased it on FOX. Every political reporter in the country knew it was coming. We wanted to know what it was about.
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. The tweet of August 21st, 2016: Trust me, it will soon be the Podestas' time -- plural, Podestas -- time in the barrel. Weeks later, emails stolen from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta would -- I talk -- we're going to talk to Andrew -- Andy McCarthy and our own Gregg Jarrett tonight.
Did you ever conspire to hack, conspire to hack, steal any e-mails from anybody? I say this in the precedents that discussed earlier, the Pentagon Papers.
STONE: No, absolutely not. On July 31st, Peter Schweizer published his "From Russia with Money", an extraordinary expose of the Podesta brothers' extensive dealings with oligarchs around Putin in aluminum, uranium, gas, banking. Jerry Corsi also helped educate me about the fact that Panama Papers published in April of 2016 detailed the Podesta brothers' extensive business dealings.
But the 21st was not even my first tweet. In fact, on the 15th, I had tweeted that Paul Manafort makes John Podesta look like St. Thomas Aquinas. So this was not my first tweet.
Now, the claim that I later -- that the tweet caused controversy brought heat on me was not true because until six weeks later, when Assange did publish the Podesta e-mails, there was no social media commentary. There was no media commentary. There was no congressional investigation. There was no Mueller investigation.
HANNITY: Let me ask you this, Roger, if I may.
STONE: There was no subpoenas. So, I had no need for a cover story.
HANNITY: What I construct and this is from Jerry Corsi, and I'll ask him in a minute.
What I testified to the grand jury was I believe I was creating a cover story for Roger because Roger wanted to explain that tweet. By the way, the special counsel knew this. They can tell my key strokes on that computer.
What is that about?
STONE: Yes, my point is I had no reason for a cover story. Jerry said I was getting heat but there was no heat. For six weeks, no one even noticed that tweet. It was not until the Podesta papers were filed, were published by WikiLeaks that it became controversial.
So, I had no reason to cover it up. I had no advanced knowledge of the hacking or -- pardon me, the theft or the publication of the Podesta e- mails. I had no reason for a cover story.
HANNITY: Roger stone, by the way, his book "Stone's Rules" -- you think you're going to be arrested, don't you?
STONE: I have no idea. If this is done on the basis of actual evidence and the law and the facts, no, because I haven't done anything illegal.
I have been targeted for one reason and one reason only. I'm loyal to the president of the United States. I strongly supported his election. I started urging him to run in 1988, again in 2000.
HANNITY: Let me ask you this.
STONE: Again in 2012. That's why I'm persecuted.
HANNITY: The president gave statements today, was leaked that he answered two questions. One was about you. Did you ever talk to the president about Julian Assange or WikiLeaks ever?
STONE: Absolutely not. And --
HANNITY: So the president told the truth in what we learned today?
STONE: Yes, absolutely. We -- at no time did Donald Trump and I, either candidate Trump or President Trump, discuss WikiLeaks.
But as you know, Sean, they're trying to destroy you financially to make you plead guilty to some minor crime you didn't commit. Just like General Flynn. So, I had to set up stonedefensefund.com. It's why they are trying to censor me on "Infowars", so I have no platform to respond to these personal attacks.
It is really devastating when they try to destroy you like this.
HANNITY: It's amazing, too, when you see all the evidence of what Hillary did and they don't go near it.
Roger Stone, thank you. I appreciate you being with us.
STONE: Thank you.
HANNITY: Joining us now, author of the upcoming book "Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller's ‘Witch Hunt'", Jerome Corsi, is with us.
You said I'm not taking the plea deal. I know I could go to jail for the rest of my life.
A lot of this resolves around the text message sent to you by roger who you just heard that you didn't remember. And you were amending your testimony numerous times because you didn't remember what you wrote or said two years ago.
JEROME CORSI, AUTHOR, "SILENT NO MORE": That's correct.
And what the special prosecutor is asking me to do is accept a fraudulent plea which I'm going to have my attorneys file criminal charges on with the Department of Justice. My experience made it clear to me that the political criminals are running the Department of Justice and Mueller's prosecution.
I was ridiculed. My testimony was laughed at. They yawned at it. They misbehaved and they accused me of being a liar and fabricator, I think, which was an attack on me for the books I have written that have been successful, 20 books since 2004 --
HANNITY: I remember when you wrote -- let me ask you this, you spent how many hours before Mueller and his team?
CORSI: I was there for 40 hours approximately.
HANNITY: Let me ask you this, when they were offering you this plea deal, which they even said might result in probation, maybe no jail time at all. When you were confronted with the opportunity because -- you're right, you're 72 years old. You may be -- this could be a life sentence for you in jail.
But when they were talking to you, were they telling you what -- in your opinion, what they wanted to hear and if you said it, you'd get off scot- free?
CORSI: Oh, absolutely. In fact, my attorney said all they want you to say is that you're the source --
HANNITY: Give me an example of that. What were they telling you they wanted to hear?
CORSI: Oh, they wanted to hear that I had a source connected to Assange or I did -- some way had a direct contact with Assange so they could do the connection, which would go Roger Stone, Jerry Corsi, Assange. And then they had their basis for collusion. It was complete nonsense.
But they would not accept when I told them that, in fact, I never met Assange. I had no contact with Assange or intermediary.
HANNITY: You never had any contact with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?
CORSI: Absolutely not.
HANNITY: Stay right there if you can stay. We're going to hold you over.
Jerome Corsi will be with us, and then we're going to ask the important legal questions. Is any of this if you don't steal, you don't hack, you don't conspire to, is any of this a violation of law? It's important question. Gregg Jarrett and Andy McCarthy, as we continue, important breaking news tonight on HANNITY.
HANNITY: I will continue my interview now with Jerome Corsi who decided to turn down a plea deal agreement with the special counsel's office. He says he committed no crime.
All right. You never spoke to Julian Assange. You never met him. You never spoke to anyone at WikiLeaks, any surrogate?
JEROME CORSI, CONSERVATIVE: That's correct. I never did.
HANNITY: OK. Let me go back then to August 2nd, 2016. And you said and wrote: Word is a friend in embassy plans two more dumps, referring to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. One shortly after I'm back, 2nd in October. Impact planned to be very damaging.
So, if you don't know him, how did you know that?
CORSI: Well, because it was a matter of deduction. I had expert analysis and information on how the Democrats put their computer system together. The release of information on July 22nd, 2016. They got Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was taken from the DNC e-mail server. But it only included officials who were not John Podesta.
I said John Podesta is missing here. And I know whoever stole e-mails from that server had John Podesta's, and I said, if I had John Podesta's e-mail, I'd keep them until the end and make it my October surprise --
HANNITY: So, you deduced they had to have them --
CORSI: I deduced it.
HANNITY: -- because of the same server.
CORSI: Same server. Had to come out --
HANNITY: Let me go to Wall Street Journal then. You said, what I construct, and what I testified to the grand jury was I believed I was creating a cover story for Roger, meaning Roger Stone, because Roger wanted to explain the tweet that I had earlier asked him about. And, by the way the special counsel knew this. They can tell virtually my key strokes on that computer.
Roger said that's not logical and said that you were squeezed by Mueller's prosecutors when you said that.
Can you shed some light on that?
CORSI: Yes, two points very quickly.
First of all, they constantly pressed me about what Roger thought. And I told it was a shame I didn't take a mind reading course at Harvard, but I can't tell you what somebody else is thinking. And listening to Roger tonight, it sounds like that's Roger's explanation and I'll accept that that's what Roger was thinking. In terms of what I thought he was doing --
HANNITY: Were you trying to -- were you trying to -- as you said, were you trying to create cover story for Roger?
CORSI: Yes, let me answer that. In politics and as in public relations -- I was trained in public relations by Edward Bernays, the founder of it, you know, you create narrative to benefit your client. British Petroleum going after the oil reserves all over the world becomes BP, and suddenly, it's beyond petroleum.
Well, BP is no more beyond oil than Long John Silver was beyond looting. Is that a lie?
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. You actually said the following. You said, "I, in my heart I went in to tell the truth. Did my best to tell the truth and I won't swear before God and a judge something I consider to be a lie."
We're talking about two-year-old e-mails, Mr. Corsi, two years old. And then you acknowledged the times that you had forgotten some of the e-mails. You could have possibly gotten no jail time, none at all. And now you might, as you even said, risk dying in jail. You are old. You are 72 years old. Look, we all worry at this point in our lives, right?
HANNITY: And here is my bigger question. What did you know they were trying to get you to say?
CORSI: They wanted me--
HANNITY: What did they want?
CORSI: They wanted me to name a source with WikiLeaks that I had that told me Assange had Podesta's e-mails. And to answer your other question, the plea deal they were offered, I had to go before a federal judge and swear under God and to a federal judge that I knowingly and willfully submitted false information that I knew to be false to the federal authorities in order to mislead them. I didn't do that.
I'd rather spend -- if the United States has come to it I'll spend the rest of my life in jail but I will not swear under God to a lie. I won't do it.
HANNITY: And but you do admit you -- listen, I can't tell you who was on my show last week. So, you know, if I'm in the same position unless I reviewed all my e-mails and went back and look at it ahead of time, I wouldn't remember. I don't know who was on the show last week.
I can tell you Reagan's accomplishments from the 1980s but I can't tell you who was on.
Let me ask you this. I think this is very, very important. And you know, if you didn't have any communications and you didn't know and you're -- did you ever because, looking for op research isn't a crime. We'll get to our attorneys next.
If you conspired to steal, hack into somebody's personal e-mails or whatever or had any doings with that, that would be a crime. Did you do any of those things?
CORSI: Absolutely not. I deduced that Assange had Podesta's e-mails, I knew it they were going to be in and how damaging they were going to be in and how they were used. But I'm not a human tape recorder. You can't punch a button and have me recite word for word a conversation or an e-mail I did two years ago.
And that's what the prosecutors demanded. They ridiculed me. They yawned. They got up in the room. They abused me all kind of ways psychologically. They did that to coerce me. To make me from day one, to think that if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear I was going to go to prison for the rest of my life and die there.
HANNITY: Did they say that to you?
CORSI: They made it very clear these was serious offenses and there could be multiple charges and there could be--
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I remember when you wrote the book on John Kerry. We had you on many times at the time.
HANNITY: You know, I'm reading what the media writes about you, that you didn't believe the moon landing was real or that 9/11 -- I just -- I want to get it accurate -- was an inside job. I don't know if you believe those things or not. Do you? Because I was surprised when I read it.
CORSI: I don't. That is fabrication. I don't believe. But you are getting into a very important point. Aaron Zelinsky, one of the prosecutors, said ridiculed me, he said you just take that fact and you make lies. Well, I know he is ridiculing my work on, you know, Barack Obama, the birth certificate.
CORSI: He's ridiculing the sweep votes. I'm being persecuted and prosecuted because the left wants to get rid of me.
HANNITY: Listen, you are allowed to have controversial opinions and views. I would disagree with you on both of those things but this isn't what's at issue here.
HANNITY: What's an issue here is, were you offered basically freedom if you told lies? And you are saying they wanted you to lie, they were pushing you to lie.
CORSI: Yes. If I had given them what they wanted it would be happy, happy. In fact, after the first grand jury testimony, they all shook my hand and congratulated me they blew it up in the second round because I did not have a source for WikiLeaks. They blew it up for that reason.
HANNITY: All right. Jerome Corsi, thank you for being with us. We wish you the best of luck. This is pretty unbelievable. Especially with the Hillary side of this.
All right. When we come back, this is going to be important legal analysis. Andy McCarthy and Gregg Jarrett. Is anything that we are talking about here looking for op-research a crime? Or do you have to conspire and actually do the things? What about the Pentagon papers case? That's next.
HANNITY: All right. Here with reaction to the legal side of my interviews with Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, is the author of the bestseller "The Russia Hoax: The Elicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump" Fox News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, and former -- and Fox News contributor, NRO contributor and of course, the Southern District of New York, probably one of the most prestigious D.A. offices in the country, Andy McCarthy.
So, if a 72-year-old guy hands over his computers, cooperates 40 hours, doesn't remember e-mails from two years ago, and then is told if you tell us this we'll basically going to let you off the hook. But he knows it's a lie. And he is willing to risk life in jail here.
Is there anything here that you hear is a crime from either Stone or Corsi? Because I don't. I hear people looking for op-research in a campaign which happens in every campaign.
GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's not a crime to fail to recollect something.
ANDREW MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
JARRETT: But in the twisted world of Robert Mueller if you don't remember three e-mails you sent two years ago you get charged with a crime, you get accused of lying even though you told the truth. You are an imperfect human being. You don't remember it.
What Corsi was doing two years ago reaching out to Assange and WikiLeaks is the same thing I did and journalists did all over America.
HANNITY: Listen, I think I'm the only guy that actually flew to London--
HANNITY: -- and interviewed Julian Assange--
HANNITY: -- when he said no. And he reaffirmed this actually tonight on NBC. No, it wasn't from Russia. No state party. Maybe there is a third party cutout. I have no idea.
JARRETT: Right. None of that is a crime.
HANNITY: But that's what he said.
JARRETT: And Mueller knows. And I think there is a very good chance that he will never charge Jerome Corsi with making a false statement because Mueller knows he couldn't possibly win and prove that case in front of a jury in a court of law because it requires specific intent.
HANNITY: So, we're going to put a 72-year-old guy in jail. Andy, you worked at one of the Southern District of New York. Some of the best prosecutors ever worked there. When a 72-year-old guy can't remember e- mails from two years ago and amends his testimony a number of times but wants to cooperate in any way, do you see a crime here?
MCCARTHY: Well, the problem, Sean, is that if there was a crime here, they wouldn't be asking Jerry Corsi to plead guilty to false statements. You know, the office that you said I worked at, you are quite right. We had a lot of very accomplished cases that were done there.
But I can tell you having done a number of them that nobody builds a case this way. When you actually have a crime, what you do is you make the main cooperator plead guilty to the conspiracy and he explains here is what the conspiracy was, here is what I did. Here is what the Russians did. Here was connection in the Trump campaign. Here is who the hackers were.
But you need to have a crime that people agreed to in order to have a conspiracy.
HANNITY: All right. Let me ask you that.
MCCARTHY: They don't have that.
HANNITY: A crime would be--
MCCARTHY: They've never had that.
HANNITY: -- if they conspired somebody to hack into somebody's e-mails. A crime would be--
HANNITY: -- if they did it themselves.
MCCARTHY: Hacking is a crime. Right.
HANNITY: Or conspired. It sounds like they are speculating. I think there is a big bombshell coming because WikiLeaks had released the DNC e-mails earlier.
MCCARTHY: No, they are not -- the prosecutors here are not speculating. What they are doing is criminalizing Republican presidential politics. And camouflaging the fact that that's what they are doing by taking a few false statements counts. In other words, they get a few people to plead guilty so that they can say--
HANNITY: Or misremembering. You know, I don't remember the last time you were on my show, Andy.
MCCARTHY: Well, regardless of what's it worth.
HANNITY: And I love you. And you are on the show a lot. You know, I couldn't tell you who is on last week. Again, I can tell you Obama's failed record off the top of my head. You know, let me ask this. In light of--
MCCARTHY: But Sean, the thing is--
HANNITY: Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. No, you go.
MCCARTHY: What I was just going to say. No good prosecutor builds a case this way. You don't build a case by pleading your cooperating witnesses to lying to the FBI.
HANNITY: What about the--
MCCARTHY: What do you want, you want to put a witness on the stand and the thing the jury remembers about them is that they are a liar?
HANNITY: It kind of sounds like bribery to me. Say what we want. That's what Corsi is saying. He knew what they wanted him to say. He could have saved his own ass. He could just--
JARRETT: These are the just tactics.
HANNITY: What do you want me to say? OK, I'll say it.
JARRETT: These are unconscionable tactics by an unscrupulous and unprincipled lawyer.
HANNITY: I don't like that system. That's a quid pro quo. Gregg, I got a specific question. Six-three decision, Pentagon papers, stolen information. New York Times and other publications, Washington Post published it upheld by the Supreme Court. Six-three decision. And that was stolen information.
Now if WikiLeaks didn't steal it and it was given to them--
HANNITY: -- and the New York Times published what WikiLeaks published, they are not based on the Pentagon paper decision neither one of them including Assange would be guilty of any crime because they didn't steal it or hack it, correct?
JARRETT: That's absolutely correct. The Pentagon papers case really does stand for the proposition that publications can publish stolen documents as long as they are not involved in the stealing because it's in the public interest. I was important for America to learn about the lies underlying the Vietnam War and the same can be true here.
Isn't it important that Americans learn of corrupt behavior by Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and the DNC? Of course, it is. Even though that information was either stolen or it was leaked by someone. Which might not even be a crime to begin with.
HANNITY: Why don't they ever go to Assange, WikiLeaks and say OK, you got this information. They make deals with everybody else. Why didn't they make a deal with him and say you show us the, where this all came from? And then we'd get the definitive answer, wouldn't we?
It seems like nobody wanted to get that answer. Where did Assange get it from? I interviewed him. He said it wasn't Russia, he said it wasn't a state party. He didn't tell me who it was. But he got it from nobody which means he didn't steal it based on what he is saying, correct? Go ahead.
MCCARTHY: Sean, you know, look. Look at the -- look at the indictment of Manafort. Look at the indictment of Gates. There is a million crimes in both of those indictments. Mueller is scorching the earth to find crimes in order to justify this investigation. If he had it, don't you think he would have charged something other than false statements?
HANNITY: Last, it's a yes or no question. When you add the Hillary issue of Russia, pay for Russian lies to influence the election, which they won't go into, are we losing equal justice?
HANNITY: Under the law, equal application under the law? Yes or no.
JARRETT: Hillary Clinton paid for Russian information, fed it to the FBI to damage Donald Trump.
HANNITY: And also fed it to the public.
JARRETT: That should be investigated.
HANNITY: Andy, are we losing equal justice, equal application?
MCCARTHY: We have never had equal justice in this. There has never been -- in one case they bent over backwards not to make a case. In the other one they are scorching the earth to find one.
HANNITY: Well, just take the shredder and put the Constitution in it and just say goodbye. That's what it sounds like to me. That's how it's written. You know, where is prosecutorial discretion? Where is any sense of objectivity, proportionality as the Democrats said during the Clinton impeachment hearings?
Gentlemen, you've been amazing. Thank you. We're going to follow the story and continue. But we have on update. DHS reporting that MS-13 gang members arrested by the border patrol as part of the migrant caravan. Sara Carter and Morgan Ortagus, they're next. Straight ahead.
HANNITY: All right. Also, another breaking news tonight. The Department of Homeland Security is confirming a man was arrested at the Calexico border crossing east of Tijuana and admitted to being MS-13 gang member, and said he was part of the caravan.
Here now with reaction, former treasury intelligence analyst, Morgan Ortagus, and Fox News contributor, Sara Carter. Now, Sara along with my radio producer Lynda McLaughlin they did a - by the way, no money, it was basically a, what do we call it?
SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Non-profit.
HANNITY: Non-profit documentary.
CARTER: Educational film.
HANNITY: Well, what you guys did, you and Lynda was amazing. Not in vain. it's about the opioid epidemic. Let's talk about the people. You had reported MS-13 gang members when you were down there, Sara.
CARTER: That's right. When I was in Guatemala over three weeks ago, and I was there to actually see the second wave come across the Honduran border. There were several, actually, that I encountered, several MS-13 gang members. The only reason I can say this is that I could visibly tell they were MS-13. I even talked to them by the tattoos and the markings on their arms.
You got to realize this now, Sean, though. Over the last several years, MS- 13 has been asking their gang members to actually not tattoo themselves so when they recruit new and younger gang members, they have actually asked them not to tattoo, not to have any markings and not to dress like them to really make themselves incognito so that when they can come across the border they can easily blend in and not be targeted by DHS. So that's another big concern.
HANNITY: We now have, Morgan, thousands more going to the border. We saw the rush, we saw the bottles thrown and rocks pelting our border patrol people. Which makes it even more dangerous. Tear gas was used. By the way, Obama did every month of his presidency on average.
MORGAN ORTAGUS, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right.
HANNITY: And nobody in the media seemed to care then. This is a big crisis. I guess the question is now that the DHS and the Mexican officials have identified over 600 criminals, some gang members like we discussed. How do we let any one of them in and how do we tell the difference? I'm sure the majority just want to be in America for opportunity.
ORTAGUS: I think you are totally right, Sean. And I think what we saw during the 2016 election is that the wall seems to be somewhat of a domestic policy dispute. And now what you are seeing I think is a real legitimate national security situation here. I think Americans are starting to see it that way.
I think that Americans are going to reject this false premise that the Democrats have put forward, which is you either have open borders and everyone can come in or if you want some sort of sensible immigration plan, if you don't like people storming our borders, if you don't like people throwing rocks at our ICE agents then somehow you are a racist and that you hate all immigrants, you know.
That sort of a false choice that the American people have been given and what they are seeing through these images is that we have legitimate national security challenges. And this is going over, Sean, not just between the U.S. and Mexico. We are seeing this as an epidemic in Central America and Latin America.
We've seen over four million Venezuelans in the socialist country that's falling apart flee their country. Colombia is dealing with this.
HANNITY: Let me ask you both this.
ORTAGUS: This is not just a U.S. issue.
HANNITY: You know, and, Sara, you know, Griff Jenkins reporting the overwhelming majority are men.
CARTER: That's right.
HANNITY: I understand the argument, our guys are getting pelted with rocks, bottles, and the other items. And they use tear gas and then people say, well, they are women and children. Well, if I'm a parent and I see people rushing the border and you see a conflict coming, I, as a parent personally would feel responsible to get my kids as far away as possible. Do they bear any responsibility?
CARTER: But Sean, yes. But Sean, let me tell you. They are using them as pawns. Remember, when I was in Guatemala, I said the same thing. They would put the women and children, the very few women and children in the front, they would use them as human shields.
This is across the entire roughly 2,000 miles southern border. They are seeing this in Texas, from 3,000 to 5,000 a week over the last two months of people coming across in the Rio Grande sector alone. Those are the numbers that they are seeing. In Arizona, it's the same thing.
CARTER: And what we are seeing in Tijuana is an example of how bad this is getting.
HANNITY: And it's only getting worse. Last 20 seconds, Morgan.
CARTER: That's right.
ORTAGUS: I would just say that the president should continue to stand firm on the funding this $5 billion that he wants for the wall. Because it's not just about the wall. It's about a fight to implement our laws.
ORTAGUS: It's symbolic about the immigration plan that he needs to have. So, I hope he keeps up the fight.
HANNITY: But Chuck Schumer only wants a fence to people who just climb over. All right. Thank you, both. When we come back, more "Hannity" after this.
HANNITY: You know what's so fascinating about all of this, is, you know, if you look that was nearly 600 days, tens of millions of dollars. Trump Russia collusion. You have Hillary collusion right there bought and paid for to influence the American people, all but ignored by the media, ignored by Robert Mueller. Unbelievable. If you say this, we'll buy your testimony. We'll give you and get out of jail free card. Is that the country we want?
Is that our constitutional republic? We'll have more tomorrow. Let not your heart be troubled. By the way, Fox Nation will tell you this big announcement tomorrow. Laura Ingraham, I have a big announcement about Fox Nation tomorrow.
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.