Issa: Comey's one intention was to get to Donald Trump

close

Video

Issa: Comey's one intention was to get to Donald Trump

Transcript of James Comey's testimony to House investigators is released; reaction from Fox News national security strategist Sebastian Gorka and Rep. Darrell Issa.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 18, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JEANINE PIRRO, GUEST HOST: All right. Welcome to "Hannity." I'm Jeanine Pirro, in tonight for Sean.

Today, Lieutenant Michael Flynn appeared in court where a federal judge was expected to sentence him but that never happened. Instead, Flynn's attorney requested a delay.

Joining us now with the full report on this and newly released transcript from Comey's second closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill is Catherine Herridge -- Catherine.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Judge Jeanine, on multiple occasions, Flynn was asked whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea or challenge the circumstances surrounding his January 2017 FBI interview. Flynn was discouraged from having a lawyer and not formally warned that false statements could be prosecuted.

A critical moment came when Flynn told the court that he knew when the FBI asked him about the Russian ambassador in a December 2016 conversations about sanctions that his lies would be criminal and punishable. The judges chastised him for actions in the West Wing, including lies to the Trump transition team.

Quote: I can't hide my disgust, my disdain for your criminal offense, Judge Emmet Sullivan said. Not only did you lie to the FBI, you lied to senior officials in the incoming administration.

Judge Sullivan, who said he also had concerns about the FBI handling of the Flynn interview, questioned the basis of the case, asking the special counsel lawyer whether the Flynn phone call with the Russian ambassador was criminal. After a long pause, the government lawyer said it might be a violation of the Logan Act. The judge noting unauthorized contact between U.S. officials and foreign governments is rarely prosecuted.

President Trump tweeted "good luck" to Flynn before the sentencing and after his aides slammed Flynn's treatment by the FBI.

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are arguing that he was certainly ambushed and that the FBI that we know had clear political bias. We have seen that time and time again.

HERRIDGE: Late today, the transcript from Monday's closed-door session with former FBI Director James Comey was released. On Flynn, House Republicans Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows pressed Comey on why he did not warn the president there may be a national security risk.

Quote, Meadows: You are so concerned that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the vice president, but once you got that confirmed, you didn't believe it was appropriate to tell the president of the United States?

Mr. Comey: That is correct. He continued: We had an investigation, criminal investigation, counterintelligence investigation. There is no way I would discuss that with the president.

The FBI director builds cases for prosecution but also has a responsibility to warn on national security issues, Judge.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PIRRO: All right. Catherine, thank you.

And joining us now with analysis of today's big breaking news, the author of "The Russia Hoax," Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, Fox News contributor Sara Carter, and criminal defense attorney David Schoen.

You know, when a judge is scheduled to sentence a defendant in any criminal case, normally, what happens is the judge sentences on that particular crime for which the defendant is convicted and appearing before him. This judge took an incredible left turn, right turn, and U-turn talking about treason, he talked about whether Flynn possibly was involved as a foreign agent when he worked in the White House, none of which was before him.

Where is this judge coming from?

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he all but begged Flynn to withdraw his plea. And when Flynn refused to do so, there was this Jekyll Hyde to transformation of Judge Emmet Sullivan and he began to lash out at Flynn with these unfounded accusations and honestly, you know this -- it's outrageous for a federal judge to make an accusation of treason against someone when treason has absolutely no application. In the end, the judge withdrew it and apologized.

PIRRO: Right, right, this is unheard of.

JARRETT: And he was not only wrong about the law, but he was fundamentally wrong about some of the key facts of the case and prosecutors actually had to correct him, that Flynn wasn't a Turkish agent when he was at the White House. And the judge seemed confused, or he actually hadn't read the file yet.

PIRRO: By David Schoen, we know that he read the file. This is the judge, he wanted to know where that 302 of Michael Flynn was, when he didn't get it in 48 hours, he said, I want it on Monday. He gets a 302. And to me, that is his reasoning for saying, he's constantly acting, asking as Gregg just said, do you want to withdraw your plea? Then he goes after the guy.

What's your interpretation today?

DAVID SCHOEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Listen, Emmet Sullivan is one of the most respected judges around. After the Ted Stevens case, he said I do want with this kind of government misconduct. But Flynn's lawyers played it cute in a sense.

What's their theory of the case? You always have to have a consistent theory. Flynn decided to cooperate all the way, the government moved for no incarceration, that was his position, too, and then they throw this curveball at the end which was appropriate. But as a curveball on the government misconduct if you want to withdraw the plea, not if you want to continue to be a cooperator.

Judge Sullivan was left with no place to go in a sense. As you say, he correctly -- he offered Flynn the opportunity. Flynn had to withdraw it before the sentencing. I thought Flynn should have withdrawn his plea a long time ago.

I don't believe he committed a crime and if he did, it was a manufactured crime, and as Jim Comey said, Comey got away with what he pulled on Flynn.

PIRRO: Well, you know, we still don't know -- hope springs eternal, Sara Carter. And given what we know about Jim Comey lying again, cardinal Comey, which is absolutely not stunning at all, but he talks about the fact that it was McCabe who suggested that Flynn get a lawyer and then the 302 of McCabe makes it clear that McCabe is the one who said, you don't need a lawyer, it will only take more time.

SARA CARTER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, absolutely, Judge. I was there at the courthouse today and I want to talk about a few things that relate to Comey as well. You know, when they talked to the prosecutor, one of the things that they said was, you know, about the Logan Act and the prosecutors brought that up. Well, could this have been a crime?

Well, maybe the Logan Act, and the judge laughed after that. But then you look at Comey's testimony and he says, the reason we want to question Flynn was because of Vice President Mike Pence, because Vice President Pence made a statement that we knew not to be true. But they never go to Vice President Pence and say, these aren't true.

Instead, they send two agents. There is no attorney for Flynn, and he's out there talking to them at the request of McCabe, and Comey keeps getting caught in lie after lie, or he keeps changing his testimony.

PIRRO: You know, the amazing part, Gregg, is when the judge seems to be pushing Flynn, do you want to withdraw your plea, everything we had seen up to this point, he was game for that.

JARRETT: He was.

PIRRO: He was game. But now, here is my concern. If he has already cooperated to the point where the government says we want no incarceration, why do we need him to work for the next 90 days on the case of his partners, who were charged for Foreign Agents Registration Act?

JARRETT: It has absolute nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion. Nothing. And, you know, this is the judge who said he was deeply concerned about the FBI's interview with Michael Flynn and the impropriety of it all. They lied to him, that was the basis for it. And then they encouraged him not to get a lawyer.

The judge said he was also puzzled by the papers in front of him presented by Robert Mueller's team. As if to say, why are you prosecuting a guy when these papers here tell me that he told the truth, according to the agents who interviewed him? It was all going rather splendidly for Michael Flynn until, as David appropriately points out, he refused to withdraw his plea.

I agree with David. He should have withdrawn his plea. It's very hard for a judge to vacate it if the defendant insists on pleading.

PIRRO: Although the judge can, and I might have done it.

But, David, I mean, that brings us precisely to the point. Why would a man, where the government is saying, I'm not going to ask for incarceration, all right? They were already on the record for that. When the judge seems inclined to agree that this was an interrogation, not custodial that requires Miranda, but once they suggested, don't bring a lawyer to me, that's the nuance that kicks in Miranda, but now, does it tell you that Flynn is still fearful of Mueller and that his son possibly is the reason?

SCHOEN: That's exactly what it tells me. And again, I think his lawyers made a mistake here. But you can't be half in and half out. Flynn is going to have to continue to cooperate with these folks because that's what his agreement provides.

But, yes, I think they turn the screws to Flynn from the start. His family was at risk. He lost everything financially. This is a man who served his country with great distinction and great honor.

And this is what he's been brought to, not because he committed a crime, but because they put him in a room, did not believe his answers, and created a crime. Can you imagine if they held Mr. Comey to the same standard? How many crimes he would be prosecuted for the lies?

PIRRO: Right.

JARRETT: A dozen times.

PIRRO: A dozen times, and front of Congress as well.

Sara, I'll give you the last word on this.

CARTER: Well, I want to say this, Judge Jeanine, the real crime was the leaking of the FISA application, and the leaking of Flynn's name to "The Washington Post" in order to concoct this. That really is a federal crime and they've never pursued this, they've never went after this. And as far as I know, there is no open case to go after them.

So, I think we need to question that first and foremost and hopefully something will come up in the future.

PIRRO: All right. I think that we are going to bring in Congressman Darrell Issa.

Congressman Issa is not available.

OK, so we will have you guys stay here. Gregg, Sara, David, stay with us.

And today's news surrounding Lieutenant General Flynn has absolute nothing to do with President Trump, as Gregg just said, but that didn't stop the mainstream media's echo chamber from once again predicting the downfall of the administration. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The thing that struck me coming from the White House podium is saying that this has nothing to do with the president. How does this even come out secretary's mouth?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think at the end of the day, we're going to see that General Flynn had a lot of incriminating information about the president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump is always treated him with kid gloves, as to others in the melodrama. I mean, Comey, Michael Cohen, he's gone hot cold on them. But he seems very concerned about what Michael Flynn has to say about him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't know why Mike Flynn lied, we don't know why anyone including President Trump directed him to do it, and if Trump did play a role in this, is that why the president is treating Mike Flynn with kid gloves?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The big headline here is, the judge finds this behavior treasonous. Not just Flynn, but all the people Flynn coordinated with in creating these lies.

It's a bad day for the narrative that this is just a witch hunt and there is nothing serious there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: Joining us now is the author of "Why We Fight", FOX News national security strategist Sebastian Gorka.

All right. Good evening, Dr. Gorka.

One of the things that seems to continuously come back at us is, James Comey lying or being inconsistent in terms of his own answers regarding the same thing. So, for example, we've got James Comey saying, it has to be a coincidence that after the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, there just happened to be a meeting between the justice on the FBI, but there was never anything mentioned about this.

SEBASTIAN GORKA, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIST: Not only that, we know that James Comey, after his classified meeting, his briefing with President-elect Trump, he gets into an FBI vehicle and on an FBI laptop, writes up a memo that is by nature classified, because it's a summary of a meeting with the president in which he gives to his law professor friend to leak to the media. That is a crime.

Judge, with regards to what happened today, it's very, very clear. I was on the transition team with General Flynn, I worked in the White House with General Flynn. The call to the Russian ambassador was utterly legal. That was Mike Flynn's job.

The contents of the conversation were likewise utterly legal, requesting potentially the Russian ambassador's support in a vote at the U.N. to prevent Israel from being boycotted. How is that illegal? But the FBI had the full transcript of the discussion, so why did Jim Comey send those agents to the White House in flagrant denial of the White House counsel procedure? It was a classic entrapment ploy.

PIRRO: Well, you know, not legal entrapment in the sense that we prosecutors understand it, but what it was, was a set up?

GORKA: A perjury trap.

PIRRO: Without a doubt.

OK. Let's now bring into the conversation Republican Congressman Darrell Issa.

All right. Good evening, Congressman.

REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: Good evening, Judge.

PIRRO: The issue that we just heard -- we just heard a bunch of sound by the mainstream media and those on the left. They have Flynn guilty of treason. Flynn should be in jail. Flynn is President Trump's puppet.

I mean, sometimes I wonder if we are watching the same news. In fact, the prosecutor is even said that that's not appropriate treason in this situation. And yet, the overreach is nonstop!

ISSA: You know, what Sebastian Gorka just said is very important for your viewers to understand, which is anything he may have done that -- for which he may have to pay a price, none of it was done, if you will, relative to the investigation of any wrongdoing by the president. Nothing was done there. Yes, he failed to register as a foreign agent.

Yes, he lied to the FBI, and whether it is entrapment or not, remember that James Comey had one intention clearly before Donald Trump was president, and afterwards, which was to get to Donald Trump. You could see it in everything he did. He didn't keep Flynn from becoming a national security advisor, which he potentially could have done with the transcript if it was so volatile. He certainly could have told the president that Flynn was misleading or lying to people, which could have affected his being fired sooner and certainly in the name of national security would have been the right thing to do.

James Comey, from day one, has been a corrupt cop trying to get to the president and it shows in everything he has done, including what he failed to do, which was to be honest to both Barack Obama and to President Trump when he was talking about what he knew, when he knew it, and what should be done in the name of national security.

PIRRO: All right. And, Sebastian Gorka, I mean, the whole concept of Flynn possibly being a foreign agent, not registering as one, we know now that that was not the case when he was in the White House.

GORKA: No.

PIRRO: And yet, the left is suggesting that he was a foreign agent while he was in the White House. That was made absolutely clear that was not the case.

GORKA: Today's proceedings were a farce.

First, the FARA Act, nobody has gone to jail for writing an op-ed for a NATO ally, which is what General Flynn did. He wrote an op-ed piece supporting the Turkish government. We are not at war with Turkey no matter how much we dislike Erdogan.

Secondly, this totally spurious Logan Act charge against the national security advisor. If the Logan Act were about a serious crime, John Kerry should be doing 20 to life right now for his secret negotiations with Iran after he left office and when the Trump administration came into power. Where is John Kerry's arrest, why isn't he being woken up at 2:00 a.m. and put in manacles and shackles? It's absolute absurdity.

PIRRO: And the fear, Congressman, as we listen to the facts, and we are getting the facts out here, the fear is that none of the illegality, the unethical behavior on the part of the people on the left, are they ever going to be made accountable for? They skated during Obama's eight years and they are skating through these first two years because of good old Jeff Sessions. I haven't heard a word from this guy, John Huber.

And, you know, hope springs eternal as it relates to this new guy, but what do you think is going to happen?

ISSA: Well, I think the insurance policy that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok talked about has been working for two years. For two years, the American people have been distracted from the real accomplishments of this president, and he has been forced to both do the work of the president and to deal with these endless assaults.

Let's face it. Two years ago, James Comey did not tell the president things he should have told him because he was trying to indict the president. It's is now two years later and he still doesn't have a case even with the special prosecutor or essentially his buddy, Mueller.

PIRRO: Yes, it is his buddy, Mueller, indeed, Sebastian. His buddy, Mueller, is a guy that, you know, was his guardian angel during those famous John Ashcroft hospital moments that he remembers vividly but can't remember 245 times, anything that's happened in the last few months when he appears before Congress.

GORKA: Yes, that's his example of leadership and being loyal to the truth. The fact is, Robert Mueller is in such a conflict of interest from day one of becoming special counsel. Why? Rod Rosenstein, we have to recall this -- Rod Rosenstein made him special counsel to investigate the president the day after Rod Rosenstein escorted him to the White House to interview for the job of FBI director again.

Robert Mueller crashed and burned in that interview. The president said, no, I need new blood, you're not going to be the new director. Less than 24 hours later, Rod Rosenstein makes him the special counsel to investigate the manner in front of him he failed to get his own job back?

How could he be an impartial investigator? He can't. He should never have accepted that commission.

PIRRO: Well, I hear Congressman Issa saying exactly.

All right. Thank you so much.

And coming up, we'll preview the looming government shutdown as the funding for the wall on our southern border now hangs in the balance. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to the "Hannity."

A partial government shutdown looms out of Friday's deadline. Democratic hysterics have already begun. Republicans offered to compromise on the amount of funding for the wall, but the Democrats immediately rejected that deal.

Earlier tonight, President Trump tweeted, quote: The Democrats are saying loud and clear that they do not want to build a concrete wall, but we are not building a concrete wall, we are building artistically designed steel slats so that you can easily see through it. It will be beautiful. And at the same time, give our country the security that our citizens deserve. It will go up fast and save millions of dollars per month once completed.

Joining us now with reaction, FOX News contributor Charles Hurt, GOPAC chairman Dave Avella, and former Clinton pollster and FOX News contributor Doug Schoen.

OK, Doug, now you are laughing here. Now, the wall with the beautiful slats, are l you questioning whether we're actually going to get that?

DOUG SCHOEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think we're going to get the wall. I mean, I think the deal that should have been done last week was a $1.6 billion in border security, fund the government and move forward. I think this is frankly a setback for the cause of border security and building the wall, and also a setback for democracy because the fact that we can't fund the government -- and I understand it's only a partial shutdown but this is pathetic.

PIRRO: Well, but you know what? This isn't Trump's fault. I mean, at the end of the day, David Avella, I mean, what we are talking about is border security, which has been kicked down the road since, actually is think 1986. But, you know, last I remember was 2006.

And, you know, now, we got Schumer and Pelosi saying it's a nonstarter. It's not happening. You're not getting the wall.

Are we getting the wall?

DAVID AVELLA, GOPAC CHAIRMAN: To your point there, Judge, but here you have a preview of what the next two years is going to be like. Over the last two years, we had ten Senate Democrats in state that President Trump won. It was in their interest to find common ground with the president.

Going into the 2020 elections, there are two. Doug Jones of Alabama and Gary Peters of Michigan. There are less Democrats now willing to work with the president on border security, on health care, on the economy. Why? Because it's in their interest to obstruct and investigate, and ultimately seek to impeach the president.

PIRRO: You know, Charles, the idea of the $1.6 billion from, I think it was last week, that, you know, Dem shut down. And now we've got the president through Sarah Sanders suggesting that there is money from other departments that can be transferred so we can build the wall. Specifically from homeland security, and I believe the Pentagon.

Is that viable?

CHARLES HURT, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think if you talk to people that have studied this for a long time and as you point out, this has been a problem that has been kicked down the road since 1986. Lawmakers in Washington refused to fix the problem, that they promised to fix back then.

But funding the wall has never been a real big problem here. And the real problem is, the will to actually do the hard work of putting up the wall and taking those votes. The only thing we have found out in the last two weeks is Democrats that are coming into control the House and Senate in Congress have vowed to shut the government down instead of doing something about fixing the border.

And whether you call it a wall or a fence, or what President Trump described it as through these tweets that you just read, whatever you call it, it's a barrier that prevents people from illegally crossing into the United States. And Democrats have made it very clear that they are on the side of opposing that and President Trump and Republicans have made it clear that they are on the side of supporting that.

And even Democrats who supported, say, the 2006 Fence Act which did basically the same thing, which is to build a barrier which will keep you from sneaking into the country illegally, even a lot of those Democrats have now been pulled by the left-wing of their party over into this no borders, anti-ICE sanctuary city crowd that opposes doing anything about the border.

PIRRO: And, you know, Doug, the idea of a wall, a secure fence, 2006, you had Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, they were all singing the cheers of it.

The American people are not stupid. They are in favor of a border. They understand we need to be a sovereign nation.

SCHOEN: Right.

PIRRO: In essence, what they are saying is, we are going to obstruct, we are proud to obstruct. And they are almost going against the American people as well.

SCHOEN: There is one other component of this you haven't mentioned, Judge, is we have 11 million people here illegally. We need a pathway to citizenship and a wall. We need border security. We need a compromise, and that's what politics is about when you have a divided government which we will have in a couple of weeks.

PIRRO: And that's what the president did when he offered DACA to $1.8 million DACA kids, which is double what Obama --

SCHOEN: Keep negotiating.

PIRRO: He was negotiating in big faith and they didn't buy it.

Anyway, gentlemen, thank you so much.

Coming up, Trace Gallagher has former Green Beret who has been charged with murder for killing a suspected terrorist. Then I get a reaction from General Tony Tata and Colonel Hunt who will tell you exactly why you should be outraged. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to "Hannity." As we reported right here last night, the President is considering reviewing the case of Major Golsteyn, a Green Beret, who's been charged with the murder of a Taliban bomb maker. Trace Gallagher joins us now from the West Coast newsroom with the latest. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: Good evening, Judge. National security experts say, as Commander in Chief, President Trump is well within his rights to review any current or past military case, but they believe when the President publicly said he would review the murder charge against former Special Forces Major Matt Golsteyn, he might appear to be pressuring lower-level commanders though the President's intent remains very unclear.

Golsteyn admitted during a job interview with the CIA that in 2010 he killed a suspected Afghan bomb-maker. The Army launched an investigation, stripped Golsteyn of his Special Forces patch and Silver Star but did not charge him. Then after Golsteyn against admitted to killing the insurgent on Fox News, the army reopened the case and filed charges. Here's former Congressman and retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Allen West. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLEN WEST, FORMER CONGRESSMAN AND RETIRED ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL: What I find just absolutely disingenuous and disconcerting is that he has already gone through one investigation, and there was nothing that found it to take this toward a court martial hearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Golsteyn's parents say they welcome the President's review of the case, but his wife thinks it is unnecessary. Listen to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIE GOLSTEYN, WIFE OF MAJOR MATT GOLSTEYN: --for them to charge him with premeditated murder is almost laughable and it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious and disgusting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: The military version of a grand jury will now decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute Golsteyn. Judge.

PIRRO: Trace, thanks so much.

President Trump has spoken out about Major Golsteyn with some saying the President may be improperly influencing the case due to his role as Commander in Chief. General Tony Tata has a new op-ed out on foxnews.com addressing the question. He writes, "Trump is perfectly within his authority to review the case of Green Beret charged with murder."

Joining me now with reaction, author of Dark Winter, General Tony Tata, and Fox News contributor, Colonel David Hunt.

All right. Colonel Hunt, I'm going to go to you first. This guy is a decorated war hero. He is a - someone who is a combat veteran. He's got Distinguished Service Cross. He's got the Silver Star, all kinds of metals of honor - or medals, I should say. And he ends up killing the enemy under circumstances that apparently his superiors don't like. Can you tell us what happened?

DAVID HUNT, FOX NEWS MILITARY ANALYST: Sure. And Merry Christmas, by the way. Matt Golsteyn was the Captain in 2010, in the largest battle in the history of Afghanistan war, the Battle of Marjah. There was a - two marines killed by a Taliban bomb-maker that the CIA identified. Captain Golsteyn's Special Forces team found this guy, captured him, and because there was not a detention center on an intel center nearby, turned him over to the Afghans.

The Afghanis surprised, released his terrorist. Captain Golsteyn's team found him again and killed him. They killed him in combat in a massive war that did the exact right thing. The problem is that the - some in the army think, no, he should have been turned back again. Here's the problem. If the guys did turn back and he kills somebody else, now they'd be charging Golsteyn with dereliction of duty.

PIRRO: All right.

HUNT: They stripped Golsteyn a year later from his Distinguished Service Cross, his Silver Star and his Special Forces qualification. Unheard of. And now they're trying to go after him for murder.

PIRRO: OK.

HUNT: I hate (ph) the President of the United States had great instincts in texting this because it rekindled interest and this great injustice.

PIRRO: OK. General Tata, I read your op-ed piece. What Colonel Hunt said is very interesting. Had this guy that they ended up killing in 2010 killed someone else, then Golsteyn would have been charged with dereliction of duty. Why do you think the Afghans after they captured this guy who was making bombs that killed two marines, why would they cut him loose? I mean, what are the rules over there?

TONY TATA, BRIGADIER GENERAL (RETIRED): Well, the rules, Judge, are that the intelligence community is supposed to have field detention sites, particularly when you have, as Colonel Hunt said, a major battle like Marjah happening, it was the largest battle that we had in Afghanistan and you're going to have detainees and proper planning at the time, would have allowed for field detention center or intelligence community - military intelligence community folks would have processed detainees that are a threat to the U.S. or coalition forces or have intelligence value. And clearly this individual had both.

Golsteyn should have never seen this guy again. He should've been taken off the battlefield and processed up through. If you remember, this is when McChrystal had already put in a request to President Obama for a surge of troops back in September--

PIRRO: Right.

TATA: --six months before, and Obama took a year--

PIRRO: Took his time.

TATA: --to get McChrystal the troops. And so this was a major failure of the intelligence community and Major Golsteyn should not even have ever seen--

PIRRO: OK.

TATA: --that individual again.

PIRRO: Was Golsteyn right? I'm going to ask you both one question. Was Golsteyn right in killing him? General?

TATA: Yes. Given the circumstances--

PIRRO: Yes, no.

TATA: --yes, he was correct, and--

PIRRO: Colonel, was he correct in killing him?

HUNT: Absolutely. I'd have done it and do it again. Absolutely, he was right.

PIRRO: OK. Is it the rules of engagement that's - I'm not even going to ask that question. Why is this taking so long? It's 2018. Hunt?

HUNT: Yes. The problem is that the special operations community, the Department of the Army, Department of Defense have twice investigated this guy and found nothing there. And it's because of a lot of general officers, reputations and the argument about ROE. This should never have happened. It's a massive injustice and it needs to be corrected, and it could be corrected in a matter of hours easily.

PIRRO: OK. So, General Tata, if - and I assume you agree with Colonel Hunt. Who is dragging this guy down?

TATA: Well, what I see is that President Obama weaponized all the agencies, and this happened back in 2016 when he went on Fox News, watch - was - Obama wasn't a fan of Fox News. So I don't think it's a coincidence. And now what we have is a weaponized agency that is going after this individual, which is why I'm very happy that President Trump tweeted out that he was going to review this case--

PIRRO: OK.

TATA: -- because what he's doing is shining a spotlight, Judge --

PIRRO: Right. On it. OK. So --

TATA: -- on this.

PIRRO: --let's talk about that review. There is talk, Colonel Hunt, that this review is something that is improper and the President exerting unlawful command influence. Is that hogwash or is it accurate?

HUNT: No. That - I mean, everyone considers that the chain of command, but this is the President of the United States who sees an injustice and his instincts are right about this. And the reason we're talking about it is not because it's - it was a wrong thing to do to a great guy, it's also - it just smells bad. And it's easily corrected, and there's about four or five things that have to happen to make this - to correct this insidious thing that's done to a very great guy.

PIRRO: OK. And General Tata, isn't there a difference between exerting influence by interfering or being seen as interfering, when you're interfering for the benefit of the individual as opposed to the detriment? My understanding from guys - the Uniform Military Justice Code is that since the President would be the prosecutor, I mean, who's going to object? Who's going to raise the complaint?

TATA: Right. Trust me, the Department of Defense is going to have enough prosecutors with their fangs in Golsteyn. So the President has come out and in a very neutral tweet that says I'm going to review the case. And as is his right and as is his duty to do so, and so by doing that, as I mentioned, he is really just saying, well, I'm going to shine a spotlight on this and everything better be on the up and up.

PIRRO: Yes.

TATA: And he left himself enough room that if something untoward did happen, then he can review it and he can say, well, you know, something untoward did happen and--

PIRRO: Right.

TATA: --and we need to go in that direction. So--

PIRRO: All right. Colonel Hunt--

(CROSSTALK)

TATA: --I don't think that's the case.

PIRRO: Colonel Hunt--

HUNT: Yes.

PIRRO: --final word on this thing. You seem you have - you are the recipient of many medals, including Distinguished Service Cross as well. And I know you don't like to talk about this. But you found that they're taking his medals to be one of the most outrageous things about this case. This guy has been charging with premeditated murder. You are so offended by that. Tell us why.

HUNT: The 30 years of service, 18 years at Fox, I never heard of it. What do you do after you've done the action that gets you the medal has nothing to do with the day you've got the medal. It's just not done. It shows that the United States Army was really going after this guy to take his DSC, Silver Star and his special operations badge away is after they said - it was after they had two boards that they found nothing wrong is terrible. And it's just never done.

PIRRO: Yes.

HUNT: And it's such an insult to the service and this great guy and to the medals themselves. It was really overstepping themselves and it shows how badly they've been treating Matt.

PIRRO: All right. Well, General Tata, Colonel Hunt, thanks so much for your insight. And we're going to stay on top of this one. This case fascinates me.

Anyway, up next, Democrats are just weeks away from officially taking the House and they are ready, scheming to impeach the President. Coming up, the way (ph) how one House committee is plotting investigation after investigation. "Hannity" continues after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to "Hannity." Now with the Democrats taking control of the House next month, they are gearing up for investigation after investigation, unleashing new probes on everything from border apprehensions to travel expenses, email use, and of course, more phony Russia collusion. The only question is how far will they go?

Joining us now for reaction, Fox News contributors both Rachel Campos-Duffy and Jessica Tarlov.

All right. Good evening. Let's talk about how far will they go, Jessica?

JESSICA TARLOV, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: As far as they need to go. Everyone is scaling off of when you talk of impeachment, but there is - this is their constitutional right and what they - obligation to be conducting oversight as Elijah Cummings has said. And it's certainly a long time coming here. Elections have consequences and the American public elected Democrats to be on a check - to be a check on this administration.

Republicans have had control of this for six years. We've seen investigation after investigation focused on Hillary Clinton a lot of the time, email investigations, IRS, that they're going after Tea Party groups when in fact they were also going after progressive groups. Benghazi, which Kevin McCarthy admitted was actually a political stunt that hurt her poll numbers.

PIRRO: Well, in the end though, I mean - and Rachel Campos-Duffy, you are going to have to agree with this. In the end, it is - as Jessica says, it is the consequence - the positive consequence of winning.

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, one of the first things they're going to do is shut down investigations into the DOJ and the FBI and the corruption that happened there. So there goes the idea that they're after the truth and finding out what's really happening. They're not - this is an agenda about destroying Trump and slowing down an - and slowing down the President's agenda, which they know has been very successful in reducing poverty, reducing dependency, growing the economy. They have to stop that before 2020. And that's what these people will do.

These are not your JFK democrats. These are radicals. They have gavels in their hands now, very powerful committees. And this is what they're going to do. And I'm going to tell you what, Judge. They want to do this. They have a constitutional right to do this. But they will pay the price in 2020 because this is not what the American people want. The American people want deals. And what they're seeing - evening today you had earlier on your show this discussion about the border. They have no desire to compromise or find a middle ground. They threw the DACA kids under the bus--

PIRRO: All right.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --because they didn't want to give the President the money--

PIRRO: Rachel--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --that they wanted.

PIRRO: You've got to be fair--

(CROSSTALK)

CAMPOS-DUFFY: They threw the people they claim to care about under the bus.

PIRRO: All right. All right. Jessica--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: So--

PIRRO: --but what--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --I don't think it's going to work.

PIRRO: What Rachel is saying is accurate in the sense that whatever House - whatever party, it has oversight in the House, the truth is that there is - this has very little to do with the legislative agenda. It has very little to do with laws that are being passed on behalf of the American people. I really think that oversight and reform, because there rarely is a prosecution after oversight and reform, is more about just getting out the message and the ability to frame the public perception on an issue.

TARLOV: I certainly think that's an important function of it. But when you look at the (inaudible) Axios published 85 potential things they could be looking into. These are things that the American public are focused on right now, especially concerning what's going on with the Mueller probe, the SDNY filings--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Oh, God. Jessica, you need--

TARLOV: Don't "oh, God" me, Rachel. And I've got something to say--

PIRRO: Hang on. Hang on, guys--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Oh, my.

PIRRO: Rachel, hang on.

TARLOV: No--

PIRRO: Rachel, hang on. Go ahead.

TARLOV: We just heard today that the Trump Foundation was really nothing more than a slush fund. And not the Clinton Foundation, the Trump Foundation.

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO: That's what they - I'm not sure that's how they played.

TARLOV: Trump University on a $25 million fraud investigation into it.

PIRRO: Right.

TARLOV: We know that the President is profiting off of his office, the family. You have the whole Saudi royal contingent that's staying at the Trump hotels.

PIRRO: You mean, the Saudi money that Hillary took to her foundation and never reported it?

TARLOV: Yes, that's not--

PIRRO: Now, Rachel, I'm going to let you get in. Now, Rachel, go ahead.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I just want to say - I just want to say, you are living, Jessica, in a New York-D.C. beltway bubble because outside in real America where I live, here in Wisconsin, nobody talks about Russia, nobody does. They all just want to live their lives, have enough money for their families--

TARLOV: Yes.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --take care of their businesses--

TARLOV: So why did they allow Democrats, Rachel?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --have a job. That's what they care about, and--

TARLOV: Outside my bubble--

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --that's what these investigations are about shopping-

TARLOV: --why did they elect Democrats? Or we may have 41 seats in the House, seven gubernatorial seats-

CAMPOS-DUFFY: They were compromised. They--

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: --hundreds of legislative seats. They want Republicans to be in check.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: They want to stop the gridlock and--

TARLOV: No.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: --because they want--

TARLOV: They don't want you guys anymore.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: They didn't vote -- they didn't vote for the Democrats for more investigating this administration to death. What they wanted was compromise. They want government to work. It's that simple. The American people aren't as sinister as the people in Washington D.C. And a lot of us pundits (ph) think they are.

PIRRO: Jessica, you do have to agree that there wasn't anything that President Trump suggested that the Democrats didn't resist or obstruct or not be a part of. ISIS -- from what I'm hearing from the President -- now, he's looking to work with the Democrats.

TARLOV: Well, he has no choice now--

PIRRO: Well, no. He does have a - I'll tell you why he has a choice because the House does nothing. Everything depends on the Senate.

TARLOV: Right. And--

PIRRO: All right? There's no legislative agenda that they can pass.

(CROSSTALK)

TARLOV: And Chuck Schumer sat down there and offered him $1.6 billion for his border wall, which I think you should take. Now he's up there tweeting about it. It's going to be slacks. And I don't need a fowl law.

PIRRO: All right.

TARLOV: Democrats will work with him on an agenda that benefits the American people, but that means getting rid of this tax plan that didn't benefit the--

PIRRO: All right.

TARLOV: We have to go.

PIRRO: We do have to go. Thank you.

All right. Coming up next, you won't want to miss our video of the day. One young boy got a very special Christmas present. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PIRRO: Welcome back to "Hannity." One little boy got the surprise of a lifetime when he opened up an early Christmas present. His military dad home for the holidays. It's tonight's video of the day. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You better open it.

(CROSSTALK)

UNKNOWN: --open it?

UNKNOWN: Open it, (inaudible).

UNKNOWN: Well, I keep a box already (ph)?

UNKNOWN: What do you think it is?

UNKNOWN: What's in there?

UNKNOWN: Whoa!

UNKNOWN: What is it?

UNKNOWN: What is it?

UNKNOWN: What is it? (LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: Oh, my God!

UNKNOWN: Oh! (inaudible).

UNKNOWN: What's up, buddy?

UNKNOWN: Missed you.

UNKNOWN: Oh, baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: We want to take a moment to say thank you to all the members of our military who won't be able to celebrate Christmas with their families. We appreciate you all and your service.

Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left this evening. But before we go, Christmas is one week away. And if you're looking for the perfect gift, you could always pick up a copy of my book, "Liars, Leakers, and Liberals," online and at bookstores. As always, thank you for being with you. Make sure to tune into "Justice" every Saturday night. 
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.