Sekulow: Trump should not be on trial, he should not have been impeached

close

Video

Sekulow: Trump should not be on trial, he should not have been impeached

Jordan Sekulow, member of Trump's legal team, gives a preview of his expectations for the trial on 'Hannity.'

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," January 20, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST:  All right. Welcome to "Hannity."

Busy news night. Busy news week.

You are going to want to see tonight our exclusive investigative report of what is being called by Peter Schweizer the Biden Five. Apparently, the zero experience stuff with Hunter is just the tip of the iceberg. So, wait until you hear this exclusive report.

Also tonight, the Democrats, their heinous, their unconstitutional and outright frankly dangerous impeachment fantasy is getting ripped to shreds. 
Now, President Trump's legal team calling it, quote -- rightly so -- dangerous perversion of the Constitution. A brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and to interfere with the 2020 election now just months away. Two hundred and eighty-eight days, but who's counting?

They are bastardizing the Constitution. No Republican senator -- listen, voters out there, you elect these people -- should give this one iota of legitimacy. For those Republicans, the people you've elected who want to prove their own moral superiority and sense of extra special fairness, you need to focus on your constitutional role, period, which is why the voters hired to you.

According to Article I, Section 2, the House of Representatives have the sole power of impeachment. They've impeached the president. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. You are doing the trial part.

Now, you the American people, you need to know this. It is not your Republican senator's job to bolster what are pathetically weak articles of impeachment from the House. It is not your senator's duty to call witnesses that the House didn't even subpoena. It is not your representative's responsibility to investigate evidence the House neglected to examine.

There are no do-overs. The Senate doesn't get to take on the constitutional role of the House. Senators review the articles of impeachment. That's it, as delivered by the House.

They now have House managers. They will present their case and your Republican senators need to render a verdict. That's it.

Now, listen closely, because these articles are an affront to our entire constitutional system. The ramifications would transcend and alter the presidency, the executive branch of our government.

Tomorrow morning, you have the most radical Trump hating members of the House of Representatives will present these pathetic weak arguments to the U.S. Senate. Their case consists of two insidious articles. The first, accusing the president of an impeachable offense, a crime that doesn't exist, a vague general catch-all charge they call abuse of power.

The president's legal team, rightly, is calling this nebulous concept constitutionally defective. That's the tip of the iceberg. They wrote,
quote: It supplants the Framers' standard of bribery, high crimes, misdemeanors, what is -- with a made up theory. Unconstitutional, that the president could be impeached, removed from office under these various and undefined standard of, well, some abuse of power. What is that? There's no crime.

And while the sheer basis is unconstitutional, so is the accusation. 
Democrats, they want America to believe two things. One based on rumors, speculation, hearsay, opinion witnesses, hearsay witnesses, contradictory testimony, they claimed the president coerced the country, Ukraine, into investigating quid pro quo Joe and investigating Ukraine's election interference.

Now, keep in mind, the country never agreed to open any investigation. They never agreed. They didn't even know the money was being held back a little bit.

The U.S. aid was paid out in full ahead of schedule. And guess what, there were five separate high-level meetings after the call. Not one time was aid ever brought up. Even with the president being there.

The president never mentioned aid in the call. The only thing the president mentioned in the call was, hey, I'm getting worried, you're surrounding yourself with some of the same corrupt people as your predecessor. Not a good idea.

The president in his mind, obviously, was worried about corruption, rightly so, and giving money to a country that has been corrupt.

Ukrainian government denied any coercion from the get-go. Zelensky has said it numerous times. The foreign minister said it numerous times.

Now, the second thing Democrats, they want the country to believe is that somehow, illegal -- it's illegal for the president of the United States to investigate a potential crime committed by Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Now, apparently, Democrats think quid pro quo Joe is totally immune from any past illicit behavior. That is zero experience Hunter making millions from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company while his father oversees U.S.- Ukraine policy, what?

We, the American people -- can any of you out -- watching this show tonight or any of your friends or anybody who you know, do you think you're going to get paid millions of dollars from any company if you have zero experience? I don't think so.

And just -- we're just are supposed to accept that's OK? You're not getting the billion? Really?

Quid pro quo Joe literally leveraged one billion of your dollars, U.S. aid (ph), to get a Ukrainian prosecutor who is investigating his son and his son's company, all this money, bragging about it on TV, given them six hours or you're not getting the billion. We're supposed to pretend that never happened?

Now, of course, we all know that the president United States also has a sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land and, by the way, in his call with the Ukrainian president -- well, he first asked for cooperation with a very legitimate concern, do us -- not me -- do us, your country and my country, a favor.

Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 election, by the way, as documented in a January 11th, 2017 "Politico" investigative report. Foreign election interference is after all and has been for three years a concern.

By the way, this is separate and apart -- we all agree -- Russia interfered. By the way, if we had listened to Devin Nunes in 2014, maybe Biden and Obama would have done something to stop it.

This is separate and apart. Yes, the Russians interfered but according to a Ukraine court and according to "Politico", so did the Ukrainians.

Later in the call, the president raised legitimate concerns about the Biden sketchy behavior, at that point on tape, in the country of Ukraine.

Joe was serving as vice president in charge of Ukrainian policy. Quoting, the Democrats, oh, that's now an impeachable offense. What? That's the president's job.

And it gets worse. The second article of impeachment is a blatant attempt to destroy what is a critically important, consequential function of the executive branch of government, commander-in-chief.

House Democrats are accusing the president of obstruction of Congress for simply asserting or saying he will assert ultimately didn't have to assert because they never subpoenaed the people executive privilege. And, by the way, when there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branch, it is a normal process to go to the third branch that would be the, of course, judicial branch of government to seek remedy.

Now, this tool enables the president to withhold sensitive information that impacts our national security and foreign affairs. The president's legal team rightly describing it as, quote, essential to protect the president's ability to secure candid, confidential advice and have frank discussions with his advisors. This has been utilized by every single president starting with that guy, George Washington.

President Bush asserted executive privilege six times. President Obama asserted this power once. Neither was subject of an impeachment charade. It wasn't considered obstruction when they did it.

In 1998, even Congressman Jerry Nadler, biggest hypocrite, along with Schiff in Congress, argued that the use of executive privilege is, quote, not illegal or impeachable. That's only for his side.

And here's the kicker. In a dispute over legitimacy of an executive privilege claim, the courts issued the verdict. They provide the remedy.

In the case of President Trump, Democrats didn't bother to fight the case in court. I'll tell you why, they thought they're going to lose, all but ignoring our third branch of government. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley testifying this represented an abuse of power committed by House Democrats.

And according to the president's legal brief, quote, they simply announced that constitutional accommodation contempt and litigation were all too inconvenient for their politically-driven timetable and that they must impeach the president immediately, urgently.

Tonight the Senate must not your elected senators must not capitulate, lend legitimacy to the demands of a compromised, in this specific case, congenital liar. He's been lying to us for three years, Adam Schiff, and the rest of his malignant House managers. That's because this is a baseless impeachment. It has been politically motivated with a hunt from the very beginning.

Now, there was no fairness. There was no due process. There was no fair investigation, all the considerations Newt Gingrich and the Republicans gave Bill Clinton and his attorneys, none of which were given to President Trump.

And most importantly, no legitimate impeachable offenses and no crime. Now, it's time for the U.S. Senate to fulfill your constitutional duty. Your senators need to hear from you.

Now, you hear the Democrats' pathetic case, they should now -- House has no sole power constitutionally to impeach. The Senate has the sole power to hold the trial. OK, they impeached him. Bring your case, make your case, and then the Senate render a verdict. Dismiss it, because there's no impeachable offense here.

Joining us now with more, a member of the president's legal team, Jordan Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice.

All right. Let's get the legal case here. There's no crime. I've read the summary. It was very powerful.

JORDAN SEKULOW, MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM: Yes.

HANNITY:  But here we are.

SEKULOW:  We're here. Yet, tomorrow -- tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, this begins, the trial in the Senate. As you said, the Senate has that sole power to try. The senators will be really sitting in as jurors, you will -- tomorrow will be, again, the rule day where we determine kind of how this is all going to work out and will there be amendments offered and things like that.

But, again, how long this goes will be determined tomorrow. And then we're going to get into the heart of this.

And for the first time, through the two filings we've made, our answer and now the memorandum that was filed today that you've been reading from, in quoting -- which is -- just takes apart piece by piece every single argument made by that the House Democrat managers in their filings which were, again, so weak to begin with, so difficult to defend.

And so, we now have this opportunity to do process. And I'll tell you, you know, even though none of us wanted to be here and we shouldn't be at this moment where we will be entering the U.S. Senate chamber tomorrow and I'll be there at -- to begin this trial, President Trump should not be on trial. 
He should not have been impeached by the House.

He's got a team that is in a sense chomping at the bit ready to go, because this is our first chance to defend this president --

HANNITY:  Real quickly --

SEKULOW:  -- with actual due process.

HANNITY:  OK. Executive privilege, that's basic. That should --

SEKULOW:  Oh --

HANNITY:  -- that throws out Article II, the second article of impeachment.

SEKULOW:  Yes.

HANNITY:  Now, the issue of witnesses seems to have come up. The House impeached him. They should make their case.

Why would any senator, Republican senator ever say, oh, we'll bring in more witnesses because you did such a crappy job when it's their constitutional role not the Senate's?

SEKULOW:  That's right. I mean, the Senate's role is to take what the House presents and that's it.

And, you know, again, there will be at the end of this, there will be the motions made to -- should they call witnesses? I mean, I imagine that motion will be made by Democrats to try to do that the beginning. As Mitch McConnell said, they don't have the votes for that.

HANNITY:  All right, Jordan Sekulow, we'll follow it very closely.

Joining us now with more, Tennessee senator -- Senator Marsha Blackburn.

We went over this last week.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN):  Yes.

HANNITY:  This is crucial to me.

Now, the two -- the battle is going to be over, OK, every president has the right to executive privilege. Now, the question is, why would some of your colleagues ever decide, oh, these articles are so weak, let me see if we can do your job that you were supposed to do in the House?

BLACKBURN:  Well, and as we discussed last week, the House, it does the impeaching. The impeachment, a noun, comes to the Senate. The Senate takes it up for review and to hear from the House managers and from the president's team, and then they make a decision.

What we will do tomorrow is vote the rules that are going to govern this impeachment hearing and trial. We are going to then hear from those managers of the each team.

And, Sean, what we will do at that point after we have heard everything, it would be in order to go ahead and vote to dismiss this because we do not want to do anything that is going to weaken the executive privilege. We do not want anything that is going to embolden the House to do further --

HANNITY:  Do your --

BLACKBURN:  -- proceedings and I --

HANNITY:  Do all Republicans in the Senate agree --

BLACKBURN:  Yes.

HANNITY:  -- you cannot weaken executive privilege? They do agree with that?

BLACKBURN:  I -- I would --

BLACKBURN:  Does the Mitt Romneys in the world agree with that? Does Mitt?

I would certainly hope that they all agree with that and that they do not want to encourage a bad behavior from the House.

For the House to send us something, two articles, and then say, oh, but by the way, hey, Senate, we want you to call all these other witnesses that, you know, we didn't have time to do that because we were in such a rush, we had to get it done before Christmas, we had to fulfill a political promise.

Donald Trump has done nothing wrong.

HANNITY:  Senator, thank you. We appreciate your time.

BLACKBURN:  Thank you.

HANNITY:  Throughout this entire impeachment charade, Republicans have always been able to count on one group of people for constant, unyielding support. That would be the mob, and the media.

Over the weekend, we saw a perfect example of all of this. It's pretty much everywhere.

Longtime Clinton political lover, hit-man-turned-so-called-ABC-journalist,
George Stephanopoulos, he grilled Alan Dershowitz, all while ignoring to the core the very issue at the center of the impeachment charade. That would be Joe Biden's Ukrainian quid pro quo.

Here with reaction, former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

Good to see you both.

All right. Steve, the House -- you know, remember, Nancy Pelosi first said
-- well, she announced the impeachment inquiry before we knew anything about any phone call. The phone call never mentioned Ukraine.

Here's the bigger question though -- the House impeached the president. 
Fine. That's their constitutional -- that's their role. That's their sole power.

Now, the Senate does their job.

Are you concerned at all about, oh, let's -- let's try and fix what the Democrats screwed up? Because I'm a little concerned about it.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY:  And make up a new case -- the Senate doing another -- another impeachment hit job?

REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), HOOUSE MINORITY WHIP:  Right. Well, and they've said they might want to impeach him again because they've shown it's very personal, it's about this president. They're scared he's going to get reelected.

But, Sean, they had their chance to make their case and they brought in witness after witness. They didn't bring in all of our witnesses. We had a long list.

And, of course, people like the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, are people we wanted to bring. We were denied that.

But their own star witnesses when under oath were asked, can you name a single impeachable offense? Not one. Was there any bribery? No.

And so, now, it goes over to the Senate and, all of a sudden, after a rigged process in the House, they're going to want to call for a fair trial and call for more witnesses because they didn't do their job in the House. 
It's not the Senate's job to mop up the mess of the House with this. It was a witch-hunt clearly from the beginning, but they didn't make the case because there was no crime.

Every other impeachment started with a crime. The president didn't commit the crime.

Again, Ukraine got the money and there was no investigation. So getting to what you said earlier in your monologue, how can you impeach somebody for an accusation that never actually happened? But that's where we are, not because the president did anything wrong, but because they told their base that they would do this because they hate the guy and they're scared to death that he's going to get reelected in 2020, and their field is so weak.

HANNITY:  Correct.

SCALISE:  We've got a great economy because of what the president's done. 
Their field is so weak. That's why they're doing this.

The Senate shouldn't mop up the mess of the House.

HANNITY:  You know, Reince, so I'm looking at saying -- I got to give him Senator Mitch McConnell credit here because he's not going to allow this to turn into a circus that goes on. The president especially should have a right to a speedy trial.

Now, they can make their case, but if they want this to go on for weeks and months, he is creating rules that would allow the president's team the right to make a motion to dismiss, which at that point, it should be a simple up or down vote because the House will make their presentation.

REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think that the -- I think we're framing this issue very, very well, especially over the last few days. I think the president's team has done a great job, people around the president have done a great job and that there's two roads that the Senate can go down.

There's the one road that you're talking about, which is the kill switch, the motion to dismiss which says even if everything they say is true, there is no crime here. There is no -- there's no crime of -- of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's no impeachment here.

If you look at the abuse of power claim, there's something else in the articles of impeachment that's even more insane, which is the articles of impeachment against the president accused the president of corrupt motive, whatever that is. No crime, but corrupt motive, and motive is what caused the president here to bring up the issue of corruption and the prosecutor in Ukraine.

He never had -- he never had an opportunity to defend himself on what the motive of the president was.

So, in other words, the Republicans can go of two ways -- a motion to dismiss or as Rand Paul said on your show last week --

HANNITY:  That would be after --

PRIEBUS:  -- reciprocal witness list.

HANNITY:  Hold on one second. That would be after the evidence is presented. They will -- the House will make their cases why they impeach the president. That's not something done out of whole cloth.

PRIEBUS:  No.

HANNITY:  They will not present any case.

PRIEBUS:  A motion to dismiss in court is actually -- a motion to dismiss in court is actually even before a summary judgment. You're talking about after all the evidence is in, then there's a motion to dismiss. I would say that you could get two kicks at the can.

You can go in for a motion to dismiss based on the actual accusations, the complaint --

HANNITY:  But that's not going to happen.

PRIEBUS:  If everything in the complaint is true, there's no case here.

It should happen. It's not going to happen.

HANNITY:  I agree, it should.

PRIEBUS:  So, you have to do it after the evidence is in. It should happen.

HANNITY:  Right, so after they present their case.

PRIEBUS:  Hey, Adam Schiff himself -- yes, Adam Schiff himself said this is a clear case of impeachment.

Well, if there's a clear case of impeachment, then why do you need Bolton? Why do you need Mulvaney? You said it's clear.

Well, then just roll the dice and take your chances in the Senate with what you've delivered.

SCALISE:  That's because it's not only not clear, there was no crime and they know it. Even -- look at their latest --

PREIBUS:  Exactly.

SCALISE:  -- star witness, it's a guy who's actually under federal indictment for making false statements. That's what they've got. Everybody knows this is a personal vendetta.

We've got an election in November. The people are going to decide this, and Pelosi is really losing back home in all these swing districts on what she's trying to do.

HANNITY:  Right.

All right. Thank you both. You're right, 288 days, guess what? American people have a opportunity to shock the world again.

When we come back, a new report indicating, quote, a strong paper trail has now emerged in the Durham probe. We will update you with an investigative report.

Also, we have new evidence tonight that the left will never stop trying to destroy the president's -- the presidency of Donald Trump. Eric Trump, and Peter Schweizer unveils more family corruption and zero experience money going to the Bidens. We'll break that report tonight.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

HANNITY:  All right. Before we get back to our top story and the issue of the Bidens, we have a lot of new corruption. Wait until you hear the details as we check in with Peter Schweizer later in the program.

One other point in news, the Durham probe is heating up tonight. A CBS senior national security reporter, our friend Catherine Herridge, first reported late last week, DOJ appointed federal prosecutor John Durham is looking into a, quote, trove of documents, government documents, dating back to the months following the Trump election and prior to the appointment of Robert Mueller, a special prosecutor.

According to our own investigative reporter, Sara Carter, and her sources, these documents are significant.

Sara Carter is here investigative reporter, with that full report tonight -- Sara.

SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Thank you so much, Sean.

Yes, one of the most interesting aspects of the John Durham probe is the fact that he's looking at these documents that Catherine Herridge first reported on. This goes from January 2017 until May 2017. According to my sources, these documents are significant. They will reveal certain aspects of the case that have yet not been made public by Michael Horowitz, and I think that's very important here, and it's something that Attorney General William Barr had discussed earlier in his interviews in December, hinting at information that Horowitz has not yet reported on.

Another thing, Sean, that's really fascinating is that John Durham has expanded his probe to the Pentagon, to the Office of Net Assessment, and this is going to be significant as well because it's focusing on Stefan Halper, the informant that was utilized by the FBI and the trail of money that was actually given to Stefan Halper from 2015 until 2018. So these are really two major, major developments in the story and something that we'll be looking at in the future.

HANNITY:  Sara, great reporting. Good follow-up tonight.

Also, tonight, impeachment obsessed California Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently said she will not stop when it comes to investigating the president. Why would she? It's all she does.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.:  All of us have the responsibility for oversight. Yes, I have subpoenaed documents from Deutsche Bank. Yes, I am concerned about the financial affairs of the president of the United States including money laundering and I'm continuing with that. As a matter of fact, the subpoenas that I have issued that's gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the Supreme Court in March.

We will not stop. Whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY:  Oh, of course. What have they done for we, you, the American people?

Joining us now, Trump Organization's executive vice president, of course, Eric Trump is back with us.

You know, I'm watching this. The American people in 288 days, they're going to make the ultimate decision here.

ERIC TRUMP, TRUMP ORGANIZATION'S EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes (ph).

HANNITY:  I watched -- I watched every promise your father's made in the campaign that he's kept. We see record low unemployment numbers for every demographic in this country.

They can't even praise killing a terrorist who's killed Americans, Soleimani, number one state sponsor of terror. He's the leader of it. Or al-Baghdadi or beating the caliphate, or all the new trade deals.

TRUMP:  Yes.

HANNITY:  What do you think the net political impact is? You're not a novice anymore. This is -- this is now your second rodeo.

TRUMP:  Well, listen, we have nine months to go, but you have to remember, Maxine Waters, she was saying after day one, impeach 45, impeach 45. My father had been in office for exactly three seconds, Sean, and she's yelling impeach 45.

You know, the irony of this whole thing is Maxine Waters has been in government for 30 years, right? She's done 15 terms in the House, think about that, right?

Nancy Pelosi, she's been in government for 33 years, right? I mean, she's done I think 16 terms. Jerry Nadler, I could go on and on.

But yet the problems of this country were obviously created by my father. 
She wants to impeach him because, you know what, my father is not one of them. He's not a swamp creature. This isn't what he's done.

My father has been independently successful. He doesn't need this job and that's why they can't stand him. And quite, frankly, he's getting results, Sean, that they could never get and they detest him because of that.

HANNITY: This is what draining the swamp looks like.

American people knew they were electing a disrupter. They knew they were not electing an establishment candidate. They wanted somebody to go in and clean up this mess.

What -- what is your reaction as now the pressure seems to build on a few Senate Republicans to do what is constitutionally the House's job? They've impeached Donald Trump. Now, the trial goes to the Senate. It's their sole job to have the trial.

Now, that impeachment managers make their case, why would any Senate Republican do anything other than judge the case that's before them and try and enhance it, or do new witnesses, or get rid of executive privilege, which every president from George Washington has had?

TRUMP:  Well, they shouldn't.

And, you know, Sean, the incredible thing is, how many times can you cry wolf, right? And they've done that over and over and over again, and that's what I hope the Republicans understand. I think the Republicans do because the Republicans are more united now than ever before.

But they've cried wolf so many times. They've shown their hand. We know what the Democrats are all about.

They tried this with Russia. They tried this with Kavanaugh. They are trying this with Ukraine. They tried this when literally "The Washington Post" 19 minutes after my father assumed office came out and said, today is the day that Democrats start trying to impeach Donald J. Trump.

The Republicans know what these people are doing. They're trying to throw their Hail Mary.

My father has achieved more than any president in modern day history.

And so, they know exactly what these guys are trying to do. They shouldn't play their games and hopefully, they won't get forced into playing those games, and hopefully, no one's going to break.

HANNITY:  When you see --

TRUMP:  But, Sean, make no mistake, we're going to -- we're going to win this election again in nine months from now. I mean, we're -- our fundraising is through the charts, our economy is the best it's ever been, we're going to win this thing again.

And so, I really hope that no Republican breaks because this whole thing at the end of the day is a total sham.

HANNITY:  So they went through this whole two and a half years, four investigations, Trump-Russia collusion, there was none. But the media never cared about Hillary's dirty dossier, the Russian dossier, that she paid for, that even "The New York Times", it took them two and a half years to catch up to this program, but finally admitted it was likely Russian disinformation from the beginning.

TRUMP:  Sure.

HANNITY:  They missed that.

Then you've got Joe, you're not getting the billion taxpayer dollars, unless you fire the prosecutor that's investigating my zero experience son being paid millions and millions now.

Now, as the son of the president, if I think if it was you and it was your father that had a demotion was vice president, I think there'd be a very different reaction.

How do you explain the utter dismissal by everybody in the media mob and every Democrat of what is a quid and a pro and a quo with Joe, and millions paid to somebody with no experience?

TRUMP:  Well, you know it, Sean. The media for the most part is a lobbying arm of the Democratic Party.

Look at today. Look at today in Virginia, right? A beautiful to 2A rally, incredibly peaceful. They were singing "The Star-Spangled Banner". 
Everybody was out there. They were peacefully protesting, right?

On the opposite side, you'll have Antifa, and they'll burn down cities. 
They'll mug people. They'll beat the hell out of people who are totally (ph), right? I mean, they create absolute anarchy.

The media will say that these nice people in Virginia who are singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" were, you know, out of control and they were white supremacists and they were neo-Nazis and all these other, you know, horrible things. But yet, Antifa who were wearing black hoods around won't even show their face, they make out to be these wonderful, you know, law- abiding citizens.

The media does this with absolutely everything. They are the lobbying arm for the Democratic Party. I mean, make no mistake about it.

And no matter what they do -- I mean, they don't care to investigate Joe. 
They don't care that his son was making $600,000 to do a job that he knew absolutely nothing about. They don't care that he got $1.5 billion from China.

I mean go down the list. I mean, this is what the media in this country does and it's divisive and it's frankly sad and it's wrong. But people can see through it, Sean.

HANNITY:  You're going to be very interested. I have a copy here, "Profiles in Corruption". Wait until you learn all the other countries and all the other family members that had zero experience that the Bidens were making money from.

TRUMP:  You will be the only person to report on it, Sean. You'll be the only person who tells us the truth. And that's sad.

HANNITY:  It is blockbuster. That's coming up in a few minutes.

Eric Trump, thank you.

When we come back, also -- well, you won't believe who The New York Times just endorsed from president. Hint: it's not one person.

Also, a huge investigation -- Peter Schweizer, how much the Biden family has profited off Biden's name again all zero experience money. 
Unbelievable. Peter Schweizer blows this wide open in an exclusive investigative report, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY:  All right. So the Democrats' master plan to remove President Trump from office backfiring big time because the more the 2020 candidates happen to be senators, well, they're stuck voting on impeachment in the swamp, and that's the less time they have to rally voters in key states, Iowa, two weeks away. And while they may not be winning over the hearts and minds of you, the American people, they have won over the failing "New York Times" as they have officially endorsed not one but two candidates for president. That would be Senator Warren and Senator Klobuchar.

Now, someone should tell them that's not exactly how this works. They praise Warren for being a gifted storyteller, actually went on -- they actually hit the nail on the head on that part. And they called Klobuchar, quote, the definition of Midwestern charisma.

Here with reaction, constitutional law attorney member of the Trump 2020 advisory board, Jenna Ellis. Also, America First PAC senior advisor, Sean Spicer. And FOX News legal analysts, author of the best-selling book, number one bestseller, "Witch Hunt", Gregg Jarrett, is with us.

Well, Jenna, we have a hundred thousand Trump supporters requesting tickets in New Jersey, not exactly Trump country or Republican country. "The New York Times" is bashing Bernie. Biden is warning the Democrats nominating Bernie or Warren will doom the entire party.

How do you see this impeachment disaster impacting all these candidates?

JENNA ELLIS, SENIOR LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN:  Yes, I think it's a really fair question for Democrats to raise, why did Nancy Pelosi actually withhold sending the articles to the Senate for so long? Is this really a tactic to make sure to suppress the campaign advantage of those senators that are now going to be compelled to sit through this impeachment scam trial?

I mean, this is all a complex process, Sean, that I think that they are coordinating to make sure to really a rid the American public of free and fair elections. This is what it's all about for them. They are trying to overturn our fundamental right to vote in this country, and they're doing that by trying to overturn due process and the constitutional requirements, to actually impeach a sitting -- and convict a sitting president. But they're also doing this on their own timeframe and it's even hurting their own party.

HANNITY:  Sean Spicer, you were there in 2016. Not only do they want to overturn that election, they want a bloody up the president for the next election because the American people weigh in 288 days.

SEAN SPICER, AMERICAN FIRST ACTION SENIOR ADVISER:  Yes, I think this is going to be interesting, to Jenna's point, whether or not they regret this process because you've got this kind of car crash coming into Iowa. You've got four -- four or five of the candidates within the margin of error of each other, and I think that they may come to regret how it turns out. I still think that Sanders may be -- get the edge here.

But going back to that editorial, Sean, I think it's so -- it's almost schizophrenic. "The New York Times" is telling people to vote for two divergently different people, Warren, who is far to the crazy, crazy socialist left, and Klobuchar who's just to the left, and saying both have good characteristics. So, A, it's crazy that they're telling -- they're endorsing two people.

I mean, that what -- this isn't Chicago, right? They should pick one and say why. But not only they picking two people, they're picking people who are basically very, very different in their world views.

HANNITY:  Hang on. They all support some version of the New Green Deal, Medicare-for-All.

SPICER:  Oh, right.

HANNITY:  Promises that are cost prohibitive, that can never be fulfilled.

SPICER:  I -- right, and I agree, it's a question of semantics, how crazy, how far to the left you are. But I think there's no question that Warren is much, much further to the left than Klobuchar, and I think that the idea that they can point out these two things and come to the same conclusion that says vote for both, it really spans the spectrum because when I look at that field, there's a lot of folks between Warren and Klobuchar that I think are crazier to the left than Klobuchar is in particular.

HANNITY:  Yes.

SPICER:  But it's just fascinating what message that sends to voters and readers.

HANNITY:  Gregg?

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST:  Well, "The New York Times" is now the Charlie Brown of newspapers, wishy-washy. They couldn't decide, so they chose both, and as Sean points out they they're completely different. One's a moderate, one's a liberal.

What I take out of it is two things. One, they dismiss out of hand Bernie Sanders. He's too old and they described him as a health risk. But most of all, they utterly dismiss Joe Biden, which is a slap in the face at the guys actually leading in most polls. I mean, this is a guy who is a United States senator for a very long time, vice president of the United States for two terms, the alleged BFF of Barack Obama, although Obama didn't endorse him.

And now, they can't fight -- Biden can't even get the endorsement of the liberal "New York Times"? It speaks volumes about where Biden's candidacy is headed.

HANNITY:  All right. Thank you all for being with us. Great insight from all of you.

All right. Speaking about Biden, speaking about family connections, speaking about making millions with zero experience, it runs much deeper than zero experience Hunter. We will break all of it down. An investigative report, Peter Schweizer brings that to you, next. It shocks the conscience, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY:  All right. We have major, breaking news developments exposing corruption surrounding quid pro quo Joe and his family. Zero experience Hunter being paid millions, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Now, a brand new book out today by Peter Schweizer called "Profiles in Corruption", and it goes on to say, "Abuse of Power By America's Progressive Elite", sheds more light on how the Biden family, Joe in particular, and those around them, appear to have used all that power inside of Washington and the swamp to get family sweetheart deals with no experience for years, including brand new information about the shady dealings of zero experience Hunter.

But first, we start with Joe's younger brother. His name is James Biden. 
His commercial ventures conveniently flourished, they were the same exact time his brother was vice president.

And as Peter Schweizer lays out, just days after a family friend visited the Obama-Biden White House in 2010, the same friend who was the head of a construction company called HillStone hired James Biden as its executive vice president, despite him apparently having little to no experience in the field. Now, in the months to come, HillStone will receive a series of lucrative government contracts.

And the family perks didn't stop there. Joe's other brother, that would be Frank Biden, also appear to use his family's political capital he could cash in, because as Joe Biden became Obama's point man in Latin America and the Caribbean, around 2009, Joe took what was considered a rare and symbolic visit to Costa Rica. Well, wouldn't you know it, shortly after, Frank Biden inked a big development deal to build the resort in the country despite having apparently little experience in this type of development.

All right. Here to explain it more, author -- this book is a bombshell. It also gets into issues involving Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and others, "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite", Peter Schweizer.

All right. I want you to -- this now is not a game. This is now an enterprise. If it was the Hannity team, what company would ever pay anybody millions of dollars with zero experience? Could you name?

Why would any do that, Peter? Do you know any company that would do that?

PETER SCHWEIZER, "PROFILES IN CORRUPTION" AUTHOR:  No, only companies or entities that are interested in influencing the federal government or having access to the highest levels of government.

There's no coincidence, Sean, that all the deals that you talked about, whether it's Hunter, whether it's James, whether it's Frank, all of them occur, when? During this eight-year period when Joe Biden is vice president of the United States.

He'd been a prominent senator before that, but the ship really came in as far as these financial deals when he was vice president, because all of these entities either wanted something from him or they wanted to please the vice president of the United States. And the Biden family got rich as a result.

HANNITY:  OK, let's go through the specifics of this. How much money are we talking about? Did they ever lose money on these deals or did they make a ton of money? And when you say no experience, he's saying the brothers had no experience or little experience?

SCHWEIZER:  Yes, I mean, let's take the Iraq contracts for a housing construction. You know, we don't know how much money was made by James Biden in that case, because he doesn't have to disclose.

But here's what we know, this HillStone International Company was set up -- there was a meeting in the White House on November 4th, 2010, the only time the CEO of this company ever visited the White House, went to Joe Biden's office. Literally, three weeks -- three weeks later, James Biden is appointed vice president of that company. And then about three to six months later, they get this contract to build 100,000 homes in Iraq.

Now, if you look at the bio that the company, HillStone International, listed for James Biden, it didn't mention anything about construction experience. It said he knew his way around the corridors of power. He had political contact. It made note to the fact that his brother was vice president of the United States.

So, it's very, very clear why he was hired. It was hired I think in part to secure these contracts and also to run interference if there were political pressures that were brought to bear.

HANNITY:  So, is it fair to say that everybody around the Biden, Joe Biden, was using his influence in his power to get deals that no other American would ever be able to get on their own?

And I wanted to get your theory, why is it when Joe says you're not getting the billion, you're not, unless you fire the prosecutor, who, of course, was investigating zero experience Hunter paid millions, the media won't touch it? They actually just said, no, no, in one voice, in unison, oh, no real credible person has ever suggested anything. That is a lie because everybody I know laughs when they say that.

SCHWEIZER:  Yes. No, you're right. I mean, to your first question, Sean, we call them the Biden Five. There are five Biden family members who cashed in while he was vice president.

You've got Hunter. You've got his daughter Ashley, through her husband and a business that he literally set up basically in the Oval Office with Joe Biden's help. You've got James. You've got Frank. And then you've got his sister Valerie.

All of them benefited from the political power and influence of Joe Biden, and they cashed in during this period.

HANNITY:  When we come back -- thank you, Peter, see you tomorrow -- Rush Limbaugh explaining why the Democrats look so miserable on TV. I think he's nailed it. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY:  All right. So, Rush Limbaugh, he noticed something unusual about the Democrats lately. Take a look and see what it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO HOST:  It's -- it's so palpably absurd, there is not an impeachable offense. And I'm trying to figure out, what are the Democrats trying to do? Is this a gambit to actually try to win the Senate? Is -- or do they even know what they are doing other than placating?

I know they would love to get rid of Trump, don't misunderstand, but they're not even getting close to that. They're making themselves look like fools and idiots.

You know, when I see the Democrats on TV, I see look like (ph) a gray screen in front of them. They're looking colorless. They are looking just miserable. Even the drive-by media trying to get happy about all this stuff can't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY:  Yes, they're all bo-bop-bop-bop.

Anyway, all right. That's all the time we have left this evening, a busy news week ahead of us. As always, thank you for joining us. We hope you'll set your DVR, so you never miss an episode.

We will never be the mob. We will always seek the truth. Let not your heart be troubled. Laura Ingraham takes it away.

"The Ingraham Angle" is next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.