This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 14, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Welcome to the special edition of Hannity: "Trump Versus the Left". I'm Jason Chaffetz, in tonight or Sean.

For the hour, we'll reveal how America's left obsessively pushes anti-Trump conspiracy theories, all while covering up clear and unbridled misconduct at some of the highest levels of our federal bureaucracy. This week, Democrats and the media mob teamed up for another round of fake moral outrage, this time over a statement from President Trump about foreign opposition research.

The president emphasized he would pass off nefarious material to the FBI, but that didn't matter to the far left mob who manufactured yet another phony scandal. So after more than 24 hours of constant hysteria, President Trump clarified his comments yet again. Take a look.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: First of all, I don't think anybody would present me with anything because they know how much I love this country. Nobody is going to present me with anything bad.

Number two, if I was and, of course, you have to look at it because if you don't look at it, you're not going to know if it's bad. How would you know if it's bad? But, of course, you give it to the FBI were reported to the attorney general or somebody like that. But, of course, you do that.

You couldn't have that happen with our country. You look at what happened. Hillary Clinton with the money that ultimately went to Russia for the fake dossier, that total fake pile of stuff that if money gets paid -- and, by the way, the amount of money that was paid and paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and went to Russia, that's the criminal.


CHAFFETZ: The president was right. It was Democrats who actually paid for foreign dirt in 2016 election and it was deep state who help them every step of the way.

Recently, Congressman Nunes summed it up perfectly right here on the show. Watch.


REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: I know we always say this happened at the top of the FBI, but I will tell you, that attitude permeated throughout the counterintelligence capabilities. And if retired FBI agents thinks it's OK to use counterintelligence against campaigns, I think we have gone a long way in this country, because usually, the Democrats didn't support the counterintelligence capability because they thought they were spying on their campaigns and political enemies. It ends up, in fact, they took them over, they corrupted the whole thing, and it seems that is the attitude throughout the FBI at least for the former officials.


CHAFFETZ: One of those high ranking FBI agents was Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying, but now he's calling for Trump's impeachment all while depending the Clinton campaign for charges of collusion. Watch this.


ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: The line is very clear. It is not acceptable to take anything from a foreign power, certainly not a hostile foreign power and certainly not the government of Russia. For a campaign to hire a law firm, and American law firm who then turns around and hires an American research company who then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal. Campaigns are allowed to hire individuals, foreign individuals and to pay those individuals for the services that they provide.

And I would add too, Chris, and in the example of the Clinton campaign, it was that very foreign individual who stepped forward and provided the information he had collected to the FBI, simply because he was so troubled by what he was seeing.


CHAFFETZ: Wow. We're going to break that down.

Joining us now from "The Wall Street Journal", Kim Strassel, Fox News contributor Sara Carter, and former independent counsel and Fox News contributor, Judge Ken Starr.

Thank you so much for being here.

Kim, I want to start with you because the duplicity in that comment from McCabe was absolutely stunning. And now, he can take two positions.

But how come the Democrats aren't asked the hard questions? Republicans get hard questions and want to be able to answer the questions. But the Democrats, the double standard here is unbelievable.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, that is what I wanted to know the entire time everyone was going on about President Trump's comments. And I think in the original discussion that he had with ABC News, he was actually talking about allies of ours calling him in the capacity, his capacity as president to provide things.

But wouldn't you love to hear somebody -- ask Hillary Clinton, do you really think it is appropriate that you had hired a researcher from a foreign country who was giving information from Russians, disinformation? Because we know it's not true.

And I think Andrew McCabe's entire sentiment there sums up why we are in the mess we are in, because that was clearly the thought process that was guiding them as they went on justifying this. They went along.


CHAFFETZ: Yes. No, look, this is what's amazing about what the Clintons were doing, right? On the one hand, while she as secretary of state 11 times, President Clinton took more than $500,000 and while she was secretary of state presumably a candidate for president, and then also spending money through the DNC and the other organizations, spending millions of dollars overseas in order to generate this dossier.

So, Sara Carter, you have followed this as closely as anybody. Where do you see this going? What happens next?

SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, certainly, the investigations are ongoing. And as we've been hearing from the Department of Justice, that John Durham has basically amassed his own group of people to look at the very beginnings and the origins of the investigation into President Trump and the alleged Russian collusion.

I think that's going to be very significant because what we know now is that stands far beyond the FBI, Jason. I mean, they are looking right now at CIA officers, and, of course, John Brennan is connected to this. We have got Clapper as well, the former director of national intelligence, and James Comey.

But I think what is really important is what you said a moment ago and what you talked about, Andrew McCabe. Think about what Andrew McCabe is saying they are. He is actually saying, look, you know, we have these people talking to people in the United States. They should be reporting this to the FBI. We've got foreign actors.

Yet, they went ahead and took all of this information which I believe the investigation is definitely going to focus on Fusion GPS. That is a nongovernmental entity. That is the embattled research firm that hired Christopher Steele to basically collect all the information on the dossier which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

They're going to be looking very closely at that, but they took all of this information from a foreign, even if it was an ally, he's a foreign MI-6 -- MI-6 agent, and then they take from him and he takes the information from the Russians. So think about that. They are actually, I mean, the hypocrisy is stunning there.

CHAFFETZ: Well, and, Judge, the selective moral outrage is what drives me crazy. I don't see a fair and balanced media trying to ask hard, probing questions anywhere on the Democratic side. But as you look at the president's comments that came out this week, how do you assess the situation?

KENNETH STARR, CONTRIBUTOR: I think we should not forget that he is the president of the United States. He can talk to anyone he wants to. He can get information from anyone he wants to. He is the nation's chief executive.

And he -- I think it is clarified that if he got something from a hostile power, he would use his discretion to report it. But that's one thing I think got lost, Jason, in the entire conversation, Jason. The president brought it back to it, hey, I was meeting with the majesty, the queen. You should not call up the director of the FBI to report on conversations with her or with President Macron. It is ridiculous on its face.

Now, these are important principles that we don't want the United States of America's political campaigns to be infective, especially with hostile powers. But I think that we have essentially seen a tempest in a teapot.

CHAFFETZ: Kim Strassel, you've been running for "The Wall Street Journal" for a number of years. What questions would you want to ask the Democrats? And how do you -- how do you explain to people who do not follow the news day in and day out, this selective moral outrage that happens in the media?

STRASSEL: Well, what I really want to ask them is, OK, let's move ahead a year. And on the basis of what you are saying at the moment, what you are justifying, apparently, you would be okay if the Trump FBI started an counterintelligence investigation into one of the leading 2020 candidates or the 2020 nominees, on the basis of some sort of opposition research that had been provided to the Trump campaign from a conservative operative. You would be good with that.

Of course, they would not.

And I would also like to ask them, how they came to change their view so quickly in particular civil liberty. For a long time, remember the outrage that we had from Democrats when President Bush was trying to do the Patriot Act and other things got constantly told we could not use these surveillance tools, even metadata which is nothing compared to FISA warrants, by the way. But not even metadata because of the risk that it might invade America's privacy in some way or form or allow the government to surveil.

So, I'm not quite sure where that has all disappeared other than into the yaw of politics because it's more convenient for them to now not hold that position.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Sara, we heard Devin Nunes, his comments when he was on “Hannity” last night. But within the intel community, how pervasive is this? I mean, it is scary to think that you have Devin Nunes, the former chairman and ranking member of the House Intel Committee, telling us that this is not just one or two people, more pervasive than we originally thought.

CARTER: It absolutely is more pervasive than what has been reported. And I think this is the reason why, Jason, so many have reached out to reporters, especially to me over the last few years. I remember early on when we were first breaking the stories on, you know, the unmaskings and warrantless surveillance in issues like that. It was because people had been coming forward and saying there is something seriously wrong with weaponization of our intelligence community.

I don't think what we realize is that it was this vast, that it was happening at such a pervasive level. I think this is what Devin Nunes and others are trying to bring forward and why the investigation right now is so vitally important, because we really need to clean up these agencies, find out what was going on in an effort to move forward so that it never happens again.

CHAFFETZ: And it seems like weeks ago that, Judge Starr, we started the week with John Dean testifying. I mean, it was a comedy show as far as I could tell. But what was your take on that, when you saw that spectacle?

STARR: Well, I thought it was a poor exercise in judgment on the part of the chairman and the majority to call John Dean. Now, he's paid his debt to society and so forth, but he's made a cottage industry if not lucrative career out of assailing Republican presidents. And it's always worse than Watergate.

So, I think to be honest, I would not respect John Dean's judgment and I think the Republicans on the committee did a very fine job of saying, hey let's look at your background and not just what you did at the Nixon White House, you paid your debt to society, but what you have done since that time which really raises very serious credibility questions.

So, I don't think it was a serious exercise, bad call on their part. But they are trying to keep the ball in play as I see it, right? Keep the stories going. But it was ignored because of a helicopter crash which was very tragic in New York. But it shows it was not a good judgment on the part of the Democrats.

CHAFFETZ: Judge Starr, thank you for joining us. And, Sara and Kim, we thank you for your expertise as well. We really do appreciate it.

During President Trump's interview with George Stephanopoulos, the Clinton staffer-turned-ABC journalist, was obsessed all things Mueller, and President Trump called him out on it. Have a look.


TRUMP: I gave them 1.5 million pages of documents, right? I gave them 400 or 500 witnesses. I let Don McGahn testified. I let him -- he's the White House counsel. I let him testified --


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: You didn't answer questions on obstruction.

TRUMP: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I did answer questions. I answered them in writing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not on obstruction.

TRUMP: I don't know. I answered a lot of questions. They gave me questions and I answer them in writing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not on obstruction.

TRUMP: Look, George, you are being a little wise guy, OK, which is, you know, typical for you, just so you understand. Very simple, it's very simple. There was no crime. There was no collusion.


CHAFFETZ: Oh, that's vintage Trump.

Joining us now is Fox News contributor and former congressman, Trey Gowdy. I served in Congress with Mr. Gowdy.

We thank you for joining us today. I really do appreciate it.

I want to go to the beginning and when we come back to it we heard with Trump and Mr. Stephanopoulos. But at the beginning of the week, we heard John Dean came before a committee that you used to serve on and I served on as well, the House Judiciary Committee. What was your take on that read?

TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: Just how sad it was. I mean, John Dean is not a fact witness. He's never talked to Don McGahn. He's never talked to President Trump. He's never talked to Christopher Steele.

So you can rule out him having any facts that might benefit the American public. He is not a legal expert on obstruction. He did pay his debt to society. So, it would not spend my five minutes re-litigating his criminal history, but is not a fact witness.

So, it begs the question to Jerry Nadler, why would you call someone who can't help the American people with the facts or the law? And the reality is, Jason, and you were there almost as long as I was, this story, they wanted to get it started right after the inauguration. And they want to keep it going until November of 2020.

And even having a pathetic, sad hearings that don't benefit anyone other than the folks who buy advertising on television that is part of this effort to keep it alive.

CHAFFETZ: They don't even sell advertising on C-Span and I can imagine people wasting their time to watch that clown show.

When you bring up two convicted felons, Michael Cohen and John Dean, as the way you will propel this, I don't know how Democrats with a straight face look in the cameras and say, oh, yes, we are trying to get to the bottom to do work for the American people. Now, part of what also happened in the committee --

GOWDY: I'll tell you how they do, I'll tell you how they do.


GOWDY: Because they never ask about it, Jason. I mean, how many times did you when I discuss -- look, you were really, really good with the media when you were there. I constantly watch you stop and talk to print reporters and most of the rest of us wouldn't do it. I hope you even you have realized now that duplicity and relativism with which Republicans are covered versus Democrats.

If you as the chairman of oversight had called someone like John Dean who is not a fact witness, he's not a legal expert, about the best he can give you the date of the life in federal prison. That's the best he's going to be able to give you, you have been excoriated. You don't hear anything about Nadler.


CHAFFETZ: The media would not even ask questions. I issued a subpoena from Bryan Pagliano, the I.T. specialist for Hillary Clinton, who said he served four years in the -- with Hillary Clinton, and had never sent or received an email and he had immunity agreement. We asked him to come before the committee and no one even cover the hearing because he didn't show up.

GOWDY: I was there, in case you forgot, I was there. Hey, how about six years’ worth of not getting information from President Obama's administration? I mean, where is the outrage? Where is the "Politico", "Hill", "Washington Post" articles about how outrageous it is the executive branch is not cooperating with legitimate oversight? You don't see any of it.

So, look, I get that our former line of work ain't that popular, but folks in the media are not trusted as much as we need them to be in a robust thriving democracy. And at some point, they need to ask themselves, I wonder why we're not trusted. I wonder why people think we are in the tank for the Democrats. And I think you will see a little bit of that this week.

CHAFFETZ: No, you see it every week along the way. Now, one of the --

GOWDY: A little more than a little.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. One of the things that also happened this week is they wanted to hold and they did vote in the oversight committee, a committee you and I were both on, and both chaired, to hold Attorney General Barr and the Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross in contempt. I mean, I can't believe they did this.

What was your take on this?

GOWDY: You know, Jason, we held in contempt for failure to produce documents. You and I were not chairman at the time, but there is tension between the branches over whether or not to produce documents and whether or not there's been an accommodation.

There is actually litigation still ongoing with this. So it is kind of like holding Barr in contempt for not turning over the Mueller report. By law, he cannot turn over parts of it so you will hold him in contempt for following the law. In this instance, they are holding Wilbur and the attorney general in contempt for not turning over documents related to something that's currently part of litigation.

But if you can do it and get away with it and never be questioned and never be challenged by your base or the media, why not?

CHAFFETZ: No. In the case of Wilbur Ross, there is a pending Supreme Court decision that's going to happen at the end of the month. They have three scheduled witnesses from the Department of Congress. Wilbur Ross testified for hours before the committee. They have turned over 14,000 documents.

And this rush to try to hold them in contempt before the Supreme Court comes about and this decision. And yet, nobody -- but nobody is writing these stories because they don't ask the core questions.

I have just a minute left but I want to get your take on Andrew McCabe calling for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. What's your take?

GOWDY: Oh, JC, all right, go back to the criticism of Trump this week, because he wasn't sure whether he'd call the FBI. I hope he does. I would encourage him to call the FBI.

But let's think about who he would have gotten on the phone if he had called in the summer of 2016. Comey, who thinks impeachment is too good for you, McCabe who despite his own legal distractions wants to weigh in and say Trump ought to be impeached, or Brennan who wants to do when more than that and actually put them on trial for treason, a crime for which you can be put to death.

So, that's who he is supposed to call in the summer of 2016. I wish McCabe would just go on and deal with his own legal issues. I really don't know anyone who gives a damn what Andy McCabe thinks about impeachment and Donald Trump. I really don't, other than the reporter that asked him. I don't know a single soul --

CHAFFETZ: He's in a huge big legal trouble and he better start lawyering up and I think he's out there trying to spin his own thing because --

GOWDY: That's where I put my time. I would devote my time on my own legal issues and not weigh in on other people's.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. Well, he's going to be in a world of hurt soon. I can't wait for the inspector general to report. I know you and I think a lot of Michael Horowitz and I'm sure he did a thorough job. And when he comes out and says, I think it's probably going to be close to the facts as you get.

GOWDY: You are right.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman Gowdy, thank you again for joining us.

Directly ahead, you won't believe what President Trump said about 2020 Democrats running for president. Matt Schlapp and Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona will be here with reaction.

Stay with us.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to the special edition of Hannity: "Trump Versus the Left".

2020 Democratic presidential continued their push to impeach President Trump. Yesterday, California Congressman Eric Swalwell penned an article where he wrote, quote: We have no choice. Congress must begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Senator Amy Klobuchar are also joining for calls for impeachment. Take a look.


MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-NYC, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They should begin impeachment proceedings. We can no longer accept the notion of a president who openly invites interference in our election. Look, the Mueller report was bad enough and eventually would lead to successful impeachment. But the interview, there's those breakthrough moments in life, that interview said he has learned nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you would support impeachment proceeding beginning now?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would support impeachment proceedings beginning now, but I also understand they may want to do an investigation leading up to it. And I think they should be given the time to do that.


CHAFFETZ: It sounds to me like they are afraid to face President Trump in the general election. The president also went after sum up his possible opponents when he called in to "FOX & Friends" this morning.


TRUMP: Look, everybody knows that Joe Biden does not have what it takes. OK? He doesn't have what it takes. Everybody knows this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What does that mean?

TRUMP: It means the mental capacity. It means a lot of different things. He doesn't have -- never did have what it takes. Until Obama took -- he ran two or three times. I used to call him 1 percent Joe because he never got more than 1 percent.

Then Obama came along and surprisingly, took him off of I would say, the trash heap.

Now, I see that Pocahontas is doing better. I would love to run against her frankly.

I see that Bernie Sanders is not doing well at all. I would have, frankly, would like to run against.

I think it's probably those three. I don't see the other ones. I really don't see it.


CHAFFETZ: Joining us now is American Conservative Union chairman, Matt Schlapp, and Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs.

I want to go back to the beginning of where we were talking about with Eric Swalwell. I think it is generous to call him a presidential candidate 0.0 percent, but I guess you can fill out the paperwork. So, he pens his article right here, right?

This is "The Atlantic" and this is why you can't take this guy seriously. It starts off, he writes at the beginning, as the Judiciary Committee's only career prosecutor.

That's just not true. John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, Ken Buck from Colorado is a long time prosecutor. The guy is a fraud.

And yet, they continue this drumbeat, Matt, and they say, we have to have impeachment.

MATT SCHLAPP, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION CHAIRMAN: Yes, I don't know if this is a contest to be the next Democratic nominee or just a contest to get a big TV contract. But it does seem to be kind of an interesting spectacle to watch.

I do think the president's right. There is definitely tier one group of candidates of who look like they are credible. Then there is all these others.

And quite honestly, to the American people we look at these Democrats who are running on impeachment and investigation and I think it is rather exhausting, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: I mean, show some creativity along the way, at least, you know?


CHAFFETZ: But, Andy Biggs, the congressman from Arizona. I served with you in the Congress as well. It's got to be frustrating. A guy like Swalwell is there for one thing only, gain attention, get in front of the camera. Believe me, I know a lot about cameras but this guy is unbelievable in his approach.

But this impeachment talk -- I mean, are they going to do it or not do it? Are they just going to chatter about it?

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): Well, they are doing that chattering now but I think they will get around to doing it because right now Nancy Pelosi is just trying to hold the team of horses back that's trying to drag the Democrats to impeachment. But, I mean, look you got people like Swalwell, polling zero, Klobuchar maybe 1 percent. You got de Blasio, is he even still running?

I mean, these people are running -- who knows why they are running? I don't know why they're getting on stage. They're going to be in the debate.

But good grief. You are talking about people who are just making the most outrageous claims on hypothetical statements for impeachment. It is absurd, ludicrous. And actually frankly, in Swalwell's case, it's actually funny.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. And, Matt, when Mayor de Blasio goes out and says, oh, we need impeachment. Doesn't it really even matter? I mean, is anybody even listening? You can walk down, Fifth Avenue, you can walk down Times Square, which is right around the corner from the building I'm sitting in right now. The city is a mess. It is a disaster.

And how he spends time talking about other things when they have chronic homelessness and other problems around this country, it really does fire you up.

SCHLAPP: Yes, Mayor Bill de Blasio can kill somebody on Fifth Avenue and people would say, who is it that killed that guy? And I think these are anonymous candidates.

And the problems for the Democrats finding a theme, Jason. It's not so much finding a candidate. It's finding a theme.

The economy is roaring. America is back. We are leading again and not on bended knee apologizing to the world. We are cracking down on the problems that the country faces.

And, look, in America, we re-elect Presidents when we are not at war and when the economy is strong. And in Donald Trump's case, he has got a very strong hand. The Democrats, all they have is try to make him illegitimate and they tried for two years, it isn't working.

CHAFFETZ: This is the problem, right, Congressman Biggs. I mean the Democrats have nothing to run on. You take people like de Blasio and you take people like Swalwell in California and their policies, Democrats have been in-charge in those places for a long time. And we see the homelessness and the problems. But you look at what Donald Trump's doing and the difference between the Obama, Biden years, this economy is soaring. Republicans actually have some worthy to run on.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Absolutely right. And I look at the Democrats and I say; they don't have any policy prescriptions. You know Jason you've gone through the appropriations process and you should see the amendments that the Democrats are throwing out there. They don't want to bring the budget under control.

They want to yell and scream about the President needing to be impeached, but the economy is so good and the economy and their places that de Blasio and Swalwell are coming from, they're not so good in the sense that you've got the homeless problem, you've got this terrible problem with the cities turning to be rundown, they look awful. People don't want to go there, and they want to leave. And that's because of Democrat policies. I think President Trump has really brought this country back domestically and internationally as well.

CHAFFETZ: Well, he's got a record to run on and he's got policy prescriptions that are making a difference in this country. And I don't see one of the Democrats out there with policy prescriptions that would make this country stronger than what Donald Trump's doing it. That's my perspective. Matt Schlapp, Congressman Biggs, thank you so much for joining us. Really do appreciate it.

The hate Trump media exposed like we've never seen before. Kayleigh McEnany, Charlie Hurt and Allie Beth Stuckey will explain. Up next.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity. Trump versus the Left, the liberal mainstream media hit a new low this week. Just this morning, MSNBC's Morning Joe had a debate about whether Trump is evil or horrendous. Watch this.


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, MORNING JOE, MSNBC: When a really truly evil guy said to George Stephanopoulos, of course I would report it. I would report it instantly in fact. Do you know what, I've hired three lawyers and they're going to be scanning throughout the entire government? We're going to have the toughest task force on foreign interference ever, while he's actually calling China and calling Russia to say, hey, you've got anything, you could almost say, is he evil or there's just no moral. There is no compass there to even look at.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Well, he's not smart. This is horrendous, horrendous for our democracy. He is a national security threat. And what he does is not stupidity, what he does is not evil playing out before our eyes. What he does is he manipulates the truth.

CHAFFETZ: The hypocrisy of that show is just drives me nuts. Anyway, meanwhile since President Trump announced that Press Secretary Sarah Sanders would be leaving her post at the end of the month, some members of the mainstream media decided to take cheap shots at her. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was called upon to choose between her fidelity to Trump and her fidelity to the truth and she chose Trump. Her legacy is one of defending the indefensible and not being truthful with the American people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah Sanders lied again and again and again, it's just not my opinion. Those are the facts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She fell short of her duty to the American people and it's going to be part of her legacy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She suffers from liabilities. The American public deserved better. They did not trust what she said.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have to say I will not miss her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were the first hour to ban her. Her tape. And so, I literally and figuratively will not miss her either.


CHAFFETZ: And The Washington Post reacted to the news by putting up this picture on their official Instagram account, which reads "the Queen of gaslighting, farewell to a lying disrespectful White House Press Secretary." Unbelievable.

Joining me now with reaction Fox News Contributor, Charlie Hurt, Relatable Podcast host, Allie Beth Stuckey and Trump 2020 National Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Kayleigh is joining me in studio here in New York. When you see that, I mean you deal with the press. You're a human being. You've got a family. When you see that what goes through your mind?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I think I see what the American people see. They see an elitist pompous smug press that is entirely out of touch and contrast that with Sarah Sanders, a wonderful human being, honest, so much integrity when the American people watch her, they watch someone fighting for them, for the Trump agenda that they elected. And there is a reason why you got to pull out Sarah Sanders ranked the ninth most admired woman in this country. It's because the American people see her as a fighter and someone standing up to the pomposity of the press, which has historic low approval ratings by the way.

CHAFFETZ: Now Charlie, you've been looking and watching the DC media for a long time. When you see the attacks that she's taking personally, when she's announcing that she's actually leaving, what do you see?

CHARLES HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I've never seen anything like this Jason. It's really amazing. The personal nature of the attacks on her, it so often has nothing to do with a policy position or a factual dispute or anything like that. It's just as vicious vitriolic personal attacks. And you know the clip on that you just showed from MSNBC, where the hostess was talking about how we were the first hour to ban her, whatever she said. It was a competition among all of these reporters to see who could be the nastiest and the most venomous towards her, much the way they've been towards President Trump prior to that. But to the way they've gone after Sarah Sanders, it's like nothing I've ever seen before. And I think that they turned off a whole new sector of people who will not pay any more attention to any of the news, so-called news scribes out of Washington.

CHAFFETZ: Now Allie Beth, I mean when I see that I think you're showing their true colors. Here's a woman who sacrificed a lot and she's serving the President of the United States. But Allie Beth, why do this when you're going out the door and you're announcing that you're leaving at the end of the month?

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY, RELATABLE PODCAST HOST: Look, I understand that they're celebrating right now. If I were an anti-Trump journalist, I too would be very excited about Sarah Sanders leaving, because she is so good at her job. She did not let anyone in the press run with an unfair or untrue narrative and that's extremely intimidating coming from such a strong press secretary. So, I totally get it. I get their attitudes; I get why they're excited. They think that they're going to have someone come in that's not going to be as strong as Sarah Sanders and they're excited to see her go. I probably would be too if I were them.

CHAFFETZ: No, listen - look, this is a woman who stepped up into a very tough role, did an admirable job and the human sacrifice, the toll on her family. I mean remember the stories of them harassing your family and not going to serve her at a restaurant and do all those kinds of things. Hats off to somebody who steps up and does that Kayleigh.

MCENANY: Yes, absolutely. Hats off to her. And it's worth stepping back rather than criticizing Sarah who did an excellent job. I wish the media would take a look in the mirror about how wrong they are and how often and how they quickly forget they were wrong about the November 8, 2016 election, when President Trump won. Wrong about the collusion narrative, wrong about the Mexico tariffs not working. They are consistently wrong and yet they have the audacity to go out with all their pomposity and criticize Sarah and talk about mis-truce when they are the ultimate spinner of mis- truce.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, and Charlie that's the problem, right. I mean it's this flip flop and the idea that they preach this narrative about collusion that never turned out to be true.

HURT: For two years, they use dirt from foreign adversaries. They used false fake made up dirt from foreign adversaries to try to undermine a duly elected President and they failed because all of it was completely made up. They're all complicit in it and they all did everything they could to cover for it and to prop it up and to make it seem like it might be true. And now of course, we listen to all of them talking very seriously about wanting to remove the President based on this fake false information that was obtained from foreign adversaries.


HURT: That's strange in it.

CHAFFETZ: They want to get rid of him because he said he would listen and that's the crime, illicit. He started out by saying I do both.

HURT: Make them listen in three year.

CHAFFETZ: But you know that's impeachable listening. But I want to ask you Allie Beth, when I was the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, I had an agreement with my Ranking Member and said, you know what, we can go after each other as elected officials, but we leave the staff alone. They work for us.


CHAFFETZ: They have families. They're federal employees. Why should we believe the national media when they treat somebody like Sarah Sanders the way they have?

STUCKEY: I think the gloves are off when it comes to President Trump and this administration. I mean Charlie said and Kayleigh said, this is what we've never seen this kind of personal vitriol from the press towards the President and his administration. I think that nothing is off limits. And again, she was on the front line. So, this was the person primarily calling them on their narrative and calling them on their lies and they just got really offended by it. And so, I think we are seeing some kind of celebration of the end of this particular part of her career, because they - she made them extremely uncomfortable.

CHAFFETZ: Well, hats off to Sarah and what she said. Her sacrifice, her personal sacrifice, her family, her personally she has a lot to be proud of and her service in this country, I hope she looks back fondly, because she was dealing with a fake news media and one that had an agenda and was going after and she stood there and took the bullets day-after-day, night-after- night and hats off to her for that - the great job that she did as the Press Secretary.

Kayleigh, Charlie, Allie Beth, thank you so much for joining us tonight. When we come right back, New York City is actually using public money, your taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. Unbelievable. Stay with us.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity, Trump versus the Left. Tonight, liberal lawlessness is continuing to plague our major cities, rampant homelessness, needles on the streets and massive trash pileups are leading to an all-out public health crisis, especially in Los Angeles, where city officials are now accusing neighboring suburbs of dumping their own homeless on L.A. streets, escalating the already out of control crisis and unfortunately, California's soft on crime policies don't stop there, because Democrats in the Golden State are now pushing to actually let convicted felons serve on juries.

And remember this, Far Left radicalism extends to every corner of the new extreme Democratic Party, including on the issue of abortion, where New York is leading the charge as city leaders are backing new efforts to provide abortion funding assistance for women who travel in from out-of- state to have the procedure. They are literally taking your taxpayer dollars and using them for abortions in New York. You can't get it done in your own state. Come to New York and the taxpayers in New York will pay for you to help get through that process. U.S. Senate candidate for Michigan John James is joining us along with Fox News Contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy. Rachel, I want to start with you. It is a tough subject, when you start talking about abortion, the idea that we're going to use taxpayer funds to do that. How does that strike?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, CONTRIBUTOR: It's crazy and it used to be that Americans agreed on both sides of the issue not to use taxpayer funds for abortion and still the question is, by the way the fund is about $250,000. It will not just pay for the abortion from out of state women. It will also help them pay for transportation costs and lodging. The question is why use public funds. You can raise $250,000 in a New York minute among rich liberal Democrats in New York City. Why are they doing it? The reason is they're doing it purposefully, it's their way of getting revenge against some of the pro-life legislation and the sentiment in the country and in the science community that is favoring the pro-life movement.

And it's a trend that you're not just seeing in New York. I have a daughter in college, she attends University of Chicago, they just voted in their student government to use the tuition money that my husband and I paid towards my daughter's school towards an emergency fund that will now also pay for abortions from college students. So, this is a liberal trend. It's a revenge to force people who oppose abortions to actually be complicit in it.

CHAFFETZ: And this is the problem, because Planned Parenthood has literally hundreds of millions of dollars in their endowment, but they're purposely going to use these taxpayer dollars in order to do that. What's the message that they're sending there, John?

SEN. JOHN JAMES, R-MICH.: Well, I believe this is a betrayal of public trust of taxpayers in New York. I believe that using taxpayer money to fund abortions is the wrong answer and the wrong way to go about fulfilling Mayor Bill de Blasio's campaign promises. Look, I'm pro-life. I'm not going to apologize for that, but I think that we need to spend more time wrapping our arms around of the mothers and the children doing everything that we can to protect to preserve the life of both. I've seen too much death in my 38 years to abide by anymore that we can possibly do more to stop.

CHAFFETZ: And also, I've got to tell you, you know one of the things is also about the health of the mother which we talk about, but this is not the safest way to do this, right Rachel?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: No, it's not. By the way, the legislation that Cuomo signed, Governor Cuomo signed actually is making abortion that used to be you know make it rarer and safe, part of the legislation wasn't just to allow abortion in later stages of pregnancy and even after birth as we both know has been very controversially discussed, but also they're making it such that it's not just, it used to be just doctors could perform this, now they're allowing technicians and nurses, so they're not making abortion safer. It's quite the opposite.

CHAFFETZ: No, listen John I'm sorry. I wish I had more time to talk about L.A. and homelessness and the policies, because I know you care deeply about that. John James, a candidate for the Senate in Michigan. Thank you for joining us. Rachel, thank you. We'll be right back with tonight's Villain of the Day as this special edition of Hannity continues.


CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity, Trump versus the Left. Tonight's Villain of the Day is Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. We all recognize that President Trump has many opponents at home, but it appears that he may have true enemies gathering abroad. Recent reports suggest that Iran may be behind the alarming tanker attack. Trace Gallagher is with us to give us the latest. Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And Jason experts in foreign and Middle Eastern policy widely acknowledged that the video released by the Pentagon showing what appears to be an Iranian fast boat removing an unexploded mine from near one of the damaged tankers is very compelling evidence that Iran was in fact behind the attacks. And here's what the President said today on Fox and Friends. Watch.


TRUMP: Well, Iran did do it and you know they did it because you saw the vote. I guess one of the mines didn't explode and it's probably got essentially Iran written all over it.


GALLAGHER: The President would not say how or if he plans to respond to Iran's latest provocation. But the White House confirms that Mr. Trump did speak to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe today to thank him for "facilitating communication with Iran", an indication that the President is still willing to negotiate. Prime Minister Abe was in Tehran when the tankers were attacked and one of them is owned by Japan. The U.S. has also talked about possible military escorts for vessels transporting oil through the very vital Strait of Hormuz waterway. Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Trace. And thanks so much for joining us tonight ahead of this Father's Day weekend. Also, a birthday shouts out to the President of the United States Donald J. Trump who turns 73 today. And if that isn't enough to make you feel patriotic, it's also the Army's birthday today. It was founded 244 years ago in 1775. And to top it all off, it's officially Flag Day. So, be sure to fly old glory high and proud. We hope you enjoyed this great American weekend. Thanks to Sean Hannity for allowing me. "Ingraham Angle" is up next.

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.