Sekulow: Were warrants issued based on anti-Trump dossier?

close

Video

Hannity - Friday, December 15

On Friday, Sean walks through the corruption plaguing the FBI and Department of Justice currently and talks about President Trump's hard stance on the two organizations.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 15, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, "HANNITY" HOST: And welcome to "Hannity."

Tonight a bombshell report from The Hill's John Solomon and Alison Spann. Now according to their reporting, prominent women's right attorney Lisa Bloom secured a cash payment for a Trump accuser and attempted to arrange huge compensation for another potential accuser just days before the election in 2016. Now this entire story is absolutely shocking.

Tonight we have very serious questions. Why would Lisa Bloom do this? Is it dirty politics at play? And part of the larger effort to undermine and destroy Donald Trump's campaign at the time. And will Bloom's actions make it harder for all the real victims of sexual misconduct to come forward in the future? We will cover all of that and more in tonight's breaking news opening monologue.

John Solomon's exclusive report is now sending shock waves all across the country tonight. Here is the headline. Exclusive prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers. Now the details from Solomon's report are beyond stunning. Well known women's rights Attorney Lisa Bloom attempted to arrange cash compensation from donors and media outlets for women who came forward or for women who were considering coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump and the lead-up to the election.

Now The Hill is also exposing that Lisa Bloom's contracts required women to, quote, "pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she was able to sell their stories to media outlets." In a statement to The Hill, Bloom confirmed that she did secure and attempted to secure these kinds of payments. But Bloom noted that obtaining money was not part of an effort to pressure women to speak out with accusations.

Now, Bloom also told The Hill that the money was to be used for relocating clients for security if they felt unsafe. Now, Bloom also said that she did not contact Hillary Clinton or her campaign. But, Bloom refused to tell The Hill about any possible communication she may have had with Super Pacs tied to Hillary Clinton. And finally, Bloom added that she never encouraged the women featured in The Hill article to say things that they did not believe to be true and the women, in fact, did confirm that.

Now, we have also reached out to Bloom for comment. She responded to our request by attacking John Solomon and claiming that the report is part of a right wing smear. However, as we have noted, Bloom confirmed all the major parts of this breaking story. Now this includes Bloom securing money for Trump accuser Jill Harth. Remember Harth accused Donald Trump of making unwanted sexual advances in the 1990s. She filed a lawsuit against him in 1997. She dropped that lawsuit.

Now, this is what The Hill is reporting about Lisa Bloom and Jill Harth which they have both confirmed. Now Harth says that in fact she did not initially ask Bloom for money even though her business she claimed was suffering from stories about her accusations. At some point, later on in the relationship, Bloom secured what The Hill described as a, quote, "small payment from licensing photos to news outlets."

And Bloom also set up a Go Fund Me page for Harth. In addition to all that, The Hill is reporting that Bloom arranged for Harth to receive an almost $30,000 payment to help her pay off her mortgage. Jill Harth did tell The Hill that taking the money does not affect the veracity of her accusations. Now, we did reach out to Jill Harth for further comment, she did not answer our request.

Now, The Hill also spoke to another woman, pay close attention to this. She chooses to be anonymous. Now this woman told The Hill's John Solomon and Alison Spann that she is a friend of Jill Harth and she was pressed by Lisa Bloom to go public with her accusations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump from the 1990s. Now, before we get into those details, it's important to note that this woman supported Trump in 2016 and is friends with people close to the President, including one of his attorneys.

Now, the woman stressed to The Hill that no one connected to the President forced her to reveal details about her interactions with Lisa Bloom. The woman says that the reason she chose to speak out about Lisa Bloom is because she was disgusted by the fact that Bloom served as Harvey Weinstein's attorney when the sexual misconduct allegations first surfaced against him. As for the woman, and Bloom's interactions, well, this unnamed woman provided text messages, emails that showed that Lisa Bloom had a very strong anti-Trump bias.

She also revealed to The Hill that Bloom appeared to have a deadline for her to speak out before the 2016 election. The timeline proves this. And the woman also detailed to The Hill that Bloom initially offered her $10,000 in the form of a donation to her favorite church. And this is where it getting interesting. As the election got closer and closer and closer and the polls got tighter and tighter, Bloom eventually increased the offer from 10,000 to $50,000 in a personal payment.

It then went to $100,000. It then went to $200,000. And then just two days, November 6th, 2016, two days before the election, it went to $750,000. Now, what this means is Lisa Bloom was offering a fortune right before you, the American people, were going to choose who the next president was going to be. The woman said to The Hill that she decided to see how much money would be offered in the end.

Now, Bloom claims the unnamed woman asked for at one point up to $2 million. But Bloom said that was a nonstarter. Here's the timeline of how all of this played out. Pay close attention. According to The Hill, on November the 4th. Bloom contacted the woman's friend. But the friend didn't put the woman on the phone because she was in a hospital bed. Bloom, according to the report, then took a flight in an attempt to see woman.

All the way to Virginia from California. And the next day Bloom was able to connect with the woman. And then Bloom allegedly sent this text message. Here's what is quoted in The Hill report. Quote, "I am confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and cancelled the press conference." Bloom texted then on November 5th, 2016 that, "That meant a lot to me. Thursday, you said that you wanted to do this if you could be protected and relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through."

A little later, she added another text. "You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect, as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn't matter. I could have done so much for you, but you can't stick to your word even when you swear you will." Two days before the election, November 6th, when the woman left the hospital, she agreed to sit down with Bloom in a hotel room, and that's where, according to the woman, just two days before the election, Bloom offered the whopping sum of $750,000.

But, the woman still declined to take it. Now, to all of us, this whole thing is beyond stunning. What if it happened? Now, a logical person can only conclude that this was about politics for Lisa Bloom at least. Imagine for a second if the story came out on November the 6th, right before the election, would Bloom have acknowledged that this woman received all that money to tell her story? I doubt it.

How would any campaign be able to deal with that and at least have a chance to make their case? Talk about November surprises. This is one, well, that would be for the record books. I want to make one thing clear. As you know, if you watch this program, regularly, sexual misconduct and abuse are widespread problems in this country. We know it's true. I am the father of a daughter. Sisters. It scares me. It is morally repugnant when it happens, and it's true it needs to stop. It has no place in our society.

We have said that repeatedly for months on this show. Victims of sexual misconduct deserve to be believed. And, also, as we have been saying for months, any person that is accused of this type of behavior and they deny it, they too, deserve the presumption of innocence. And I have said that in the case of Democrats and Republicans. Numerous examples which prove people cannot rush to judgment because sometimes innocent people are hurt because the allegations are flat out untrue.

Example and point, the Duke Lacrosse case. Those kids were innocent. Having their lives ruined. Richard Jewel in Atlanta falsely accused of being the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber. He didn't do it. Remember Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, the mantra, hands up, don't shoot, that was all a lie. Also Freddie Gray in Baltimore. The media told you that those cops would be convicted. None of them were.

However, what Lisa Bloom reportedly did or attempted to do cannot be discounted. Bloom claims to be a champion of women's rights and a voice for the voiceless. Yet, according to The Hill, she did secure a cash payment for Jill Harth that helped pay off the mortgage and arranged another, at least attempted to huge payment for a different woman. Now, this is the same Donald Trump that Bloom displayed a hatred for that is reported in The Hill.

And all of this raises very serious questions not only about Lisa Bloom and her motivations here but other issues, how is the public to deal with this? Was Lisa Bloom really interested in helping women here? Or was the real goal, as you can see through the time line and the money going up and up and up and the push to the election, was this about stopping Donald Trump from winning the White House? And why was Bloom in contact with donors? What donors? Who are they?

And were they tied in any way to Hillary Clinton? Now, these types of accusations are so serious this should all be above politics. We asked Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett about all of this is and here is what he told us. While it is not illegal to ask someone to donate money for a person to tell a story, it can be a crime if that money is intended to influence someone to lie in a court proceeding. It raises another question.

Lisa Bloom said, she vetted these women. But my question is, okay, how carefully did you vet it? Show us the information. We would like to see the vetting that took place. I would like to see the evidence, the date, the times, specific examples. What has been uncovered by The Hill here is huge. Because it appears to fit a much larger pattern of attacks against the President. We have told you about the five destroyed Trump forces that are working around the clock to damage, delegitimize and destroy this president.

We also have been reporting on, unlike the rest of the destroy Trump media, all the attempts to take this president down. For example, the surveillance, unmasking of Trump and associates by the Obama administration. We have the Clinton bought and paid for fake news. Russian propaganda, salacious dossier. They wanted that to be used to influence the election. And the week -- this week Fox News obtained the anti-Trump messages being exchanged between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his FBI lawyer girlfriend Lisa Page where they discuss the quote, "insurance policy" against Donald Trump winning the election.

What was the insurance policy? Then have you got the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's team. They have been exposed as corrupted, abusively biased, incapable of conducting a fair investigation. And the list goes on and on and The Hill article, frankly, raises more questions.

Joining us now is the journalist who worked hard. Broke this story wide open, from The Hill John Solomon. Let's go through this step-by-step. You see the time line from October 14th through November 6th. And the pressure that is being brought to bear now on this woman to go forward becomes astronomical and the payment gets astronomically high. Walk us through it.

JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL: Yes. You know, I never thought I would live a day as a reporter where we would be talking about the sacrosanct, very personal decision of a woman to possibly come forward with allegations of sexual harassment or assault. And it would be turned into a game of Monty Hall, right? Behind door one, a month before the election I have $10,000 for your church. Closer to the election, I have $50,000 for you. Behind door, I have 100,000. The door four, 200,000.

Two days before the election, I have door five, $750,000. It's an extraordinary thing. And you see this woman struggling. She has personal things she wants to worry about the security of her daughter. And the more that money creeps up, the more she has to struggle with the decision, do I take the money? Do I do what I think is best for me? It's an extraordinary story and I just never thought we would live to see the day where money was being thrown around like it was some sort of deal making.

HANNITY: You know, we also know Lisa Bloom has a huge bias here. Now, let's go down this imaginary path because it seems that it could have been-- it could have unfolded before the country. Let's say the $750,000 was paid to this woman.

SOLOMON: Right.

HANNITY: How does anybody -- how does the public absorbed this, vet this? And what is the likelihood because we have never heard of this payment before that the public wouldn't have known about the payments.

SOLOMON: Great question. It's a great question. And Sean, here's one the things, since the story broke, lawyers have called me and they raised a question that I had and yet contemplated. And that is, if the donors' intention and given this money to help the women, also wasn't hopes of influencing election, it might have been consider a fault under the jurisdiction of campaign donations.

So, there is a whole another angle to this. We're going to have to report out and talk to lawyers and try to understanding. But there is no doubt the election was a deadline given to the women. That is not in dispute.
If the donor's intention, if they had been told this might help the election if you help these woman come forward, it could raise some election nearing issues that haven't even yet been raised in the public.

HANNITY: All right. Let me go down this road, too, because I think this is very, very important. I don't know what the answer is, but if this had happened and the public didn't know about the payment, something like this, in my mind, having followed elections, my whole adult life could have changed the result of the election. That's how profound this is. That's why, you know, you don't have an opportunity to vet an accusation like this two days before an election. Do you?

SOLOMON: No. That's a very good point. And remember one of the women who did come forward, she did get something of value. She got her mortgage paid off. So, money did change hands. Something did of value occur to one the accusers. And I can tell you tonight, Sean, I'm still working on this, but this may not be the only path of attempted request for money. There appears to be another line where an accuser may have sought a job or an investment from Donald Trump before the story of sexual harassment became public.

So, we are continuing to dig. But, if the money was here, you have to start to look did it happen, other places as well. Some of our reporting indicates it is. And I think if people tune into The Hill the next couple of days, they may learn some more information.

HANNITY: You brought a lot up about the Super Pacs associated with it and in favor of Hillary Clinton. And then there is an outright denial, wouldn't even answer the question if she had talked to them or we have no idea where this money came from?

SOLOMON: Yes. She is very clear. Didn't talk to Hillary Clinton. Didn't talk to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Didn't talk to the Democratic National Committee. Not going to tell you whether I talked to a Super Pac. Now, the text messages state flatly she did. The woman who didn't come forward but was considering these offers said, hey, we kind of heard if we help Hillary Clinton. There might be able something for us here. Can you explain if the Clinton Super Pacs can help us? And she writes back and said, I just talked to them, they are not willing to pay you right now. But I can't sell your story. That is another part of --

HANNITY: Well, didn't she always say that she never got -- that she did this pro-bono, right?

SOLOMON: She always did. And what you learned what pro-bono meant, I get 33 percent commission if I sell your story to the media. And you begin to think, a woman's very painful story, a concern about their own well-being. Coming out doing this and it's a commodity. It's a commodity being sold.

HANNITY: Okay. I have heard all these rumors, I guess a lot of people have about some tapes that maybe out there. Have you heard anything about that and my last question, what's next as this story, I assume more will be coming?

SOLOMON: Yes. I have not been able to corroborate any of the rumors about tapes. And you know, right now, we are with a very strong body of evidence, which are these text messages and these women's contemporaneous documents and Lisa Bloom's own admissions.

HANNITY: How many text messages, emails do you have total?

SOLOMON: Hundreds.

HANNITY: Will you release all of them just completely so people can read it?

SOLOMON: We will have to talk to the sources. I mean, we have our -- but we will be reporting more on them as time goes along.

HANNITY: Okay. Unbelievable story. John Solomon, thank you.

SOLOMON: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: I appreciate it. When we come back, more reaction to this exclusive story by John Solomon.

And later, we will talk to President Trump's Attorney Jay Sekulow about this. Also, about Jim Comey, Peter Strzok. The exoneration before the investigation into Hillary Clinton and how that can be untangled, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to Hannity. And here with more reaction to John Solomon's explosive report from The Hill, we have FOX News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett. Also Fox News contributors Tammy Bruce, Jessica Tarlov and also U.S. Trial Attorney Rebecca Rose Woodland.

Let me start with the panel here. When you see the urgency, that you go from 10,000, to 50,000, to 100,000, to 200,000 to 750,000 as we now countdown five, four, three, two days until the election. What if it was paid? What impact could that possibly have an on election? What does it say if somebody decides to take money to come out with a story? How is the public to absorb that?

REBECCA ROSE WOODLAND, TRIAL ATTORNEY: The problem here I see is that attorneys cannot go solicit clients. So, this woman was a client. You can't solicit them to be compensated for a possible lawsuit. Now, these women were supposedly going to come out, supposedly for this alleged harassment. And pursue claims against the then President-elect Trump.

Now he is the President during an election cycle. It doesn't make sense, Sean. Because it's unethical. We have very restrictive rules as attorneys to a point that if you do pay and compensate people, there could be criminal repercussions. So I can't quite understand why there was, first there was 10,000, it went up to $750,000 for one of the alleged victims. For what?

HANNITY: A lot of money.

WOODLAND: She claims it was for compensation for them for security? But the reality is, you cannot ensure your clients with any money.

HANNITY: Uh-hm. Jessica, what's your reaction to this.

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's a Lisa Bloom problem for sure. I know we've talked a lot about the Me Too Movement and whether we believe them.

HANNITY: What if it came out two days before the election? What if that came out?

TARLOV: Right now I think we're up to 19 accusers, we were at 16 before last week. So, it's not all of that.

HANNITY: Jessica, this isn't politics. I want to know because when women are treated horribly, I want the people that are responsible held accountable. But, when you see the money rising and an urgency and a political agenda behind this, that should scare every single person that would think about ever running for office in these types of operations exist. Wouldn't you agree?

TARLOV: Absolutely. Chuck Schumer last week, there was a fake complaint against him where he was, you know, able -- they did the research and showed he wasn't even in the location when it happened.

HANNITY: Look at the Duke Lacrosse case. Look at the UVA case.

TARLOV: A hundred percent. But that doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of women across this country who have legitimate claims. I think Lisa Bloom --

HANNITY: You are not answering my question.

TARLOV: I am answering your question.

HANNITY: What if it came out two days before? I will go to Tammy Bruce.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look, this is a problem that we even have to have this conversation. For me, we know that it is the veracity of the women that is very often questioned about what they want or what their agenda is. And, you know, what their motives are. When you have got something this corrupt going on, it hurts women who have legitimate cases because it is setting the stereotype right in front of everyone at every single level.

So even though you may have a legitimate claim, you suddenly do have to wonder when it comes to motive, what if someone willing to say for three quarters of a million dollars? Can you trust the woman in saying what it is that she has been saying? Did that really happen to her? That is always what --

HANNITY: Can you answer that question? Your own question.

BRUCE: Well, this has always what has been, women have been accused of. The problem is I think this is unique when you have someone like Lisa Bloom as we have seen who's been using the Weinstein case. Rose McGowan alleged that she was offered money to retract her accusations. So when you have got something like this, it sets the forefront. It will reinforce the negatives for women who have every right to be heard. But this is why this exists. And I think --

TARLOV: It doesn't discredit all of the women who has accused President Trump of actual harassment.

BRUCE: In fact, it puts a shadow over every single one of them. That is a horrible. Every woman who does it cast as shadow.

HANNITY: So, let me ask you there. So, she's offered all of this. And then she decides the woman is in the hospital and not responding to her texts in the hospital. Lisa Bloom flies out to Virginia. All the way from the West Coast. All right. And then the exchange takes, "I'm confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and cancelled the press conference. She texted, November 5th with three days now out of the election. That meant a lot to me. Thursday you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected and relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through."

And then she adds, "You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect as much as humanly possible. I've not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn't matter. I could have done so much for you. But if you can't even stick to your word, you know, you swear you will."

BRUCE: Awful.

HANNITY: Gregg Jarrett?

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Lisa Bloom does not come out well in all of this. She appears to be driven by political animus to bring down Trump and make a buck off the whole thing. Now, look, it's not illegal for a donor to pay a person to tell the truth. But, if the intent of the donor is to get a witness to lie or embellish a story in relation to a court case like sexual misconduct, that would be suborning perjury.

HANNITY: There is no evidence of that. But there is no evidence to that they really cared about veracity. For example, Gregg, isn't there a big difference between the tabloid newspaper that pays for stories the way the public views them in terms of credibility versus a news organization which should not ever take money, I know, they pay for pictures.

JARRETT: You're right.

HANNITY: You know, back door way to pay people sometimes, but it's really a difference, right? We know that these tabloids pay.

JARRETT: Yes.

HANNITY: Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they may not be. They don't have the same standards as a real news organization. Right?

JARRETT: That is right. Look, in the O.J. Simpson murder case, a key witness in that case who saw him fleeing the scene was never called to the witness stand because she sold her story to tabloids and prosecutors knew she would be shredded on the witness stand. But news organizations is even worse. And the worst witness against Lisa Bloom is her own client who said, you just want me to bury Trump. For what? For personal gain. Greed.

HANNITY: All right. Let me have an exit questions from everybody. To me, I believe this is going to have a profound impact on these issues going forward. Quickly, how big an impact?

WOODLAND: A huge impact. Now, it discredits the women who come forward, who come forward and don't want to be paid. This makes it seem like everyone is getting paid for a story. And most of these women really were affected and they don't want to be paid. I'm not talking about.

HANNITY: What if it would happen to a Democratic presidential candidate you like, Jessica?

TARLOV: I think it would be just as terrible and I think --

HANNITY: And if the voting public --

TARLOV: -- does everyone a disservice.

HANNITY: If the voting public doesn't hear that money was paid, is that fair? Should there be a law against that?

TARLOV: I mean, I don't write statutes.

HANNITY: I didn't ask you if you write them. Should there be a law?

TARLOV: It sounds like there should be as much information, as much transparency as possible.

HANNITY: Two days the election, somebody makes an allegation, Tammy. Does the public have a right to know in that case?

BRUCE: I think the public has a right to know as much as possible. But let me tell you, this is also just what we do know now. Who knows what else was occurring? If this has actually come to the surface, you can imagine what the iceberg is under the tip. So, this is our problem.

HANNITY: Greg, if it's your presidential candidate two days before the election?

JARRETT: It's reprehensible, it's unconscionable. And now all of the women represented by Lisa Bloom or Trump accusers have had their credibility diminished if not absolutely ruined.

TARLOV: I don't think the majority of Americans think that I think people watching this will think that because of what was just said.

HANNITY: In the future. I agree with Tammy.

BRUCE: I do, too.

TARLOV: Well, I guess I'm up and out.

HANNITY: All right. Coming up. Attorney General Jeff Sessions says, he is taking seriously the concerns being expressed about demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Of course his wife. We will tell you about that. Will Sessions appoint a second special counsel? President Trump's Attorney Jay Sekulow will weigh in on that, and more straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's news headquarters, I'm Trace Gallagher. After some tense negotiations, Republicans appear to have enough votes to pass that massive $1.5 trillion tax overhaul.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed to support it once the child tax credit was increased for working families. Tennessee Senator Bob Corker has also announced his support for the bill. He voted against the initial Senate bill because it increased the deficit.

The final version of the House-Senate conference bill lowers the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. And it cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. The bill does not repeal the estate tax.

Under the tax plan individuals will no longer be required to buy health insurance or face a penalty. THE house could vote on this bill as soon as Tuesday and the Senate some time later in the week. If news breaks out, we'll break in. I'm Trace Gallagher. Now back to "Hannity."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you have to say about Trump's legal team calling for another Special Counsel? This one specifically about Bruce Ohr, an official here and his meetings with Fusion GPS and his wife having worked with Fusion GPS, and would you consider such a Special Counsel.

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to take seriously the concerns that have been expressed. I just would say to you, Deputy Rosenstein is testifying before the Congress again just yesterday and we want to be open with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: That was the Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier today telling reporters that he will take seriously the calls for a second Special counsel to investigate the connection between the DOJ and Fusion GPS. Joining us now, he is the head of the American Center for Law and Justice and the president's counsel. Jay Sekulow is with us.

JAY SEKULOW, HEAD, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Hi, Sean.

HANNITY: I don't only want one for this. I want one of -- yes, on the dossier, Fusion GPS. He is meeting with him, Bruce Ohr. His wife works for them doing anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the campaign. What about the fix being in with James Comey and Peter Strzok.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page both anti-Trump and pro-Hillary, that would reopen the entire email investigation because they exonerated before they investigated. And then, I'm not even talking about Uranium One and surveillance that are unmasking, Jay. You know, how about, all of these needs to be investigated.

SEKULOW: Well, the last you mentioned is something -- I mean, they are all serious. But the last one you mentioned, I mean the idea of that it may well be that this dossier put together by Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and now Bruce Ohr's wife, Bruce Ohr was fourth ranking official at the Department of Justice may serve as the basis upon which a FISA warrant was issued.

Remember, that first time they went for that FISA warrant, it was turned down. Then they get it later. Was it based on this? And if it was based on this, I mean you are talking about the fruit of the poisonous tree. I mean this whole idea that this would somehow -- you know it could even exist within our system of justice, frankly is astonishing. But, Sean, you look at these interconnections and this is really serious to the operation of justifiable. That's what's at stake here, the Constitution.

HANNITY: But it is possible that Hillary Clinton -- and then Hillary Clinton's campaign and she is controlling the DNC according to Donna Brazile that she bought and paid for Russian propaganda dossier with all the salacious details that could have been used to issue a FISA warrant against candidate Trump -- president-elect Trump and his entire team? Now, legally speaking, if that happened, wouldn't that render any information that they received out of that under false pretenses -- I mean illegal pretenses?

SEKULOW: Yes, I mean, if in fact -- when there is a lot of chatter about this, if in fact the FISA warrants were issued based on this unverified as James Comey said, salacious dossier which we know is there is no verification of any of it, nothing in it is correct. If that in fact was the basis upon which the FISA warrant was issued, well then, of course, you have a constitutional issue which is can the evidence derived from that FISA warrant, which resulted in unmasking be admissible? And I think the answer clearly would be no.

HANNITY: OK, next question.

SEKULOW: So it does raise a very, very serious specter of constitutional issues, criminal procedure issues. And I think it puts -- look, this whole unmasking scandal is a scandal in and of itself. But to put it in perspective, if it was based on that dossier, what have we come to? What is the court system allowed itself to get to?

HANNITY: Do you agree with my analysis based on the May 2nd or early May draft by James Comey and then also edited by Peter Strzok, the anti-Trump guy that worked in the FBI that was involved in all these cases. Does that in any way the fix being in before they investigate it, even talk to Hillary or witnesses? That sounds to me like obstruction of justice by James Comey.

SEKULOW: Well, that granted immunity. I mean, they granted immunity to witnesses and this exoneration letter was written before they interviewed the witnesses that were granted immunity. So go figure that out. I mean what prosecutor does that? And then if you look at the actual -- and we broke this out, Sean.

If you look at what was drafted by James Comey and his draft and was edited by Peter Strzok and others, you look at things like there was big discussion, remember, the whole basis upon which this whole email situation came to light was the fact that the server was not secured. That it was located in a town house in Colorado.

In James Comey's original draft, when talking about the seriousness of this, he says this is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on servers not supported by full-time security staff like those found at the department and agencies of the United States government. That was omitted from the final report. He wrote it and then someone took that out. And that was the basis upon which this whole matter started in the first place.

HANNITY: Let me go back to top story tonight. We now have John Solomon's explosive report. And what we are seeing is intensity and financial rewards going up and up, and up starting in October. We are at first 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000, then we get to two days before the election, $750,000.

That we don't know where the money came from but being offered to a woman in exchange for her, quote, story about Donald Trump. If that story can come out, I doubt we would have known it was paid for because we didn't know that anybody was being paid up until today. You got to help me through this what that would mean in terms of trying to influence the American people 48 hours before they go to the polls.

SEKULOW: Well, look, I mean if you look at the entire situation, you put all of these into contest, what was taking place here. These were -- look, campaigns are rough business. Everybody understands that but what you had going on in the John Solomon's piece in the Hill, is this escalating value of the stories as the election gets closer.

And the de-escalation of that value when the election is over and if you look at some of the trail of email of that site and then see how this goes, it was interesting that the person that offered the $750,000 as, John, reported then take the money and...

HANNITY: What if she did?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: But if you think about it, the phony Russia salacious lies. They are paid for by Hillary Clinton, Russian connection -- collusion if you will. Now have you two days before the election. A massive sum of money for somebody to make an accusation they can't possibly be vetted in that period of time.

SEKULOW: Well, because what have you is, Sean, and this is -- look at the whole process. You talk about the need for a Special Counsel. Look at all of this that's going on. And then you go back to the Department of Justice itself -- and the FBI and, like you, I have tremendous respect for the agents that put their lives on the line for us every single day, defending this country, defending our liberty, defending our freedom.

But I will tell you what I don't appreciate. I don't appreciate a Department of Justice that not only had determined the case before the evidence came in but was completely and it's become very clear here, conflicted on multiple levels. And that is not -- I didn't think Republican, Democrat, independent, no one in our constitutional republic should take that as OK.

It's not OK. And I think Chris Wray has got a big job to do ahead of the FBI in -- by the way, you know, we talk about the deep state. You don't know what's so deep for this. This is right at the surface. These are leadership issues and I was glad to say that General Sessions today said that they are taking this issue seriously of a Special Counsel?

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: And that was all -- but you know what, there is a process they go through. They need to go through that process in evaluating the Special Counsel.

HANNITY: Jay Sekulow, thank you for being with us.

SEKULOW: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: When we come back, President Trump earlier today spoke at the FBI's National Academy. We're going to tell you what he had to say. We will get reaction at Sebastian Gorka, Sarah Carter. And I have a message about you and this show, it involves you -- our loyal viewers. Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a shame what's happened with the FBI. But we're going to rebuild the FBI. It will be bigger and better than ever. But it is very sad when you look at those documents and how they have done that is really, really disgraceful.

And you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it. It's a very sad thing to watch. I will tell you that. And I'm going today on behalf of the FBI -- their new building. And you know, when everybody -- not me, when everybody, the level of anger, and what they have been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: That was the president earlier today before he departed for the FBI's National Academy in Quantico, Virginia where he spoke at a graduation ceremony for law enforcement officials for the United States of America and around the world.

The president is rightfully upset with some of the blatant bias being shown by top ranking officials, not rank and file at the FBI and the DOJ. Just to be clear. We have said this many times. We do have great respect for those men and women of law enforcement in our country. Who save us every day and put their lives on the line. And we know the president feels the same way. Here is what he said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's an honor to stand here today with the incredible men and women of law enforcement. I am here not only to congratulate you but to honor you for your courage and your devotion. And I want you to know that with me as your president, America's police will have a true friend and loyal champion in the White House, more loyal than anyone else can be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: With us now with reaction Fox News national security analyst, former deputy assistant to the president, Sebastian Gorka and investigative reporter Sarah Carter. It's so sad because if you have one bad cop, you know, people want to use -- they will forget about the 99.9 percent. Same with the FBI, same with intelligence officials, those that work hard to protect us, put their lives on the line every day, Sarah.

But when you have the head of the FBI, James Comey, working with Peter Strzok, and they are writing an exoneration of Hillary Clinton before they do their investigation, that's not equal justice under the law. Peter Strzok who thinks for some reel reason God appointed him to save the country and that they are building insurance policies in case Trump wins, this is corruption, I think, at the highest level we have ever seen, your reaction?

SARA CARTER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Well, yes. I mean, I am talking to field agents today -- a number of field agents and retired FBI agents. And they have the same sentiment as President Trump. Remember, people want to criticize President Trump but what we have seen on the seventh floor is something that we have never seen before.

And people have said this over and over again, never seen this type of behavior within the FBI which is so blatant. And you know, Sean, what was even more interesting to me was they were telling me they were at an event. All of these field agents and some military officials were there and they said everybody was worried about Russia collusion with Trump. Instead what we're seeing is FBI seventh floor collusion with Clinton. And that's how they are feeling.

HANNITY: All right. Sebastian Gorka, I know how you feel about law enforcement. We all feel the same way. But this is real collusion. This is real corruption. And there is no other way to describe what Comey and Peter Strzok did. The fix was it. The fix was in months before he did his investigation. To me, if I'm James Comey tonight, I'm Peter Strzok tonight. I'm thinking I better hire the best lawyers D.C. has.

SEBASTIAN GORKA, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIST: Sean, Sarah, is absolutely right. Let me tell you my personal experience. I have worked closely with thousands of agents and analysts. I was in the White House earlier this week for the Christmas celebrations. And so was another retired agent from the FBI who had at least 20, 25 years in. He recognized me, and he came up to me and he said, the bureau's reputation is shot.

And it's not because of the people who are protecting us on the streets in the terrorism task forces. It's because of a handful of bad apples, of bent cops, corrupt cops. And, Sean, the saddest thing is, we are getting the documents now. And I'm seeing emails of collusion inside the FBI to protect Hillary Clinton.

Because they think she is the next president. And in the CC Line (ph), I'm seeing names of agents I highly respected and have worked with who once they got to the seventh floor, Sean, that's it under the Obama administration they became political hacks. And it's going to take years to rebuild the FBI. But the president said it today, he is going to rebuild it. And he can rebuild it.

HANNITY: It needs to be rebuilt. And the same -- by the way, top people, former Obama people within the Intelligence Community before this was all said and done. I believe this house of cards falls.

You know, your story yesterday about reverse targeting, the misuse of the powerful tools of intelligence that we give the intelligence community that you reported, Sarah, that doesn't even get into the dossier issue.

Bought and paid for by Hillary with salacious Russian propaganda lies to influence an electorate. That doesn't get into the Uranium One deal. I'm not sure how we untangle all of this in the best way to do that, your thoughts on it?

CARTER: Well, I think the best way to do that is one step at a time -- one story at a time, Sean, one investigation at a time. And that's what we have done over the past year. And that's why we see this yarn unraveling, peeling back the onion as you always say, one layer at a time. And now with -- you brought up the dossier, such a great point.

And we see now that Bruce Ohr's wife was hired by Fusion GPS to help with this dossier. I mean, this is incredible stuff. We would have never discovered this, had we not done it one story at a time. And I think we need to continue that. Be very factual. Find those facts, present them to the American public so that they know what's going on and so that we can clean up our system because this is still the greatest country on Earth. And we still have the greatest system on Earth.

HANNITY: If intelligence is misused and people are paying people for stories, if dossiers from Russia are being used, if -- you know, the misuse of intelligence, if literally we are ignoring bribery kicks backs, extortion and money laundering and we give 20 percent of our uranium away, and money is thrown but none of this steams to come to full resolution, Dr. Gorka.

GORKA: Oh, it will. Oh, it will. The stories are just coming out thanks to, Sarah, thanks to, John, thanks to you, Sean, but...

HANNITY: And you.

GORKA: No, no. They are doing the heavy lifting and you are. But, Sarah, is absolutely right. She stole my thunder. We are the greatest nation on God's Earth. We are also the most powerful nation on God's Earth which means when you start to weaponize law enforcement, when you started to politically weaponize the intelligent community like John Brennan. Like the last administration, Eric Holder did. It is more dangerous than anything you can imagine. And that's why we have to step in now. People have to be investigated...

HANNITY: That separates us from a police -- that separates us from a police state.

GORKA: Absolutely.

HANNITY: If we don't get these issue resolve then there's -- the deep state illegally surveying Americans, we shred the Fourth Amendment protections of our constitution. We are going to lose the country. This is not a game that we're talking about here. These are severe violations of law and it all needs to come to a head. When we come back, a big announcement about this show and it involves you. Please stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Welcome back to Hannity. Unfortunately that is all the time we have left this evening. As always, thank you for being with us. Before we go tonight, I want to thank all of you who tune into this show every night watching at home. When we moved back to our 9:00 slot, oh, Hannity is dead meat.

Well, thanks to you for the entire year, we moved to 10:00 and 9:00, this became the most watched cable news show in 2017. That's total audience demo, all the things that everyone talks about. You made that happen.
Your support we can't put a value on it, you give us the honorable of being with you here every night.

I want to thank you and I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year. There's a lot of breaking news, we will be back. Until then we have Judge Jeanine and others that are going to be filling in and we hope you have a Merry Christmas. A happy Hanukkah, great New Year and we will be refreshed and ready to go January 2nd. We hope you will always set your DVR. Please never miss an episode. Have a wonderful holiday. We will see you in the New Year. Thanks for being with us.

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.