What questions are unanswered by Robert Mueller?

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 26, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

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

Tonight, we start with a Fox News alert. Robert Mueller set to text by, it can all backfire as we predicted yesterday, on the Democrats, the media mob, I will explain in my monologue coming up. Oh, wait until you see Lawrence in the streets of Miami.

Also, we have Gregg Jarrett with his top nine questions for Robert Mueller, straight ahead.

But first, big breaking news tonight exposed and even more anti-Trump bias inside deep state. We have the story, the rest of the media mob they will ignore, as usual, as they continue to cling, like a lifeblood to their lies, their conspiracy theories.

I told you this was all coming, that it was one of the missing pieces to the entire puzzle. We now have new documents obtained today by the American Center for Law and Justice, now reported on by "The Hill's" John Solomon. We have undeniable evidence of a deep, anti-Trump bias from top Obama administration officials. In this case, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Obama, Samantha Power, and proof of sheer political panic about what was the incoming Trump administration back in 2016, a frenzy of activity.

Remember, Samantha Power is at the center of what was a drastic and shocking, and frankly troubling, increase in the unmasking by top Obama officials in 2016 of Trump transition members, and yes, people in the general public. A 350 percent increase unmasking the names, the identities, of Americans, and these requests, including hundreds -- the U.N. ambassador? Why was the U.N. ambassador unmasking anybody? She did not have regular intelligence gathering and spuds abilities. Why?

For example, when an American is speaking to a foreigner, and the American is even identified, and the American is not up to any nefarious activities, why would the procedures, the process, the minimization, why was I not being followed? Usually when they write a report, they say American. They don't say who. When you unmask the identity, why did they do that, what political reason?

It appears because they hated Donald Trump. They even didn't try to hide it. Whatever happened in this country to civil rights, civil liberties, right to privacy, Miranda rights, a cornerstone of our constitutional republic?

We already know they spied repeatedly on the Trump campaign, we know they committed premeditated fraud on a FISA court to spy on and hurt a presidential candidate so he would lose, then president-elect, and then president, all based on political, bought and paid for, Russian lies that they could not verify, but they lied and said they did, and tried to use those lies as the basis to rig and then later undo an election.

Exposing Americans identities when they spy on them without a warrant?  That is abuse of power. That is a direct threat to all Americans' civil liberties.

For example, in a 2016 email from Obama's U.N. ambassador, on an official government account, Powers rights to the artistic director of the public theater in New York, saying: Oskar, Norm will explain our political system in a way that will fleetingly make it seem rational, though maybe not after Trump and Sanders win New Hampshire". She was showing a clear animus, antipathy, hatred for the then-candidate.

It gets worse. Emails also show apparent efforts to undercut the incoming administration using the media. In the late 2016 email response to Univision's Jorge Ramos, who's been on this program many times about an exit interview, Power responded, quote: If we do something, we will make it good. PTSD in retreat -- Trump has vanquished it.

Other messages show efforts to use government speeches and efforts to promote the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, undercut other Trump policy agenda items.

We reached out, of course, to Samantha Power for a comment, haven't heard back. I would think maybe she is smarter than Comey, Clapper, Brandon, may be she exercising her right to remain silent. We'll have more on this in my monologue in just a moment.

But first come here to explain a lot more, "The Hill's" John Solomon, part of breaking the story, this Freedom of Information Act request from the ACLJ.

We'll also talk to Jay Sekulow. But to me, this is -- again, we go back, just like executive order 12333, where we know there was a frenzy of activity last weeks to impose on the new administration rules that the Obama administration did not impose on themselves, and that would be the sharing of raw, signal intelligence with 17 agencies, and not three.

And now, this particular case, 350 percent increase in unmasking of American citizens? In one year? 2016, an election year? Why?

JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Samantha Power is a big reason why because it was her name, her authority that was used to justify those unmaskings. But remember, Congress has been not able to solve this riddle. Samantha Power claimed she didn't ask for most of those unmaskings, and she doesn't know whether it was her staff or other people who did it in her name.

That shows a looseness in the system, a disregard for American privacy that should concern us all, but I think at the heart -- you know, Jay Sekulow's group did such a great job fighting the two-year lawsuit to get these records. You see three things. One, you see a clear animus against Trump.  She -- and no prohibition about expressing politics or engaging in politics under government email. The same thing we saw with Strzok and Page.

But here is the more troubling thing, you see in that November 9th through January 20th period, the period of the transition when the president-elect was preparing to take over, an overt effort by Samantha Power, her inner circle, to use the wheels of government to try to thwart or shame Donald Trump. They are talking about turning his immigration policies against him, maybe doing an interview with "60 Minutes", giving a speech at a ceremony to try to call attention to the differences with Trump's policies.

They are acting like a campaign -- and even have oppo research operation that's pulling Trump's clips and then saying, hey, we can use this in a speech. The final act that Ambassador Power does is she gives a speech three days from the end of the Obama administration, and it is designed to portray Donald Trump as soft on Russia. We know that is not true given the sanctions now imposed on Russia.

But the whole effort of building the Russian narrative on the way out of the door, thwarting the president, harming his reputation, it is all being done and it is being done at taxpayer expense.

HANNITY: You broke the story with Sara Carter in March of 2017. We talked at length about this, but this is about American citizens. To have a 350 percent increase in unmaskings in one year, and an election year, and a year that we know that an investigation was rigged, that there was a premeditated fraud committed on FISA courts to spy on the campaign, spying overseas against a presidential candidate, then spying on a presidential -- a president-elect, and spying on a president.

Now it seems to take on greater and greater significance every day.

SOLOMON: Yes, and I think for the investigators who worked this were to go or three years, these emails raising new question: was her motive and the unmasking to harm Trump? Was her bias against Trump part of the motive for her and her staff to do these unmaskings?

We don't know that answer. We should give her the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete, but there is clear evidence of bias and anti-Trump sentiment here, and just like we ask of Strzok and Page and the answers we got there, we need to know whether the State Department and specifically the U.N. ambassador allowed this bias to result in these unmaskings of names.

HANNITY: All right. John Solomon, investigative reporter, also of executive vice president of "The Hill", thank you for being with us.

If you combine these revelations about -- again, a U.N. ambassador, why would she have any need to unmask anybody? Well, you combine this with all of that, and what we just revealed days ago about what was a total overhaul of the U.S. intel gathering and sharing in the final days of the Obama administration, an executive order 12333 -- well, a mad scramble, days before Trump is inaugurated and urgency to get this done, something they had never done in the last eight years, Clapper's DNI using this executive order to expand the sharing of raw signal intelligence from three agencies to 17.

Now, why would the outgoing and administration want to impose these new standards on an incoming administration with an urgency and intensity, the boss wants and needs this done? Why weren't they impose on themselves for eight years? Vastly expanding this access of important, raw intelligence that needs to be kept on a need-to-know basis. Why was it then meant to be harder to trace the information, harder to weed out leakers, harder to hold anyone accountable, that perhaps misused that power and authority?

You see what is going on here? The Obama deep state cabal, they didn't expect Trump to win, undercutting the Trump administration from all angles before they even walked in the door, unmasking, and expanding of sharing this raw signal intelligence, coordination with the media mob, and then, of course, yes, using a bought and paid for Russian dossier that can't be verified, that its own author doesn't stand by, yeah, to spy on the president, the president-elect, and of course, the presidential candidate in the beginning.

Rather working with the incoming Trump team, Obama officials were doing everything they could to undermine it. Here now with reaction come at the heart of breaking both of these big stories, the attorney for the president, chairman for the American Center for Law and Justice, they are the ones who got this information through the FOIA request, Jay Sekulow.

And sadly, he has had to do legal work for me on more than one occasion, and I am probably his worst client, but I'm just guessing.

Good to see you, Jay.

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Hey, Sean. You are a great client.

HANNITY: Let's go to the very heart of this. We talked about 12333, that's a big deal.

SEKULOW: Yes.

HANNITY: Because we can -- that ought to be on a need-to-know basis only.  The intelligence gathering that we have, those tools are so powerful, one.  Number two, where talking about civil liberties of every American. Now unmasking American citizens that have done nothing wrong for no reason, we have standards and procedures that are supposed to be strictly followed.

How do you justify a 350 percent increase, or a U.N. ambassador requesting such?

SEKULOW: You can't, because here's what is happening. Look, the pieces are starting to come together, so we now know that Crossfire Hurricane, the initial investigation was ongoing back in 2016. We also know that during the course of the campaign, there was spying on the campaign. And that was activity that was done to people involved in the campaign. That issue is being resolved -- investigated right now.

Then we have, you mentioned 12333, that comes in January of 2018, were all of a sudden, after eight years, the administration, with the days left in its administration, they changed the intelligence sharing information so that it goes to more people. Harder to trace, more opportunities for getting information out, not appropriately, by the way. And that takes place.

Again, eight years under the previous administration, they don't change it.  With weeks to go, they do.

Then you have now this unmasking issue. This is all related. This comes in the fall of 2017, going about that time period. And here's what you have -- the unmaskings were going on before that, but we've got these emails after the election from Samantha Power.

They were in political panic. That's what this was. So, you have to put all of these issues together to realize what was going on here.

And then the president of the United States, before he was sworn in, you've got Samantha Power saying notwithstanding this, we are still -- this is an email to "60 Minutes." we are reeling here as you might imagine.  Notwithstanding, this has given a greater sense of urgency to get our work done in the last few months. Seventy good, long days left.

They're not coordinating with the incoming administration here. They are rigging the system against the administration that's coming in.

Now, no matter what political party you are, that should concern you, because you've got a transition going on in government, in our system, it is smooth, it is free, that's the way it works. But here was being not only manipulated and tainted, but the rules were being changed, so then taking it a step further. Then you have come on top of this, the FISA warrants were going on. We may well see those -- that information soon.

By the way, Sean, we're just now going through all of these documents.  We've got a lot more to go through. But it is putting a pattern in place so you know exactly what is going on.

What is the end result here? Sabotaging the administration before it got in place, and once it got in place, being able to basically surveil that administration, and then, of course, you have the Strzok and Page insurance policy issues, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, the fake dossier, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok emails.

And then you have the whole situation with James Comey leaking a memo that he wrote on a conversation he purportedly had with the president of the United States. He leaks that to a friend of his to go to the press so that a special counsel was appointed, and guess what? A special counsel appointed, two and a half years later, what do we have? No collusion, no obstruction, a $40 million bill, and now we are going to see testimony in the next couple of weeks.

So, that's what you have. So what is this? There was no obstruction, no collusion. There was no illegal conduct, no violation of the law. What happened here was a set up from the beginning.

HANNITY: All right. Jay Sekulow, we're looking at pictures, by the way, of the president. He's landed in Anchorage, Alaska, on his way to G20, and he's greeting the military.

Let me -- we're going to have Gregg Jarrett's top nine questions that need to be asked of Robert Mueller. Let me ask you that question. There are some very, very tough questions that will be asked of him by the Republicans on these committees.

SEKULOW: Sure.

HANNITY: And I don't think that the Democrats and the media mob are going to get -- they didn't get the result they expected, they are not going to get out of this hearing what they think they're going to get it.

SEKULOW: Right.

HANNITY: It's going to be, as I think, another boomerang.

SEKULOW: Well, they have already lowered the expectations of what they are going to see coming solid from the statement of members of Congress today.

Here's what's interesting here and I'm glad Gregg has got nine. I wrote five yesterday.

First one I would ask is when did you know and when you conclude, in fact, there was no collusion, conspiracy with the Russians on the Trump campaign?  And when was that period of time? It's going to be early on here but you kept this investigation going for what reason? Was it entrapment? Was it intent to try to cause a problem when you knew the basis upon which you were appointed, there was no, as Peter Strzok said, they're there?

And I'd also like to know this. What you do with the evidence that Peter Strzok gathered for, say, 60 months while he was working on this case? How did you allow his phone to be wiped clean, not inventoried, not cataloged, that was where the text messages were? How do you allow that to happen?  How do you allow it to get reassigned to someone else?

And on what legal basis did you decide, as the special counsel, that your job was to exonerate? That your standard of innocence here was not beyond a reasonable doubt to prove guilt, but rather, he would not be able to exonerate. Who gave you that authority?

So I have a lot of questions. I'm sure Gregg has come too, and I'm sure members of Congress will have tough questions.

HANNITY: All right. Jay Sekulow, counsel for the president, and chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, thanks for being with us.

Joining us now: ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. Along with Fox News contributor, former Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy, is with us.

Guys, good to see you.

Devin, I begin with you. You know, it's interesting because we kind of have to sometimes pull back a little bit to start at the beginning. All of this could have been prevented if people listened to your warnings and your admonitions and your articles in early 2014, warning that the hostile regime of Vladimir Putin, the hostile actors of Russia, would be doing this very thing.

Nobody did anything to stop that from happening.

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: Yes. Sean, and I thought Jay Sekulow did a great job of running through the American public and the viewers, everything that is starting to come together now. This is all stuff that Trey and I worked on for two years until he left us and went and joined FOX and now wrote a book.

But we're -- and I'm not faulting him for that. But this is all the pieces of the puzzle starting to come together. That was how I knew from the beginning that this was all a hoax, was because the Obama administration had not only ignored what the Republicans in the House were telling them to do and our concerns we were raising about Russia, they weren't even willing to spend the money we were giving them.

HANNITY: Yes. You know, Trey Gowdy, you kind of impressed me a little bit. Here a guy that used to be a prosecutor. I watched you, you have had a lot of good moments when you drill down into somebody, and usually gets pretty hot for that person, because you base things on facts.

I want to ask you, one of the main questions you think are unanswered by Robert Mueller? I watched you on Benghazi. I watched you on some other moments. You are a prosecutor that has never lost a case.

What would you ask him? What needs to be answered?

TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Sean, thank you very much for having me on.

I want you to think in terms of buckets. I frankly would start, keep in mind, Devin and Jimmy and Radcliffe only have five minutes. So, you have to be very strategic and have a pretty narrow goal.

Start with bias. You got rid of Peter Strzok because he wanted Clinton to win and Trump to lose, but yet you hired people who wanted Clinton to win and Trump to lose. So, how much bias are you willing to put up with? You fired Strzok but you hired a bunch of prosecutors who felt the same way.

Number two, somebody needs to ask about this legal issue, if you can resist an unlawful arrest, can you resist and on predicated investigation? Which forces Mueller to go to the origins of this Russia investigation, and how much time did he siphoning (ph) through that?

Then I would go to what did you find? No collusion, no criminal collusion, despite two years. What did you not find? An indictable offense for obstruction of justice.

And then this is a category -- I would encourage you Devin and Jimmy to think about this -- what did you not bother to look for? You know, you just got through talking about Samantha Power and other people in the American government that may have wanted to influence either an election or the administration. We spent two years focused on whether a foreign country was going to influence or interfere with our election.

Mueller, did you look at our own government? Did you look at what our own people were doing to maybe put their finger on the scale? Did you interview Christopher Steele?

Do you know which Russians were feeding dirt to the American electorate via the DNC? Do you interview Glenn Simpson? Did you interview Jim Comey about why he leaked those memos?

So there are five categories, bias, the legal issues, what did you find, what did you not find, and importantly, what did you not even bother to look for?

HANNITY: That's a great point.

Let's go to these new developments based on the FOIA request granted the ACLJ, Devin Nunes, and that would be Samantha Power, 350 percent increase of unmasking in 2016. That seems excessive to me. My understanding of surveillance and unmasking of American citizens, there are very strict guidelines.

And when an American is identified in a phone call with perhaps somebody we are to be surveilling, they are not involved in any nefarious activity, we practice something called minimization. If the report is written up, the American is not identified. But we do know, unmasking were rare, and then we had this increase in activity.

How does that tie into everything you investigated as it relates to the so-called collusion that never occurred? But when you factor it in to a rigged investigation to Hillary, in my opinion, and, of course, a pretty premeditated fraud on the FISA court, not once but four times, that seems problematic.

NUNES: Well, you have probably the two best possible guests you can have on tonight for this question, because I was the one who uncovered through sources that these unmaskings had occurred. So we ran an unmasking investigation.

Trey is the guy, the right guy to have on tonight because he is the one who interviewed and run the interview of Samantha Power.

What is just unexplainable in all of this -- how on earth could you unmask these many people? It was hundreds and hundreds of unmaskings.

So what I said from the very first day, when I brief the Republicans on the committee, what I couldn't make any sense of is why there were so many unmaskings of Trump transition officials during the transition time period.

And then later, what we know and can get into specifics of it, but there were pieces of that intelligence that was leaked. And that is -- that's not explainable, and Mueller should have to answer that, too, did he ever look into all of those leaks?

HANNITY: You know, I look at -- if we lose Trey Gowdy, you are an attorney. Our Constitution is the basis, the foundation of our rule of law, equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws, very, very important concepts and principles.

And more importantly, I think if we don't protect the civil liberties, these tools of intelligence can spy on every single word ever stated by anyone American. These are powerful but necessary tools in an evil world, and we entrust, I believe, the best intelligence people in the country -- 99 percent of them -- with these powerful tools to protect us.

But if they are turned on the American people or they abuse these powers and they ignore civil liberties and Miranda rights in the proper procedures to obtain a warrant where they would have a right to listen to a conversation, what is the danger?

GOWDY: Well, Devin tried to get some reforms and we did reauthorization come a guy you might've heard named Schiff from California insisted those were reforms not be part of the reauthorization. Those are requests -- unmasking request, if memory serves me, Devin, the day of the inauguration.

So, you got people that got 30 minutes left, in their service to the country, and they are making an unmasking request? Here is what I will lose a little bit of patience -- Devin did a great job -- but we have the head of the CIA, we have the head of the DNI, we have the head of the NSA, if we have unmasking questions, we shouldn't have to go to the Hill with Jay Sekulow to get the answers. These are people we put in position.

So, Devin, you want to be able to pick up the phone and find out what happened with this increase in unmasking requests.

HANNITY: All right, gentlemen, great job to both of you. You guys are peeled away that onion every day. Thank you.

When we come back, Alan Dershowitz said Democrats will regret calling Mueller to testify. He's next with Sara Carter, Gregg Jarrett.

Later, instability of the left reaches new lows. We'll tell you what happened to Eric Trump, how he was spit on while eating dinner at a restaurant -- really?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right. So, your predictable media mob is kicking into overdrive. The Mueller media circus has already begun, but as Professor Alan Dershowitz points out, Mueller should not tell Congress anything that is not in his report.

And the warnings are already coming in, this could really backfire. FOX News, our analyst and friend, Gregg Jarrett, author of "The Russia hoax," he says serious questions that he believes Mueller would face, that he needs to face.

Like, how did he not investigate Hillary's campaign over the phony Russian dossier? What about Strzok and Page and their blatant bias?

Why pick a team of partisan Democrats, even Hillary's attorney -- not one Republican? And was any evidence in the phony, anti-Trump dossier verified before Page's FISA warrant was renewed? And what about, by the way, that would be Hillary's FISA warrant, conflicts of interest -- Mueller's closeness to Comey?

Why didn't Mueller honor the bedrock principle of presumptions of innocence, equal justice, things like this?

And lastly, when the special counsel met with Trump for the job to replace James Comey, the day before he's appointed to this position, isn't it true that Mueller discussed the reason why Trump fired Comey?

Gregg Jarrett was told they did discuss it, meaning Mueller was a witness in his own case. Required to disqualify himself.

Here with reaction to all of us, FOX News contributor Sara Carter, author of the number one bestseller, "The Russia Hoax", author of the foreword to the published volume of the Mueller report, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Thank you all.

Gregg, let's go. Those are nine powerful questions, I summed them up, but you have a lot more detail.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the most important question was the last one, on May 16th, 2016, Mueller interviewing to replace Comey, isn't it true that you discussed with the president in the Oval Office, with two witnesses there, the reasons why the president fired James Comey?  If the answer is yes, we did discuss it, that means under the regulations, Mueller was required to disqualify himself and say, I can't take the job because he's a witness in his own case. You can't be a prosecutor and a chief witness simultaneously. So that's very important.

But at the top of the list as you saw, the most important thing is how could you investigate Russian collusion and interference in the election without investigating how Hillary Clinton's campaign in the DNC paid for Russian disinformation and fed it to the media and the FBI to influence the election.

I mean, it's just astonishing to me that they're just a passing reference to the dossier in Mueller's 448 pages.

HANNITY: Professor, civil liberties is an important point. Gregg raises a good question though, he did investigate FARA violations, he had a very broad mandate. He did investigate - let's see taxi medallions and loan applications and you know, decades old taxes that weren't paid.

By the way pay your taxes and don't lie on a loan application, dumb idea but with all of that said, how do you then miss the dossier issue? How do you then miss lying to a FISA court judge to take away the civil liberties of not only one individual but spy on a Presidential campaign in a multitude of ways including lying and obtaining a FISA warrant under premeditated false pretenses, committing fraud because you were warned completely that it was unverifiable.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL EMERITUS PROFESSOR: Well, the irony is that all the questions the Democrats want to ask him. He's not entitled to answer, he can't answer any questions involving the investigation of President Trump or his campaign because that was the essence of the report.

They decided there was no case for prosecution and Justice Department regulations and traditions say that's it, you've decided not to prosecute, don't do what Comey did, don't talk about what might have been, don't say that she was sloppy with her use of the emails and don't say that President Trump might have A B C D, you've already said it.

But the irony is the questions the Republicans want to ask about all the issues that you and Gregg had mentioned are completely appropriate because they're not in the report and they're entitled to asking him why isn't it in the report?

Why did you pick these people to be in the investigation? What about the FISA? What about the Steele dossier? Anything that's not in the report, he can answer. If it's in the report, then he can't answer.

HANNITY: Professor, you were very clear, he does not have the right to say I won't answer that either.

DERSHOWITZ: No, he can't so he won't answer that. He's under subpoena and if the Republicans ask him that question even though he's in the minority he has to answer. Now if he refuses to answer, there'll be a vote and they won't vote to hold him in contempt because the Democrats have a majority.

But he's obligated as a lawyer and officer of the court to answer any relevant question because he's under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I think the Democrats, I'm a Democrat, I hate to see the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot but they boxed themselves in.

HANNITY: Who would have ever thought that they would come.

DERSHOWITZ: They're going to get no answers that help them.

HANNITY: Sean Hannity and Professor Dershowitz although we do - we agree on so much about Israel and the Middle East, et cetera, we really do but we're really we're fighting for, let's see, oh, civil liberties, you can't unmask American citizens without a warrant, you can't commit a fraud on a FISA court and these things are--

DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what else you can't do, you can't start - you can't have prosecutors going in front of Congress and explaining why they didn't prosecute the average American. If you have the average American businessman, there's an investigation and he's not prosecuted Congress now is trying to establish a precedent whereby they can call any prosecutors and say, oh, you didn't charge him, why not?

What about this evidence? Tell us about the other evidence. That undercuts the presumption of innocence, it undercuts the traditions of the Justice Department and it undercuts the rule of law.

Today, it's the Republicans that are victims. Tomorrow it's the Democrats, the day after tomorrow it's you and me, any American can be subject to this if the Democrats establish a precedent allowing a prosecutor to testify about why he didn't charge somebody with a crime.

HANNITY: You know, I know the media mob you know Schiff, who we know - by the way, we have him on tape colluding was Russians to get dirt on Donald Trump. We actually have the tape. Better than that that compromise, naked pictures, naked Trump. We have those pictures and I know you like that, professor but Sara, as we go through this here professor and Gregg are raising the best points.

This is - the general feeling - Republicans are salivating now to get him in that chair.

SARA CARTER, SARACARTER.COM: Oh, they are. Lawmakers have informed me that they're looking forward to interviewing and speaking with Robert Mueller. I think one question that is vitally important and Greg and Alan both brought it up, is the fact of why didn't he expand because we had the latitude.

He had the latitude to look into all things, Russia. Why didn't you look into the people that Christopher Steele allegedly got this information from, which was Russians according to Christopher Steele. A large and part of the dossier was disinformation planted by the Russians so the question that I would have is Mr. Mueller did you at all look into the other side, Christopher Steele's contacts, by the way, Christopher Steele is a foreign spy, did you look into those contacts with Russians that he had, that helped feed the information into this faulty dossier. That's going to be significantly important.

HANNITY: All right great job, all of you and civil liberties matter, our constitution matters. Not getting warrants on people, that's violating their civil liberties, plain and simple, slam dunk case, thank you all.

When we come back our own Lawrence Jones wild goes to Miami, speaking with people about the radical New Democratic Party. Wait till you hear what they told him, also later the left stooping to even newer lows.

Eric Trump's literally eating dinner last night at a restaurant in Chicago, spit on in the face. Really? Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right so the radical, extreme Democratic socialists are facing off in their first debate in Miami and we sent our own Lawrence Jones. This guy has more courage than anybody I know to ask the attendees about the Democratic agenda. This is entertaining. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Lawrence Jones: Democrat socialists versus socialism. Where do you stand on that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that the word socialism has been hijacked because we are Democrats and we are Americans.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A Democratic socialist, that's very interesting.

JONES: That's what Bernie calls them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, I'm not a Bernie supporter so I wouldn't know how to answer your question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Democrats are wanting the government to pay for everything. That's a socialist. We want us to all work and pay our fair share and it's all about fair share that's all the difference is, right there.

JONES: What about the Green New Deal? There's been several proposals put out there, do you feel like it's realistic when it comes to passing that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely, I think that you know for our future depends on something like this and we all have to care about it so there should be enough support for it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that it's 25 years overdue, I think we spoke about this 25 years ago. I remember when I was in high school and this was a big deal, we knew there was a problem and we ignored it.

JONES: I want Democrat voted for, why is that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because it hasn't been fully vetted in that particular level of the process but sometimes grass roots kinds of ideas take a while to vet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: All right, we'll have more in a second but moments ago President Trump tweeting from Air Force One about the radical Democrats. And their debate. "Boring." So with us now from the debate is Lawrence Jones. Author of the brand new book, ‘Swamp Wars: Donald Trump And The New American Populism Versus The Old Law Order,' and our friend Jeff Lord.

All right, Lawrence, special correspondent you're out with the people, got all that love. I saw the behind the scenes clips, the hugs, the selfies, the selfies, the hugs, the love. I mean, you know, Jeff and I are pretty jealous of that, I'm just saying but did they like Green New Deal?

Did they like everything free? Did they not recognize that we had a disastrous economy under Obama and these guys want to go further left even than him.

JONES: Yeah, I think you kind of describe this earlier in the show. I think it's identity crisis. I think you have candidates that don't quite understand where American is going in the past election and so they feel like they needed this radical approach but when you talk with people on the street, although they want this change when you get into the details, the policy, they don't know what's in it.

They don't think it can be passed and the Green Deal for example, it was put up to a vote, not one Democrat voted for it and so are these just fantasies, okay? Are they actually something to get past or are these just something to pander to the base.

HANNITY: Yeah, you know Jeff, you called this Trump wave very, very early with your best-selling book and you examine it now a little bit in the rear view mirror, although we have a long way to go but you know, 6 million new jobs, 6 million Americans now off of food stamps, the opposite of Obama in terms of 13 million Americans added over eight years to food stamps.

8 million more in poverty, failed economic policies, you know we now have the best job conditions since 1969 versus the lowest labor participation rate since the seventies and the worst recovery since the forties in the Biden-Obama years and it's dramatic, what is happened.

Conservatism when applied, works. Cutting taxes, ending the bureaucracy, energy independence, all the promises the President made is now bearing a lot of fruit.

JEFFREY LORD, AUTHOR, SWAMP WARS: Absolutely, it is Sean and you know, they talk about - Joe Biden likes to say that he from Scranton. Well, all I can tell you is right here in Pennsylvania where I live, the now hiring signs are all over the place, the economy is booming.

People are really, really can gauge tear at the Trump rally here the night he announced in Florida, I was invited to a rally to a small gathering at a local tavern here and people were really pumped, really excited and you look at the election returns from 2016, he did you know 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 points better than other Republican nominees in the past.

HANNITY: You know, I would watch you on Fake news CNN before they canned you and I watch it, it would be 15 to one and I'd be texting you, how do you deal with this. Axelrod, Van Jones you know, no one agrees with you unless you got lucky and Kayleigh McEnany happened to be there. Do you prefer being in that environment or with me and Lawrence Jones, I'm just curious.

LORD: Oh, I love you and Lawrence. I mean, I've gotten to know Lawrence, he's indeed a lovable guy.

HANNITY: Well, let me just tell you, don't go out in public with Lawrence because if you do, it's all the attention is on Lawrence, all the selfies are for Lawrence, all the hugs are for Lawrence, all the love goes to Lawrence.

LAWRENCE: Stop it.

HANNITY: Except that--

LORD: That's fine, I didn't get a lot of love on CNN.

HANNITY: All right, guys, thank you. Jeff, congrats on the book. When we come back, this is sickening. Eric Trump having dinner in a restaurant in Chicago, spit in the face by one of the employees, only the latest example of extreme hatred, incivility. This raw rage of the Democrats.

Tammy Bruce, Matt Gaetz, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: All right, the radical anti-Trump left, they're hitting new lows. Last night while out for dinner in Chicago, the son of the President, Eric Trump was spit on by a worker in a restaurant. His wife Laura Trump was on ‘The Story' with Martha McCallum tonight and here's what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA TRUMP, ERIC TRUMP'S WIFE: Unprovoked, this woman came up to him, literally spit in his face and had some really nasty things to say to him and he played it so calm and so cool, did not press charges against this woman which I think a lot of people would have done.

But it probably would have been very hard for me to get to remain calm in that situation. This is the new normal for the left and it's acceptable for some reason whenever you are fighting on the side of the Democrats, to do things like that. I can't imagine this ever happening to Chelsea Clinton, to Sasha and Malia Obama, this is disgusting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Now this is just the latest instance of Trump associates being maliciously berated and harassed. Just take a look at a few other examples.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I was asked to leave the restaurant this weekend where I attempted to have dinner with my family. My husband and I politely left and went home. I was asked to leave because I work for President Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is in Mexican restaurant of all places. (Bleep) Shame on you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why don't you leave my husband? Back off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: It was hitting us time and time again, starting in the beginning. Oh yeah, I dream an awful lot about blowing up the White House, really Madonna. Then of course, attacks against an 11 year old kid, the son of the President, remember the beheading picture, Kathy Griffin.

And so many other instances, the attacks against Melania Trump, vicious bio, attacks against Ivanka and Jared and Don and the whole family and basically anybody that likes Trump is attacked and don't forget of course your smelly Walmart people, irredeemable deplorables probably calling to your God that you believe in.

You're a living God, your guns, your Bible, your religion, that's what they think of people that disagree with them. Joining us now, Fox news contributor Tammy Bruce. Congressman Matt Gaetz. Tammy, we start with you.

That is assault by the way, he would have every right legally except maybe in New York. In New York they have the you must retreat when people come after you law if you can believe it but that is assault, you have a right to defend yourself from assault.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's - it's also biological assault, right? I mean, there's things that can be conveyed with saliva, bodily fluids, being put on someone. I would say that you know, when we think about and where Mrs. Trump noted that he didn't press charges and that someone else maybe would have.

I think it's important at this point, the reason these things continue is because there haven't been real repercussions. We do know as an example when the First Lady sued against false newspaper reports and won, those ended up stopping.

When you've got the fake hate crimes and the police would arrest individuals for that, those also slowed down. When there is a reminder that there is a real world, then it ends. Now this young woman at that the lounge apparently from reports has been suspended but imagine if she's willing to do that in public to the son of the President, what else is she willing to do to people that she doesn't like as having been encouraged by people like Maxine Waters?

Democratic leadership encouraging individuals to in some fashion--

HANNITY: Get in their faces.

BRUCE: Exactly.

HANNITY: Follow them into stores.

BRUCE: Literally so that's what we have to worry about here, we pressing - charges must be pressed when possible.

HANNITY: You know, I know it's so hard if you're a public figure, I mean, they can pretty much say anything about you and you don't really - we need to change the libel laws in my view in this country.

I mean, they say it about Matt all the time and he usually deserves that I don't deserve - I'm kidding Matt, but you know, think of this instance, this is what's - you know, they go after the 16 year old kid, a trigger, a ‘Make America Great Again' hat. And they run with the story for days and days even over a week in some cases.

They're factually - they never made a call, they never asked a question, they were totally wrong and the great news is Lynn Wood is a friend of mine, he's going to bludgeon these media companies and they're going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars.

REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.: Sean, this type of behavior from the left is why you really see the right winning elections and winning the culture war. I had a circumstance just a few weeks ago where someone threw a drink at me, leaving a town hall meeting and I am going to press charges and prefer precisely the reasons to emulate out.

If there are no consequences then you know, maybe it's me getting hit with a drink one time but what if it's a member of my staff and what if instead of a drink, it's acid or urine or something else like that so I think it's really important we send the message that we as conservatives have a right to our views, just like anyone else has a right to their views and we're not backing down from anybody and people that behave this way should face the consequences before court.

HANNITY: All right, I got to leave it there. Oh by the way, Matt Gaetz had a great monologue on our show, we were testing him out. Guys, good to see you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Unfortunately that's all the time we have left. Remember, we'll never be the rage hate media mob. Oh by the way, Jim Acosta, he sold a whopping 2800 books, week 2. Let's see, that's 6700, 2800. Mark Levin, number one, five weeks in a row. The number one book on The New York Times, that's five weeks in a row, hundreds of thousands of books. Laura Ingraham is next. Have a great evening.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.