State Department completes internal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email

close

Video

State Department completes internal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email

Panel reaction with Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, and Fox News contributor Doug Schoen.

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," October 18, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Welcome to this special edition of “Hannity: The Left's Impeachment Hysteria.”

I'm Jason Chaffetz. Sean will be back on Monday for an exclusive one-on- one interview with President Trump. You don't want to miss that one.

But, for tonight, for the hour, we'll lay out how the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry is both political suicide and completely illegitimate. As the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated, it's a fishing expedition that defies democracy. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE MCCAUL, R-TX: All we're asking for is historical precedent be followed, that we follow the same rules we did under Nixon and Clinton. The minority be given subpoena power and the White House counsel be in the room, and at least have a vote on the house floor to move forward with this so it defies democracy. We are going forward in the most secret room in the Capitol. And all Adam Schiff is doing right now is building a secret record in his SCIF, in a one-sided process to move forward towards impeachment. I think it's a very unfair process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Right now, Speaker Pelosi is refusing to hold a vote on the ongoing so-called inquiry.

But, let's be clear, there have already been three votes on impeachment and they all failed miserably. The first two came up during a Republican- controlled Congress but were resoundingly defeated in a bipartisan vote. The third took place just three months ago during a Democratic majority that measure also failed, with a whopping 137 Democrats voting against it.

It's no wonder speaker Pelosi is reluctant to hold a fourth vote. And get this, because the House has already voted against an impeachment proceeding, the current inquiry is totally invalid. Unless another formal vote is held.

The current sham of a so-called investigation is nothing more than unconstitutional power grab and it needs to end. Meanwhile, breaking earlier today, FOX News learned that in 2015, a State Department official, specializing in Ukraine raised serious concern about Hunter Biden's role with a corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas giant Burisma Holdings that paid him millions of dollars while his father was the vice president of the United States. According to this official, his concerns were ignored by the Obama administration.

Joining us now with reaction is New York Congressman Lee Zeldin, the author of the book "Still Winning", FOX News contributor Charlie Hurt, and the author of "Defending Israel", Harvard Law School emeritus professor, Alan Dershowitz.

Gentlemen, thank you all for joining us here tonight.

CHARLIE HURT, CONTRIBUTOR: Good evening.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman, I want to start with you. I served in Congress with you. As I pointed out just a moment ago, there have been three votes. They were all defeated overwhelmingly in bipartisan way to proceed with impeachment proceedings.

Is this the world we want to live in where a speaker can just override the will of the house, the people's voice and the people's house and just move forward any way? You have been as outspoken as anybody about what a sham these proceedings are. But where does it stand tonight?

REP. LEE ZELDIN, R-N.Y.: A total sham. And there still hasn't been a vote as we all know. This is a process that is lacking legitimacy, credibility, or fairness.

I have asked Chairman Schiff before one of the depositions started what rule is any of this governed by? I asked the House parliamentarian, what rule is any of this process governed by? Steve Scalise has asked the House parliamentarian on the House floor, and they cut off his mic.

This is without precedent. This is without minority rights. And I have said the Democrats should be providing Republicans and presidents -- and the president the same exact rights that they would be demanding if the roles were reversed.

And, unfortunately, where we are today is that we finished up another week where I spent the entire week with Adam Schiff in his bunker in the Capitol basement whereas Michael McCaul just said in that clip that you just played, Chairman Schiff has been building a record in secret, leaking out information, some of that information that's been out in the press is just absolutely inaccurate.

And to say that President Trump did not do anything that is impeachable, we're not within a galaxy of impeachable conduct here. That's an understatement to say we are not within a galaxy of impeachable conduct, on the process and on the substance. This has been epic, historical embarrassing fail.

CHAFFETZ: Professor Dershowitz, what's your take on this? You have studied this, you've looked this. You wrote a book about this topic.

But as we look at these specifics of this touch case and what Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are doing, what's your perspective?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, "DEFENDING ISRAEL" AUTHOR: Well, I think that the Democrats are trying to turn what is a sacred constitutional process that the framers wanted to see used only in extraordinary circumstances when high crimes and misdemeanors were evidently committed. They are turning it into what the framers didn't want it turned into, a partisan political process that normalizes impeachment, and that will set a terrible, terrible precedent on the shoe on the other foot test.

Every time a new president is elected, the opposing party if they follow this precedent will commence impeachment proceedings. All you need is a handful of members of the majority in the House to conduct that.

We have to understand there are several categories of conduct politically. There are political sins and they are sometimes committed, conflicts of interest. Maybe what Biden Jr. did was a political sin. There are federal crimes, like failure to register as a foreign agent.

Then there are impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors. And before any kind of impeachment proceeding can be opened, there has to be clear and convincing evidence that an impeachable offense has occurred or that an investigation will uncover an impeachable offense. We just aren't there and it's a very, very dangerous precedent that will be used against my party, the Democrats, the next time there is a Democrat president and a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. The framers of the Constitution would be turning over in their graves if they saw the partisan use to which this was put.

The Republicans did it with Clinton. The Democrats are doing it. Both were wrong.

CHAFFETZ: Now, I would -- now, Charlie, you've studied this. You've looked at it. I do believe this is a massive power grab. In the case of Clinton, I thought it was actually just a little bit different than this particular case. They can't point to anything specifically.

But how do you see it?

HURT: Well, clearly, in the case of Bill Clinton, they actually had charges that they were able to pin to him. And we can debate about whether or not politically that was a wise thing to do. Clearly, it was probably not a wise thing for Republicans to do. But, I think at the time they felt like they didn't have a choice because they had these articles of impeachment and they were enunciated.

When you go to Democrats today and you say, what enunciate for me, tell me what is it that you are charging the president with? They cannot tell you. They have no earthly idea.

And when people like they respond to that by saying oh, well, you know, impeachment is not a legal issue. It's a political issue.

DERSHOWITZ: They're wrong.

HURT: OK. Well, that's kind of true and Dr. Dershowitz is exactly right. The Founders are turning over in their grave at the idea that politicians are turning impeachment into this kind of routine process which is very dangerous.

But I want to point out that that idea that this is a political process, it cuts both ways. And I guarantee you that if they pursue this -- and this is why Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to do it, because she is a smart lady. If Democrats pursue this, they are going to pay for it in the next election. And they are going to pay for it grievously, all up and down the ticket, because the idea of taking away the vote from the American people in the middle of an election is not going to ride well not only with the Republicans and independents, but with Democrats.

CHAFFETZ: But, Charlie --

DERSHOWITZ: It's not a political process. It is not a political process.

There is a misunderstanding. It grows out of something Hamilton said in Federal 65 when he said the crimes for -- to be impeachable are of a political nature, which are of a public nature. But then, in the next paragraph, he said it should never ever be used in a partisan way. So, he was using political in a nonpartisan governmental way. But when it came to partisan, it should never be used in a partisan way.

HURT: I agree with that.

CHAFFETZ: And, look, that's what we are seeing play out today.

Congressman Zeldin, walk us through what's going to happen this next week? Because it has started. It has begun. Even though the speaker has said, hey, you know, it is an official impeachment inquiry, I would argue again that when the House explicitly votes in this Congress in 137 Democrats vote against proceeding, I think there is a good legal case to be made there. There's an emotional case there. There is a common sense case to be made there.

But you have, I believe, George Kent coming in for testimony next week, right?

ZELDIN: Well, we have three people coming in next week. We had people all throughout this past week. The next person is going to be on Tuesday. Bill Taylor, who's a deputy chief of mission in Ukraine.

And what I have seen and I have a confession to make, as I was coming to the studio, I was flipping through the channels on Sirius, I was listening to some of your competitive networks here. And if you were listening to those networks, you might not realize it. Listen, I was in the room for all of these depositions, you are actually being dumbed down.

You had people who are guests on other shows telling you what was happening inside of these rooms. The information is just not accurate. They are cherry picking certain information that's out, and to the point the debate we just heard from Charlie and Alan about what we're -- where we are and why we are here and what our Founding Fathers intended, we are here it is because of political hate, it is about an enraged liberal activist base. It is about a pledge to resist, oppose, impeach and obstruct everything and anything.

I am seeing colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are enthusiastic. They are happy. They are smiling about ripping our country in half. It is about taking down the president. It is about not accepting the results of 2016. And many of them feeling like if they don't do this, they will never get their shot because the president is going to get reelected anyway in 2020.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, that's --

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: Next week, three depositions.

CHAFFETZ: It's what Congressman Al Green said, he was afraid that if we don't impeach that he's actually going to get reelected.

But, Professor Dershowitz, did our founders ever believe that it would be done without an authorizing vote and did they ever believe it would be done in secret down in some bunker or even other members of Congress could not go and hear witness testimony?

DERSHOWITZ: Look, the Framers clearly opted for transparency. They wanted everything to be out in the open. And the idea that you have secret hearings -- if there is a need for confidentiality for the national security, let the public know that, the public understands that. But when you try to make your case in secret and don't provide the kinds of defenses that are usually available -- every civil libertarian, whether you're Democrat or Republican, should demand that.

You know, when Nixon was back in the day when they were impeaching him, I was a liberal Democrat. And yet I stood up for his right not to be named as unindicted co-conspirator by a secret grand jury where he had no opportunity to oppose that and no opportunity to go to trial and disprove it. So, I have been consistent through the Nixon impeachment, through the Clinton impeachment and now through the efforts to impeach our president.

And we have to pass the "shoe on the other foot" test. It has to be the same rule for a Democrat as for a Republican and it has to be a rule that makes impeachment an extremely rare effort only done when there is overwhelming evidence of a constitutionally impeachable offense. Not something you make up as you go along. Not something you disagree with on foreign policy.

Look, I disagree fundamentally with the president's decision to remove American troops from Syria. I think it was a serious mistake. But it's not impeachable offense. That's a good reason for deciding who to vote for in the next elections. But not a good reason for trying to invoke impeachment.

CHAFFETZ: Charlie, I want to give you the last word. Where do you see this going? What's happening next?

HURT: Well, whatever happens, if we wind up talking about impeachment instead of the issues that Democrats are supposed to be campaigning on, if we're talking about impeachment next summer, during the thick of the presidential election, I just -- there is -- it's game over. I think game over already, the fact that they are trying to do it now.

If you are going to go -- take to voters the argument that we want to take away your vote by canceling the last election, that's an impossible thing to win with the voters you're trying to win over. I think Democrats will just lose.

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen, thank you all very much.

I do think part of the equation here is the opportunity cost. They're not talking about immigration. They're not talking about healthcare. They're not talking about the most salient issues that actually involve and affect the voters out there. I thank all three of you have for joining us.

Coming up, Hillary Clinton's email -- got more email problems than you can possibly believe. Catherine Herridge will be here to talk about that.

Plus, Hillary is accusing more people of being Russian assets. This time they're liberals. Tom Fitton, Doug Schoen and Pam Bondi react to it all next.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to “Hannity special: The Left's Impeachment Hysteria.”

While the radical left focuses on impeaching the president, a real political scandal is back in the spotlight. The State Department has completed its internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, an investigation that started when I was a chairman back in 2016.

Our own Catherine Herridge has the latest -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CORRESPONDENT: Jason, late today, the State Department delivered this 9-page report to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley confirming its investigation into the mishandling of classified information on Hillary Clinton's personal email server for government business was complete. The State Department review found the 38 people were responsible for 91 security violations and protocols for safeguarding classified materials were violated another 497 times.

The report described an investigation fraught with obstacles from the thousands of hard copy Clinton emails that had to be sifted to significant delays, including a request in March of 2016 from the FBI to pause their work until the bureau's schedule investigation was complete. The State Department also found then Secretary of State Clinton's use of a personal server increased the risk of security compromises.

But the State Department also said they found no persuasive evidence classified information was deliberately mishandled. A source familiar with the review told Fox that it's not clear any individuals were administratively punished. Because with the passage of four years, many employees no longer work for the government and are out of reach, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Catherine, thank you.

Also in Clinton news, the failed 2016 presidential candidate is floating the bizarre conspiracy theory that 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein was a Russia asset, and that congresswoman, combat veteran and presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, is being groomed by Russia to run as a third party candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win re-election. Something she said she wasn't going to do.

Gabbard responded to Clinton tweeting: Great. Thank you, Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.

From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies into corporate media and war machine, a friend -- afraid of the threat I pose.

It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

Here with reaction is Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and FOX News contributor and former Clinton pollster, Doug Schoen.

Tom, I want to start with this State Department investigation because this really, it just really gets to me. As Catherine reported, the State Department found that 38 individuals are responsible for 91 security violations but another 497 violations were found and not one person was found culpable. Not one person is responsible for any of that.

Nobody was fired. Nobody was put in handcuffs. Nobody lost their security clearance. It was just all some big accident? What the --

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT: You know, but, on the other hand, Jason, the report confirms that people did deliberately put classified information into this unsecure system. They say it was rare but it happened.

And we have to remember this wouldn't have happened, tout our own work here, but for Judicial Watch uncovering the Clinton email system. Right now, there's a federal court judge considering to bring her in for questioning by Judicial Watch attorneys about what she was doing here.

And, frankly, Secretary Pompeo should take this report and supporting documentation, send it over to the Justice Department, because this is now probably the 99th reason for this Justice Department to reopen a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's email usage. The last one was sham and corrupted and now, we need attorney general of the United States, Barr, to get his Justice Department finally on the ball, because right now, this Justice Department is defending Hillary Clinton in the litigation we are trying to pursue to get more answers about what went on here. I'm tired of it.

CHAFFETZ: So am I. I mean, think of this for Judicial Watch, we were doing everything we could in Congress to try to uncover. But it takes some years to then come up and say, no, we had nearly 600 violations but not one -- every one of those people should have actually lost their security clearance.

Attorney General Bondi, I got to tell you, this drives people like me and millions of people at home nuts. What is justice? How do we get to justice in this type of thing?

You have to have a security clearance and then when you misapply that, you misuse it, can't you be fired? Can't did you go to jail? Can't you -- what is justice supposed to look like?

PAM BONDI, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Not what we are seeing now. I really don't think it's Bill Barr though. I think it's the deep state still within the Justice Department.

Listen, this woman, I would love to cross-examine her, by the way, as a prosecutor. I would give anything to question her. I'd -- 600 emails were found to have security violations. She Bleached Bit her computer. It's crazy. They destroyed her servers in her bathroom with hammers.

I just -- I cannot believe the secretary of state with the highest security clearance could ever do such a thing. And she has to be held accountable.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Doug, again, I was the chairman.

DOUG SCHOEN, CONTRIBUTOR: Right.

CHAFFETZ: And I was there trying to have some degree of accountability here, but this is a really bad look. I mean, I didn't bring this up again.

SCHOEN: Right.

CHAFFETZ: People are going to watch and criticize, oh, there goes Chaffetz again bringing this up. This is the State Department finally coming up with something is this something that the rest of the American public doesn't care about? That when you do polling, it doesn't register well?

SCHOEN: It doesn't register now. My position I think if I was a rational man, we would spend the time as we should have I think on the Mueller investigation, why shouldn't have Secretary Clinton be subjected to a similar level of scrutiny given this recent report and what we know Jim Comey did which frankly to meet as both a Democrat and American was ridiculous, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: No, it -- at least lose your security clearance. Some of these people still work at the State Department even if they left the State Department, they should probably still lose their security clearance.

SCHOEN: Shouldn't the secretary be deposed?

CHAFFETZ: Yes. There's got to be a lot of -- anyway, I could go on and on.

We've got to move on though. Hillary Clinton is just like unglued, unhinged. Not only is she saying that Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly a Russian agent. Jill Stein is a Russian agent. Donald Trump is a Russian agent.

I've got to ask you, Tom Fitton, are you a Russian agent? Comrade Fitton?

FITTON: I don't believe so. But Hillary Clinton took a half a million dollars through her husband from a Russian company, allegations are millions of dollars were laundered into her foundation to achieve a desired result on Uranium One, and by her own spy ring's admission, they were working with Russian intelligence to target President Trump. So, if there's anyone working with the Russians, we know who it is.

CHAFFETZ: Pam Bondi, what's your thought when you hear Hillary Clinton call a current Democratic candidate for president a Russian asset?

BONDI: You know, perhaps she has paid for an agent to dig up dirt on Tulsi Gabbard, a combat veteran. Maybe she has done that like she tried to do to the president of the United States with her salacious, fake Fusion GPS dossier paid for by her campaign. But, really, I think Hillary Clinton still believes that she is entitled to that office. That's pretty sick at this point.

CHAFFETZ: Comrade Schoen, I have got to tell you, you know, here have you Hillary Clinton, she is former secretary of state. She is the former first lady. She was the Democratic nominee for president. Really? She is calling out Tulsi Gabbard, a combat veteran, for being a Russian asset?

SCHOEN: Here's what's going on. Tulsi Gabbard at the DNC called out the Clinton campaign for trying and I think successfully so, to put the weight on the scales to effectively rig the nominating process against Bernie Sanders. She resigned and subsequently supported Bernie.

This is payback, but it's weird payback to just call Tulsi Gabbard with no evidence at all a Russian asset.

Now, I disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on her issue positions. But that doesn't mean you just smear someone and call them a Russian agent. Secretary Clinton ought to just apologize to her once and for all.

CHAFFETZ: No, it's somebody who needs some serious help. We'll see how the national media --

(CROSSTALK)

FITTON: Jason, the question I have is, is she running for president again?

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOEN: I think she still wants to, both of them do, Hillary more than Tulsi.

CHAFFETZ: No, Tulsi Gabbard is calling her out, saying, hey, stop by behind that curtain, come out and run if you want to run.

Thank you all three of you for joining us on this beautiful Friday night.

Coming up, you won't believe what the Department of Justice is finding out about the Russia investigation.

Plus, the big report on FISA abuse could be coming out any moment. Gregg Jarrett and Emily Compagno will be here next as this “Hannity” special rolls along.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity. In the coming week, expect some massive developments out of the Department of Justice's investigation into the investigators from the Inspector General.

The long awaited Horowitz report on FISA abuse any time now. We have been saying that for a while, but it really is right on the precipice of coming out. Plus, the Durham probe into the origins of the Russia witch hunt, remember he is the U.S. Attorney out of Connecticut, his looking into the witch-hunt has reportedly obtained a key piece of evidence, two pieces of evidence actually, in the form of two BlackBerrys used supposed by Joseph Mifsud.

Now keep in mind, he was the shadowing Maltese professor who infamously told Trump advisor George Papadopoulos about the supposed existence of leaked Clinton emails. According to Comey's FBI, that conversation is what supposedly sparked months long witch-hunt that led to what we're at today. There is no evidence of anything that had gone out there.

But tonight, there is likely so much more to the story. Joining us now is the author of the big new book, and if you don't have this, and you want to know about what's going on, you need to get this book. It is the definitive writing on Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History, it is chock full of analysis, but also citations like have you never seen before.

And also joining us, Fox News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, and also joining us right here next to me here in New York, Fox News contributor Emily Compagno. Thank you both for being here tonight.

Gregg, I want to go to this. You are as familiar with this case as anybody out there. But if it's true that the U.S. Attorney now has BlackBerrys from Mr. Mifsud, where are we going with this?

GREGG JARRETT, LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the spying that occurred on the trump campaign initiated by John Brennan's CIA and other intelligence agencies was outsourced to foreign undercover informants like Stefan Halper and yes Joseph Mifsud.

If you read the Mueller Report, Mueller would have you believe that Mifsud's a Russian asset, he is not. I mean, either that was a misrepresentation by Mueller or is he incredibly gullible and maybe a little of both.

Now, Mifsud has always been a western intelligence source. And in fact, he gives instructions to U.S. intelligence agents including the FBI. So, think about this, our own asset is feeding disinformation to George Papadopoulos on purpose to set him up as a patsy to justify an investigation of Donald Trump.

And that never was the trigger for the investigation. That was all just a misdirection. It was initiated because the FBI got their hands on this dossier that was paid for, commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

CHAFFETZ: Now, Emily is joining me here in New York right by my side here. From a legal perspective, if law enforcement is dealing under a whole different set of rules, right, when you are dealing overseas as opposed to within the United States.

But to be able to have the BlackBerrys of the communications, what gyrations are they going to have to go through to be able to inspect that and be able to decipher what is going in and out of those BlackBerrys, if this report is true?

EMILY COMPAGNO, CONTRIBUTOR: Even on this one, we're running into issues and this is interesting. Here's what viewers should know about this, that the attorney for General Flynn, she was essentially begging the prosecution to turn it over, right.

It's exculpatory evidence and that is why we have our faith in the justice system, so that you're confident that both sides will turn over all forms of evidence. She instead literally had to file a motion for it, so the judge could force them to turn it over.

So even I think that's partly actually why this has taken so long, in part because at every turn, there's not that transparency and there's not that level of cooperation that we would hope.

Another interesting point too about Durham's probe is that he had a broader subpoena power and a broader personnel power than the Inspector General did. And so that's partly why he is able to obtain such a broader breadth of information and also from the people who no longer work for the United States, which was a limiting factor for the Inspector General.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, Mr. Horowitz, the Inspector General, the Department of Justice who's been conducting the IG probe is constrained by talking to people just within the Department of Justice. He may get some outside cooperation, but it's easily to set that aside. Durham doesn't have any of these prohibitions.

And what Emily was talking about Gregg is Sidney Powell who's the attorney for Michael Flynn, General Flynn, has said, hey there might be some exculpatory information in here, you need to provide that information to us. What else do you know about this?

JARRETT: It's called Brady material, after a famous case called Brady, and the Supreme Court has ruled that if you have any exculpatory evidence, you must turn it over to the defense.

Well it appears and Sidney Powell believes and apparently has evidence that they didn't follow the law, which means that the case could be dismissed against Michael Flynn, which was always an injustice.

This is a guy who was interviewed by two FBI agents, including Peter Strzok, who walked out of the interview and said the guy's not lying, there's no sign of deception. And the FBI actually dropped the case. Then Bob Mueller, in order to conjure out of thin air incriminating information against Donald Trump, decided to prosecute Flynn, a guy who told the truth, prosecuting him for lying.

And the only reason Flynn threw the towel in and pled guilty was because unconscionably Mueller and his team of partisans were threatening to prosecute Flynn's son. And Flynn also went broke, had to sell his house trying to defend himself. This is the kind of thing that should never happen in American justice.

CHAFFETZ: Gregg, thank you. Emily, final thoughts here on the classification issues, what seem to be the one thing that's hindering the Horowitz from seeing the light of day is that there's so much classified information in there.

COMPAGNO: And interagency fighting, exactly. And quick point on actually what Gregg just said too, that the ties of Mifsud to the western intelligence was an omission in the Mueller report, right. So it shows--

CHAFFETZ: Yes.

COMPAGNO: --how much - the devil is in the details and what details did not make it into that report.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you both. There's so much more to come on this, we're going to be talking about it I'm sure next week. Coming up, Lawrence Jones has exclusive report from President Trump rally in Dallas last night. You want to see this.

Then Ronna McDaniel weighs in on the radical 2020 field, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity, the Left's impeachment hysteria. Sean sent Lawrence Jones to President Trump's rally in Dallas yesterday to talk to Trump supporters about how they feel about the President's accomplishments and the Democrats' agenda. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE JONES, CONTRIBUTOR: Why are you so fired up to support Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a big Trump supporter. I didn't really get into voting until Trump became President in 2016. And I'm just excited to be in my first rally. I just wanted to come out and support him. I'm really proud of everything he is doing and hope he's able to keep it up four more years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I like the way that the economy has been. And I love what the market's been doing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tax cuts, OK. He is building a wall, OK. I mean, he is draining the swamp. He is cleaning house. And we're backing him.

JONES: All right, but why are you supporting the President?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe he says what he is going to do and I believe he does what he says he is going to do.

JONES: So when you hear the media talking about impeachment and all, do you think the people of Texas are buying into that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, we are too smart in Texas. That's why we are here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's a waste of our time and money. Is that what we're paying for with our tax dollars.

JONES: And all of the politicians that are for impeachment, do you think they are going to suffer a heavy price at the ballot?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh absolutely. Nobody going to beat Trump.

JONES: Are you all buying into it in Texas?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, absolutely not.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

JONES: What about you, sir, are you buying into all this impeachment talk?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not at all. Not at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I thought it were true and viable, I'm the first person, I don't want a Russian spy in office. But they haven't proved anything.

JONES: Do you think it's ridiculous?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it's just ludicrous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Meanwhile, following the Democratic debate this week, as most candidates put their far left policies on full display and Biden continued to stumble, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, who are perceived as more moderate alternatives have been raking in donations.

With analysis, joining me now for reaction, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. Thank you so much, Ronna, for being here. The race, there's several parts of the race, part of it's policy, but a part of it is fundraising.

To put it in perspective what we hear about somebody raising $1 million over a short period of time, I think Senator Klobuchar got excited about that, versus what the RNC - the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump had been able to raise.

RONNA MCDANIEL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRWOMAN: Well there's no bigger juggernaut right now in fundraising than President Trump. The RNC and President Trump combined raised $125 million in the third quarter. We have $156 million cash on hand, and there's nobody even close.

But what I see from the Democrats as they're touting these two new people that are raising a million dollars is that Joe Biden is waning, that it's been three debates he's not been able to solidify any frontrunner status. He starts a sentence, he can barely finish it, and now the donors are saying, oh my goodness we've got to find another person.

Joe Biden came in with a huge lead, it's dissipating, so this is going to go on for a long time and it doesn't look like the field is going to narrow anytime soon.

CHAFFETZ: Every day it's a drip drip drip in the national media against Donald Trump. I don't care if he stops and smelled the flowers. There's going to be something wrong with that along the way.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being in South Carolina, loved the state, and I couldn't believe it, I pulled up on this corner, there were 30 people wearing Trump gear doing a honk and wave. It's more than a year before the election. Can the Republicans sustain this kind of enthusiasm in the tens of thousands of people that showed up in Texas?

MCDANIEL: Jason, last night at the rally in Texas, and I was there with the President, we had more people at that rally inside than at any other rally. I mean it is actually ramping up. I didn't think that was possible.

I mean he's been in office for three years, he has sustained an energy and a momentum that we've never seen, and his supporters are with him 100 percent for the reasons you just showed.

Wages are up, unemployment is at a record low, you've got jobs coming back. People know that he went out and promised these things to the American people and now he's delivering, their lives are better, and they're going to do everything they can to reelect him. And the energy is so strong and it just keeps growing, it's amazing.

CHAFFETZ: Well, I do think one of the challenges for Republicans, particularly in the House is can they stick together? You got Andy Biggs out there with an important piece of legislation about Schiff, and there's some 60 Republicans who can't even seem to sign on to that piece of legislation. Can the Republicans on the policy side stay united?

MCDANIEL: Well I know that our base wants to see our party stick together. It's something I hear often as I travel the country. They say, you know the Democrats I don't like them, but the one thing they do is they stick together and it'd be nice if Republicans stuck more behind our President as they've seen him face this onslaught of negativity, not just from the media, but from Democrats who continue to investigate and obstruct and resist.

And they want to see our party rally around them. Our voters are rallying around them. You know the biggest poll right now is fundraising. There is nobody collecting more small dollar donations than President Trump and that shows the energy and momentum we have going into 2020.

And every candidate is going to need a strong top of the ticket with this President to help us win back the House and keep our Senate majority.

CHAFFETZ: And I got to tell you, Republicans in the House, if you can't get behind Andy Biggs' piece of legislation to censor Adam Schiff from making up, literally lying before that Committee, then you got to really look in the mirror and ask yourself why do you put on that Republican badge when you go in there into the polling booth and put - tout yourself as a Republican. I just do not understand that.

Ronna, thank you so much.

MCDANIEL: That's what you call a no-brainer, Jason. That's what you call a no-brainer. Thank you so much.

CHAFFETZ: Really, all the leadership has signed on to it, the Freedom Caucus is signed into it, it's everybody in between that we have questions about. Thank you so much Ronna for joining us tonight.

Straight ahead, the Trump campaign is threatening CNN with legal action. Herman Cain will tell us why after this quick break; stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this special edition of Hannity. In the wake of Project Veritas releasing explosive footage of CNN staffers admitting rampant anti-Trump bias at the highest levels of the network, the Trump campaign is hitting back, demanding "Substantial payment," in a letter threatening legal action against CNN.

Joining me now with reaction is T.H.E. New Voice CEO Herman Cain. Mr. Cain, Herman, thank you so much for joining us here. Does the President have a case, do you think he can win this?

HERMAN CAIN, CEO/PRESIDENT, T.H.E. NEW VOICE, INC.: Yes. I had the honor of Donald Trump before he was President Trump. He called me and asked my advice. It was real simple. Donald Trump, lawyer up, and that's what he needs to do.

Secondly, if he doesn't go after CNN for heir open and blatant bias and negativity towards the President of the United States, others will feel emboldened to do the same. So I wholeheartedly believe that he should proceed with it and not just make it a threat.

CHAFFETZ: Well, but CNN is dead last in every poll, every ratings I could look at. I don't know why they would want to replicate CNN and be dead last. But, I mean it seems like it's more than just CNN, that just every day they go after this President and yet Fox News has some of the highest ratings and we have a much more balanced approach. We hear both sides.

CAIN: Yes, that's absolutely right. But, CNN is still a very well known channel for a lot of people. I think he should go after them anyway, even though their ratings are low. That does not matter.

Other people can't feel emboldened to continue to be negative towards this President. Look, we started out, Jason, with Trump haters which are at CNN. Then we had people who suffer from TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and now it has moved into TDI, Trump Derangement Insanity.

And when you have at CNN all of this negativity coming from the top, he literally instructs some of his anchors and some of his reporters to report only negative stuff, and if it's positive about trump don't report it. That's why during the so-called debate the other night, they didn't talk about the economy, they didn't talk about immigration, they didn't talk about the wall, they didn't talk about energy independence. Why? Because President Trump has made brilliant decisions on all of those and we are seeing the results.

That's why they don't even want to bring it up. That's why I think they should be sued for that negative bias.

CHAFFETZ: Herman, thank you. I wish I had more time with you, but we got to go. Coming up, a special announcement, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Thank you for joining us. If you liked tonight's show, be sure to grab a copy of my book, " Power Grab: The Liberal Scheme to Undermine Trump, the GOP, and Our Republic."

Plus, we have a special programming announcement. Sean will be back on Monday. He is going to a sit down in an exclusive interview one-on-one with President Trump. You don't want to miss it. Many thanks to Sean Hannity for allowing me to sit in for him. Have a great weekend. "The Ingraham Angle" starts right now.

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.