All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show
01:32:43
Can't Silence The Truth

Maryann Mendoza, the mother of Brandon Mendoza, who was murdered by an illegal alien, is being penalized for talking about crimes against Americans, by illegal aliens on FaceBook. Now she is fighting back against the silencing. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
Happy Friday.
And write down our toll-free telephone number.
It is 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Well, it's happened again.
And yeah, the big media mob bombshell, Donald Trump whistleblower, Ukraine issue, yeah, that kind of blew up again, as we predicted it would.
Now, there is some good that will come out of this, just like, you know, in the end, the Mueller report.
Actually, if there's any good that came out of it, it was that, well, we were able to expose the media mob for being the liars, a group of people that have no problem with slander, with libel, with disinformation, propaganda, you know, and that have a political agenda.
That came crystal clear because they were so convinced they had it.
They were so convinced that Donald Trump was going to be impeached and the keys to the impeachment kingdom were coming from Bob Mueller.
And then came the Mueller report.
And then against all admonitions and warnings, this is not going to work out good for Bob Mueller.
They insisted on bringing him into Congress.
And from there, it got even worse because, of course, he didn't know about Fusion GPS.
How could you be working on this case and not know about Fusion GPS?
That's pretty bad.
How could you not know that, yeah, the attorney on the special counsel staff, that it was all stacked with partisan Democratic donors and even Hillary Clinton's former attorney, Genie Ray, big part of the team.
How do you hire a guy like Weissman?
We've gone over his track record, his abysmal track record.
And he ends up leading the whole thing.
But even then, there was no collusion, conspiracy with Russia.
They found nothing.
They found nothing as it relates to obstruction of justice either.
Now, it exposed a lot of things on a lot of levels.
It exposed this was pure politics and that the media mob, and they are a mob.
This is a mob mentality.
You know, all you need is, once again, all you need is one outlet.
They report one thing.
And what does the media mob do?
The media mob takes the conspiracy theory and then everybody else, they don't do their own fact checking.
No, they just run with the mob.
And what you, you know, you go through all of this, you know, and you got to first ask yourself a question.
You know, first of all, who is this person from the Intel?
Did they spy on the president?
Were they surveilling the president?
Did they in the process of their giddiness now literally expose that they unmasked the president and that they used raw intelligence against the president?
Because that too would be a crime.
So now we have the intel community, as Chuck Schumer says, you better not go against them.
They'll get you six ways Sunday.
Now, if the intelligence community now in this country is going to weaponize the powerful, powerful, powerful tools of intelligence that we give them, that we entrust to them to keep us safe from real enemies, foreign and domestic.
And that if you're spying on a domestic, for example, if the intelligence community picks up a phone communication between an American citizen and a foreign somebody that they are rightly keeping an eye on, they would be doing their job doing that.
But unless that American citizen is talking about or conspiring to do something against this country, anything that is illegal, they would be allowed to keep listening to.
Otherwise, they are supposed to practice something called, and it's within the law, minimization.
And that means the intel official that would be listening, they would minimize what they hear from the American citizen, just glean enough to see if there's anything nefarious or potentially nefarious going on.
Now, even with that said, they would, if they did a write-up on the telephone call, they would protect the American citizen.
The American citizen, you see, lives under a system of constitutional governance.
We are a constitutional republic.
American citizens are afforded constitutional rights.
We have a Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
And that too would mean that an American citizen cannot be surveilled.
And then later unmasked, and that raises questions from the very beginning about the abuse of intelligence gathering and the surveillance and unmasking and the leaking of raw intelligence, like in the case of General Flynn, a 33-year veteran.
We know that he was surveilled.
We know that he was illegally unmasked.
And we also know that it went further than that, that they actually used the raw intelligence to set him up in a perjury trap.
And that when the FBI decided they wanted to question him about something, first thing they said is, oh, you don't need a lawyer.
Andrew McCabe, the FBI deputy director, told General Flynn right from the beginning, you don't need a lawyer.
This isn't a lawyer thing.
And Comey bragging day four, Trump administration, he sent his guys in to take advantage of the chaos of the Trump administration on day four.
And yeah, I did something.
Sure.
I put aside all protocol, all procedures.
I did something I never would have tried in the Bush or the Obama administration's, you bet I set a 33-year veteran up, Mr. Superpatriot, the known liar that he is.
So the bottom line here is this is now what has happened in this country repeatedly.
So now we get the big breathless, hysterical reporting first by the Washington Post and then echoed everywhere all over the mob, the media mob, and allegedly a whistleblower complaint about troubling promises that Donald Trump may have made to another world leader on the phone.
And the next day, we believe it was Ukraine.
Okay.
Now, I know people familiar with this matter, familiar with what the so-called whistleblower has.
And I have been told in no uncertain terms, nothing illegal happened on that, on any telephone call.
There was their words, quote, I'm reading it what I wrote down.
No quid pro quo whatsoever.
And the only thing that you might glean out of it is the president was asking because it's been reported widely on this program, John Solomon, Peter Schweitzer, others, that this whole issue with Joe Biden, yeah, is true.
And the issue of whether or not Ukraine has evidence that they were working on behalf of the Clinton campaign to influence the 2016 elections that they want to provide to us, but so far have not got given us.
Well, I think we would have a right to ask for that, considering it's our elections and everybody in the country is so concerned about Russian interference, right?
You think they'd care about Ukrainian interference with evidence from Ukraine that would give us, that they would give us?
No, they don't care.
Just like they don't care about Clinton's dirty Russian dossier that was bought and paid for, that was used to, yeah, spy on then candidate Donald Trump using the unverified dossier paid for by Hillary, unverifiable because even its own author won't stand by it.
After three of the warrants were issued, then the FBI finally decided to look into the veracity in it of it, and they found that over 90% they could prove to be wrong.
The Russians then gave this false information, knowing it was going to be used against Donald Trump to the Clinton campaign because, again, they wanted to influence our elections, which we already established because they're hostile actors run by a hostile actor himself, Vladimir Putin.
Also would mean that it appears that the Russians wanted to help Hillary, not Donald Trump.
As the New York Times said, it was likely Russian disinformation from the get-go.
That's after they, of course, got out of all of this.
You know, now, did the president, did he promise, you know, that I'll have more flexibility after my reelection?
I want you to tell all your top guys there.
Tell Vladimir.
I have more flexibility after the election, but I got to get elected first before I get the flexibility.
And just don't tell the American people what we've got cooking up here.
Because that did happen.
We have the evidence for that.
And Demetri didn't care about that.
They didn't care about obstruction with Hillary Clinton.
They didn't care about Clinton violating the Espionage Act.
They didn't care about Clinton paying for a dirty dossier that was used as a means of propagandizing the American people because it was released by liberal hacks in the media and conspiracy theorists like Michael Izikoff and David Korn and selectively leaked so that it would, yes, be used against Trump to help Hillary win.
They didn't care about any of that, nor do they care about what happened with the dirty dossier being used as the bulk of information to secure the FISA warrant.
And there were multiple warnings given directly to the DOJ and the FBI.
No, it's not verified.
It's Hillary's document.
She paid for it and still has an agenda and hates Trump.
That all happened ahead of time.
By the way, Donald Trump, I don't think he offered free, you know, billions of dollars in fuel, did he?
He didn't offer any nuclear infrastructure to any country like North Korea, did he?
Oh, no, no, that was Bill Clinton.
On this phone call, did President Trump offer $150 billion in cash and other currencies to Iran and the Mullahs that want to wipe Israel and the U.S. off the map and chant death to America, death to Israel?
No, that was Obama and Biden.
So you got all of the crazy media running with the same story.
Of course, starting with Roswell Rachel Maddow on the conspiracy channel, the extension of all things Democrat in this country, MSDNC.
And then her fellow Russia, Russia, Russia obsessed conspiracy theorist and the mob, they just followed suit.
And then the hysteria, the hype, the anticipation rises again, just like it was rising last week over Kavanaugh.
That turned out to be false too.
The woman that was supposedly a victim of Kavanaugh in college rubbing his private parts up against us says, I remember no such thing at all.
But they ran with it anyway.
Remember, we don't know the identity of the whistleblower, but they're running wall-to-wall coverage.
They don't know any details about the allegations, but they're running wall-to-wall.
They don't know which world leader it was referenced, but they're running wall to wall.
Not one of these other, you know, media mob outlets in any way did their own verification independently to see if what the Washington Post did is right, considering they've gotten so much wrong.
But anyway, they're saying that, okay, it involves Ukraine.
Okay, we know a lot about Ukraine.
Started with Peter Schweitzer, followed up by great reporting by John Solomon.
Schweitzer in his book, Secret Empires, he took a long, hard look at candidate and former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter.
And he reported that once that Biden got in charge of in the Bush and the Obama administration, he was in charge of Ukraine.
And in 2014 and 2015, Hunter Biden's, well, he was making about $188,000 a month for a company he was representing.
We don't have any evidence that he was ever involved in the natural gas industry at all.
But anyway, he's a board member of this natural gas company in Ukraine, $188,000 a month.
We talk about conflicts of interest.
You know, Chuck Grassley announced Thursday he's opening a probe into the administration's decision of Obama to approve the sale of U.S. technology, a U.S. technology company to the Chinese government, investment firm run by Joe Biden and John Kerry's son.
John Kerry's son was smart.
He saw the handwriting on the wall.
He got the hell out of this deal.
He said, I don't want to be a part of this one.
A lot of money at stake, too, in the dealings with Ukraine.
And then, of course, Joe Biden, we got him on tape bragging, don't we?
That the prosecutor that was investigating the $188,000 monthly payoffs by the gas company in Ukraine to the vice president of the United States, his son and his company, yeah, he said, I'm looking into this.
And then Joe Biden went with our tax dollars and said, you got six hours or else I'm taking U.S. tax dollars.
I'm going to leverage it.
You either fire that prosecutor investigating my son or I'm going home without the money we promised you.
A billion dollars.
It all happened.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Yeah, so the media mob, another story blowing up in their face.
So the good news is, just like Mueller proves that they had a witch hunt and an agenda, just like he, you know, through all of this, showed the Democrats to be liars, showed the media mob to be liars, those involved in conspiracy theories, misinformation.
They had it.
They tasted it.
They were going to get Trump with all of this.
The Mueller report was going to impeach him.
They were right there.
They'll ignore everything involving Hillary's dirty Russian dossier as the New York Times says, likely Russian disinformation from the get-go.
They'll ignore all that.
New York Times says we focused an entire newsroom on one story, but didn't come out the way we wanted.
So now we'll transition to the issue of race.
Oh, how many of you saw Matt Gates and Al Sharpton go at it today?
Wow, we're going to have a debate on that coming up with Pastor Daryl Scott and Reverend Adams coming up.
Pretty interesting.
Questions Matt Gaetz was asking Reverend Al.
Anyway, Hunter Biden's business dealings, just like, you know, week after he's in China.
Yeah, how did Hunter Biden get all that money from China?
Two weeks after he flew on Air Force 2 with his dad.
And daddy, I guess, you know, they like the fact that they could do some business with the vice president's son because then they probably won't say anything about the horrific trade deals and the trade imbalance and the massive tariffs that China puts on American companies.
Yeah, he made a fortune there too.
But what this does is this now allows, if you will, this now allows the media to do a real job.
Now look into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's actions.
Joe Biden using American tax dollars, threatening to withhold them unless the prosecutor looking into his son is fired.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hale, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, before I get to the climate change marchers today, and if you're in New York City, you didn't have to go to school today.
No, you got off to protest climate change to walk in the protests now taking place nationwide, climate change hysteria.
But just back to this, because John Solomon, he's going to join us with Greg Jarrett and David Schoen at the top of the hour.
Yeah, all this talk about, well, Ukraine, it turns out Rudy Giuliani was actually approached by our State Department to basically do an official mission and two State Department officials specifically asking him to contact Ukraine over the election fraud issue.
And being the good citizen that he did, he did it on behalf of the country.
You may remember we interviewed him on TV one night.
He went off on this saying, yeah, it's really bad what happened here.
And that would be that, yeah, Joe Biden's son Hunter, who had no experience in natural gas, the same guy that had no experience on the issues in the China deal that he made two weeks after he flew with his dad on Air Force Due to China.
Yeah, that Joe Biden, for a very good reason, wanted a prosecutor who was looking into the gas company, the natural gas company, of which Hunter Biden's new company with no experience was making $188,000 a month.
And then Joe Biden went with a billion taxpayer dollars and he brags about how he told the Ukrainians, you're going to fire that prosecutor.
He didn't say it, but we now know who's investigating his son.
If not, I'm leaving here in six hours without any money being left for you.
I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
I think it was, what, six hours?
I looked.
I said, we're leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a b ⁇ .
Got fired.
Hey, fired.
I leveraged a billion dollars to fire the prosecutor that's investigating the gas company that's paying my son $188,000 a month.
Wow.
That's pretty powerful.
I don't know if it's right.
I know that Joe DeGenova and Victoria Tunsing, yeah, they're all over this too.
Hmm.
Amazing stuff, isn't it?
Just like with the China decision.
It's like, now, by the way, one other point on this, Greg Jarrett, who will also join us at a point that I really think needs to be pointed out because this is also blowing up in the faces of all liberals.
Who's identified as the whistleblower?
What is the specific nature of the whistleblower's urgent concern complaint against the president?
Because there's a lot of deep state operatives within the government that are Obama holdovers.
They don't like President Trump.
We also have now a series of leaks.
You know, the Intel community will get you six ways and Sideways group.
Does the complaint really qualify under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act?
Because those are a few of the more fundamental questions that remain unanswered.
It appears an American spy in one of our intelligence agencies may have yet again been spying on our president.
Well, that would be a huge story also.
In other words, the DNI has concluded, no, this is not a whistleblower.
This is not an urgent concern or complaint that anyone needs to worry about.
I have sources that know exactly what is in this, and they say, no, there's no there there at all, that the president is right, and that the only issue that might be involved would question the president.
We now know from reporting, John Solomon and Craig Jarrett and Victoria Joe and Rudy and everybody else, that in fact, Ukraine has wanted to give us evidence of their election interfering on behalf of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
So maybe the president was saying, can I see whatever that is?
Because we're trying to get to the bottom of all this 2016 election interference stuff.
But the media doesn't care about it because it's not helping Trump.
It's only Russian interference, but only Russian interference that helps Trump.
Once we find out that the dirty dossier was unverified, used as a means to bludgeon Trump, then we don't want to talk about that Russian interference, the real Russian interference.
Anyway, apparently this whistleblower, an unelected, inferior federal employee, apparently believes that their job is to second guess the motivation behind the words of a duly elected president.
Isn't that really important?
Because the Constitution under Article two does give the president sweeping power to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with leaders of other nations.
Now, again, I don't I don't know that President Trump was offering just to have more flexibility after I'm reelected.
More flexibility.
Tell Vladimir I'm not telling the American people that my flexibility is after.
I don't know.
I don't think the president did that, did he?
That would be Obama.
I don't think the president was offering.
I'll give you billions of dollars in free fuel and nuclear infrastructure.
I'm going to give North Korea, okay?
And I'm going to say it's a good deal for the American people, billions of dollars.
That was Clinton.
Well, I did do that, Hannity, but I didn't expect them to cheat.
I took them at their word.
And of course, we got Obama, $150 billion in cash and other currencies.
I don't think anything Donald Trump did was anything similar to that.
That'd be pretty bad, wouldn't it?
But anyway, the Constitution gives the president all of these powers.
He is the commander-in-chief.
And by the way, the Constitution doesn't grant the power of review, approval, or disapproval to spies or other unelected officials in the executive branch.
The whistleblower laws defines parameters of urging concern as evidenced in Greg Jarrett's column today and the complaint as an abuse or violation of law relating to the funding, administration, or operations of intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.
I am told that the president sought truth if they had any evidence.
That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
You're an objective American.
All right, we have more coming up at the top on this.
All right, so you got kids in New York didn't have to go to school today.
They were allowed to skip school so they can participate in the global climate strike protests.
Millions around the world, 150 countries, according to organizers on their website, saying about the protests, this is a crisis.
Climate crisis is now a worldwide emergency.
We want everyone to start acting like it's an emergency.
Anyway, they're time to coincide with the UN climate summit in New York and said they want to see the government's pledge to abandon all fossil fuels.
Well, that's what the new Green Deal is.
We're going to eliminate fossil fuels, gas, and oil in 10 years, and then we're going to have a depression.
Depression almost instantaneously.
Get rid of the lifeblood of your economy.
Yeah, your economy's doomed.
Anyway, climate strike.
Teachers are barred from attending to protests, but not students.
They're allowed to take off.
Anyway, that's become a bit of a controversy.
I don't care about the climate strike.
Noah Rothman writes, New York Post is all about indoctrination and not science.
He's on to something here, isn't he?
And let's see.
Bennett, our democracy has prevented climate action.
Michael Bennett, candidate, Colorado Senator, said it during MSNBC's low-rated climate forum last night.
How do I know it's low-rated?
Well, I happen to work in cable news, and thanks to all of you, and I mean this, you know, you've made the show number one.
And we're working hard to earn your trust every day, believe me.
But we can't do it without you, this radio show or TV, and I know that.
Yang, climate change may require elimination of car ownership.
Okay.
And we can't eat any more meat either, and we can't have airplanes.
He imagines constant roving fleet of electronic cars.
We'll just jump into a car with strangers every day.
Sure, that won't cause any problems down the road.
Sanders, I would be positively disposed to expanding asylum to include climate refugees.
Whatever the hell that means.
Then Sanders comparing climate change, Hurricane Dorian, to Pearl Harbor.
Okay, that's nuts.
And one of the MS DNC conspiracy theorists, we know it's not true.
Democrats want to do things like banning straws.
That's our problem, plastic straws.
Look, this climate cult, and it is a cult, is not rooted in science.
And it is a front to advance their economy-killing, radical, extreme socialist agenda.
Even AOC's chief of staff admitted that.
Now, remember, here's a history lesson, Hannity history lesson.
Remember the global cooling hoax.
We're going into a new ice age.
Now, that was another failed prediction.
That was in the 70s.
And now the Competitive Enterprise Institute put together a list of the biggest climate blunders over the past 50 years.
74 Time magazine wondering if another ice age is on the way.
Not to be outdone in 1975, Newsweek dedicating a report to the cooling world.
Then, of course, there was no ice age in the decades after.
So the media starting, you know, starting to spin out of control.
First, it's got too cold.
Then it's too hot.
We're going to melt.
Then we're going to freeze.
Then we're going to melt.
So we'll just come up with one word that will describe the end of human civilization any moment now.
We'll call it climate change.
Whatever.
If it's hot, it's cold.
It's all climate change.
AP reported in 1989, a senior UN environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming trends are not reversed by the year 2000.
19 years ago.
Year 2000, the Independent ran a piece that read snowfalls are just a thing of the past.
Maybe I was must have been on acid, out of my mind on drugs last winter and the winter before and the winter before that because it was snowing where I lived.
Anyway, then Al Gore warned in 06, unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years.
That's 13 years ago.
The world will reach a point of no return.
By the way, if he felt that way, why was he flying around in a Gulfstream, which is a 14 to 16 seat private jet that happened to be an older Gulfstream that was a real jet-fuel guzzler?
And on that 14- to 16-seat jet, there was only two people of the 16 seats available.
They only had two.
Now, the pilot says those seats don't count for them.
Then we saw him get off the plane into his waiting town car or limousine, another gas guzzler.
Lie after lie, hysteria after hysteria, propaganda, false warnings, but it's all about free everything.
And it's predicated on this foundation that human beings are destroying the planet for profit.
We need to put all of our collective eggs in one basket and to each citizen of the world what they need from each citizen of the world.
Government will confiscate it and give it to others.
And we'll take over all industry to control emissions.
And we'll get rid of oil, gas in 10 years, the combustion engine in 10 years.
We'll get rid of cows and planes as soon as possible.
Miami is going to be engulfed by water.
How do I know this?
Well, Alexandria Casio-Cortez told us.
When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding to the crisis of the house, not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis.
Because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years.
That's not realistic.
We need to be realistic about the problem.
Okay.
Goodbye, Miami.
It was nice knowing you.
By the way, I would urge a quick purchase of many boats in case it really happens.
Doom and gloom.
The planet is going to freeze us to death.
The ice age is coming.
The polar bears will be extinct, Al Gore told us.
The polar bears are thriving right now.
How did that happen?
Then we're going to burn up.
Whether it's hot, whether it's cold, whether it snows, whether it rains, if it doesn't snow or rain.
If there is a drought, if there is a flood, like in Houston.
And we're praying for our friends in Houston.
It's pretty bad.
It doesn't matter.
We say it's climate change and man caused it.
And we need to get rid of oil and gas, the lifeblood of every economy.
And if it throws the world into a recession, if it costs $94 trillion, it's worth every penny.
Even though $94 trillion in 10 years, we only take in $4 trillion a year for the federal government.
That's our budget.
That's $40 trillion.
They want to spend $94 trillion in 10 years.
That ain't going to work.
We're going to go broke.
And if we get rid of oil and gas and we provide free government jobs guaranteed, vacation guaranteed, healthy food guaranteed, pre-K guaranteed, if child care is guaranteed, retirement is guaranteed, a job is guaranteed.
And whether you're willing or unwilling to work, 70% top marginal tax rate individuals, 90% top tax rate corporations.
That if you save any money after they rob the 70 and 90%, then they'll come back and hit you with a wealth tax because you save too much.
And if you save any money before you die, they'll come back and whack you with another bite at the apple.
40% federally, 16% in New York.
Don't die in New York.
I get told that all the time.
And by the way, as a conservative, I don't want to be anything but a good steward of the economy.
Conservatives don't want dirty air and water.
Yes, we want clean air and water for our children.
We don't want to kill children.
We don't want mommy, granny, and grandpa eating dog food, cat food, and then being pushed over the cliff by a speaker, then Ryan or New King Richard now, Kevin McCarthy.
You're insane.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
It doesn't matter what I discuss, but I will say this.
Somebody ought to look into Joe Biden's statement because it was disgraceful where he talked about billions of dollars that he's not giving to a certain country unless a certain prosecutor's taken off the case.
So somebody ought to look into that.
And you wouldn't because he's a Democrat.
And the fake news doesn't look into things like that.
It's a disgrace.
But I had a great conversation with numerous people.
I don't even know exactly who you're talking about, but I had a great conversation with numerous people, numerous leaders.
And I always look for the conversation that's going to help the United States the most.
That's very important.
I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
I think it was, what, six hours?
I looked.
I said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a b ⁇ .
Got fired.
Well, son of a b ⁇ .
Now you got fired.
There it is, Joe Biden on tape, literally leveraging American tax dollars, aid to Ukraine, holding the money hostage, using our tax money as leverage, giving the Ukraine six hours to fire a prosecutor.
Who's the prosecutor?
Well, we know who the prosecutor is, the one that was actually investigating the shenanigans of his son, Hunter, and the business that he was doing in Ukraine.
You know, it's pretty amazing.
Now, this story is boomeranging like everything else the corrupt media mob gets involved in.
In other words, now it gives people, at least they've created a platform where now people will get the true story.
In other words, that Ukraine had information that they wanted to provide us about what?
About their election interference in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton.
That is correct.
You heard me right.
And as luck would have it, now I've talked to multiple sources who know exactly what this whistleblower claim is all about.
There's not a single thing, nothing that the president did that is inappropriate or offered that is inappropriate.
There's no quid pro quo involved.
And yeah, it is, well, let's just say the president pursuing truth that the mob never wants to pursue.
You know, as luck would have it, right on time by the Daily Beast reporting a few inconvenient details about the intelligence community's so-called whistleblower and his reported claim that the president offered Ukraine officials hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid as part of a quid pro quo.
That's not what happened.
The quid pro quo was reportedly Ukraine would get it in exchange for launching their investigation into Hunter Biden's extremely lucrative involvement with the Ukraine gas company.
Now, that supposedly took place in July.
The only problem is, regardless of what was said during the call, Ukraine officials never launched any investigation into Biden, his son, or anybody else.
But a few weeks later, despite Ukraine's decision not to investigate Biden, the Trump administration not only granted the military aid that Ukraine wanted, they actually increased the size of the aid package.
So that's either the poorest excuse for a quid pro quo I've ever heard of, or they're full of crap.
Now, that's just from the liberal side of things.
On the other side of things, Ukraine has been trying for a long, long time now to get this out.
Now, our friend John Solomon has a follow-up to his blockbuster as it relates to Joe Biden in Ukraine.
He joins us along with attorney David Schoen and Greg Jarrett.
By the way, next week, Greg's new book is out.
Get an early copy now at Hannity.com, Amazon.com, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
John, another blow-up in their face.
This has been like the Mueller report blew up in their face, Corey Lewandowski blew up in their face, the secret Washington Post whistleblower story, that's about to blow up in their face again.
Yeah, listen, this has a lot of the hallmarks of the Russia collusion narrative, how it rolled out the same people, right?
The Adam Schiffs of the world, anonymous leaks, conversations that are, you know, with world leaders, or much like Mike Flynn's conversation being leaked, which turned out there was no illegality in that conversation.
I think everybody should take this as a grain of salt.
And as we learned in the Russia case, wait for the facts, because I think the facts are going to be a lot different than the.
Well, I was told directly by people that know my sources have said that there's nothing in there that the president would be concerned about.
Nothing.
Is that what you've heard?
Let's pick one that we can debunk.
We can say we can debunk one right now.
Here's one of my favorite narratives that, you know, sounds great until you find out what really is going on.
For the last few days, the media has been saying, oh, my God, Rudy Giuliani had contacts with the Ukrainians.
All he was trying to do was get political dirt from the Ukrainians to affect the 2020 election, get something on Joe Biden, bring it back here, help Donald Trump win the 2020 election.
And the specific contact that's raised concern was in the summer of 20, this past summer, July, he had a contact with an official with the new Ukrainian president, Zelensky.
Sounds great.
Sounds salacious, right, when you hear it.
Here's the only part of the story you haven't heard.
And when you hear it, it changes everything you know.
Rudy Giuliani didn't have that contact because he wanted to have it.
The State Department, not one, but two senior officials at the State Department called Rudy Giuliani and asked if it would be okay if he would talk to President Zelensky's aide and smooth things out, have a conversation, create a good relationship because it would help the State Department.
That contact occurred in July.
Rudy Giuliani then agreed to meet the Zelensky advisor in early August.
And you know what Rudy Giuliani did after that?
He didn't carry out a dirty trick.
He went back to the State Department and briefed two senior officials, two senior ambassadors on exactly everything that went on.
It was a diplomatic mission urged by the State Department, not a political, dirty trick like CNN, the New York Times and others have tried to portray it over the last couple of days.
It's that lack of facts in this reporting that should make us all pause and say, wait, we might be being sold another bill of bad goods.
Well, let's go back to what we know about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden leveraging American tax dollars to get the investigator into Hunter Biden's shenanigans over there as it relates to oil and gas.
By the way, did Hunter Biden ever have any background?
Did he do any work that we know of prior to this deal with Ukraine that paid him an awful lot of money, which we'll get into in a second?
Did he have any background to make these kind of deals before or no?
He did not.
And the overture that he got so concerned his business partner that Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, immediately told the State Department, I'm not going to be part of this.
I don't feel good about this.
I'm not part of this.
That tells you something.
When the guy who can make money off it decides he doesn't want to be part of it, it's suspect, even to Hunter Biden's own business partner.
John Kerry's son dropped out of this deal in Ukraine because he didn't want to be part of it, even though he was in business with Hunter Biden.
So, no, he didn't.
A lot of money flowed, $3 million, according to FBI records.
And then questions began to arise.
Isn't this a conflict of interest?
Hunter Biden's working on Ukraine, making lots of money while Joe Biden is overseeing the Ukraine portfolio for Barack Obama.
That's a legitimate public interest publication.
So what exactly did Hunter Biden do so he can bring everybody up to speed?
Well, he was a board member, and he also was consulting at the same time he was a board member.
He's a board member of Barisma Gas Holdings, which was a Ukraine natural gas company run by a former minister of the environment of Ukraine.
And so he gets hired in 2014, right, as the revolution is occurring and Joe Biden is taking over the Ukraine portfolio for the president.
Hunter Biden suddenly gets this offer and they start getting paid $188,000 a month flows into the firm that Hunter Biden controlled.
$108?
$101?
$88,000, $188,000 a month.
Now, how much did Hunter get of that?
We don't know, right?
We see some deposits that come in and out.
It's unclear how it was divvied up, but that much money flowed into his company.
And what company is it in America?
It's a firm out of Chicago called Rosemont Seneca Partners, and it had a subdivision that collected this specific money.
And we know this not because the Ukrainian authorities have given us any records, but because the FBI sees these records in an unrelated investigation, put them into a court file.
I obtained them and I reported on them.
So $3 million changed hands over two years.
Let me, and this is then the prosecutor in Ukraine was looking into the issue, and that's where that's where Dadda comes back into play.
Again, he was overseeing the Obama administration's relationships with Ukraine, and that's why Hunter was there, and this happened right after he'd been there.
And as their prosecutor looks into a potential unethical quid pro quo with the vice president of the United States and his son, that's when sleepy, creepy, crazy Joe 30330 steps in and says, either fire that guy or I keep the billion dollars and you can't stop me.
And they fired the investigator that was looking into all of this.
Greg Jarrett, you put out a piece today called the whistleblower may not be a whistleblower at all.
Yeah.
And of course, the media would never know that because they've never opened a law book or bothered to just Google a statute.
The statute's called the Intelligence Committee Whistleblower Act.
And it provides a process for somebody in the intelligence community to report misconduct or abuse within the intelligence community.
So this complaint against the president has no application.
The whistleblower does not qualify as a whistleblower because he's complaining about the president, who is not a member of the intelligence committee.
Sure, the intelligence committee reports to the president, but he is not subject to its rules of conduct.
And this is why the director of national intelligence said, we don't believe this is what's called an urgent concern complaint.
It's not a whistleblower complaint under the law.
We're not going to give it to you members of Congress.
What's disturbing is, you know, we have an American spy in one of our own intelligence agencies that apparently spy on the president.
And then he thinks it's his job to second guess the motivation behind the words of the elected president, who is the most superior officer in the U.S. government.
Well, let me ask you this.
Are you now saying that the same person, President Donald Trump, who was spied on as a candidate in a multitude of ways that we've exposed and his transition team and his presidency?
You're saying now that our intel agencies, the ones that Chuck Schumer warned would get you six ways and Sundays if you dare mess with them.
In other words, Chuck Schumer saying that the powerful tools of intelligence will be turned on you if you ever say anything they don't like, which is a scary proposition.
Are you saying that you believe that the president was illegally surveilled and amassed by our intelligence community again?
Well, whether it was illegal or not, you know, you just don't know.
But look, when the president makes a call with foreign leaders, there are other people in the White House who were listening in, but they do so with the permission of the president.
The president's comments about this suggest that, well, he didn't know that this complainant, this so-called whistleblower, was listening in.
So, you know, that's that's a, but the media doesn't, with the exception of Phil Mudd at CNN, who said this is outrageous to be listening in on the president.
This is outrageous to be a snitch at the, for Congress.
Phil Mudd worked in the CIA, worked in the FBI.
And by the way, he's a huge Trump hater.
Yeah, he is.
But in this one instance, he pointed out something that's incredibly important.
So, you know, the media mass hysteria is based on almost no information.
But that doesn't stop journalists from convicting Trump in the court of public opinion and predicting his imminent.
All right, let me go again.
All right, quick break.
We'll continue on the other side.
Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, John Solomon, the boomerang of Ukraine now blowing up in the media.
And of course, the mob's face and the deep state's face and the Democratic Party's face.
Shocking.
We've seen this movie before.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
And as we continue, Greg Jarrett, John Solomon, and David Schoen are with us.
If we have another case where they're spying and listening in on the president of the United States and then leaking it, David Schoen, that to me is a far bigger issue than the president saying he wants truthful information about maybe some illegal activities that were committed to influence our elections in 2016.
I think that's 100% right.
And I think you may be looking at a situation, God forbid, I guess, again, where we need a special prosecutor simply to look into this intelligence community issue.
But let me say this.
I think there's another big problem here also.
Remember, the Constitution relegates foreign policy dealing with ambassadors, dealing with foreign diplomats and heads of country exclusively to the president.
So for Congress even to be, you know, making their demands here raises the real separation of powers issue, but it also undermines the foreign policy of our country.
This president was elected because he was an outsider, because he was a businessman, because he knew how to make deals.
He trades on relationships.
Every time they pull something like this, and they all know it, they undermine the relationships that he's developing.
Look at the inroads he's made foreign policy, even while under this whole buller shadow, the ASCO.
The foreign policy accomplishments he's made are tremendous.
Nobody before ever made any inroads with some of these other countries, and now they criticize whatever road he takes.
He has to be able to communicate effectively.
The other thing I want to say, though, very important, I think, is this piece that John Solomon is reporting on is clearly a blockbuster.
But, you know, you said earlier, Sean, that it's another boomerang.
There wouldn't be these boomerangs unless you were doing what you're doing.
It is vitally important that you continue to report and expose these issues.
Well, I mean, I've got to worry now, don't I?
Because the Intel community will get me six ways on Sundays and Solomon and Jared.
And with all due respect, David, probably you too.
Now, it's vitally important work.
This is how our system depends on you continuing to do this work.
It's not a coincidence they boomerang.
No, we're not going to have a.
David, we won't have a country if our intelligence agencies are spying on our president illegally and they're unmasking and they're leaking raw intelligence because that's what it sounds like it's a possibility against.
Stay right there.
David Schoen, we have Greg Jarrett.
We have John Solomon.
We're going to continue our deep dive into this.
We'll have full coverage of this tonight on Hannity.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
You actually referred criminal prosecution of the Department of Justice for Commonwealth, correct?
We're required by the IG Act to send information that we've identified that could plausibly be criminal to the department.
That's pretty monumental.
Do you know of any FBI director who in the past has ever had a criminal prosecution?
I refer as I sit here today.
Or any other head of any federal agency?
I do, actually.
Okay.
But I'll keep that.
All right.
And the same type of referral applied to McCabe as well.
Right.
The IG Act requires me to expeditiously report to the Attorney General when I see evidence that could be considered criminal.
And we follow the law.
We've taken now your report and we've put it side by side congressional testimony that James Comey made before the joint oversight and judiciary hearing.
And I'm finding just a number of irregularities.
So would it be appropriate if Chairman, I mean, Ranking Member Jordan and I were to refer those inconsistencies to the IG?
And if we did that, would the IG look at those inconsistencies?
So at this point, can you rule out the fact that there will be any criminal referrals as it relates to this new FISA abuse report that is coming out?
Can you rule that out?
I'm not going to speak to that issue one way or the other.
All right.
That was the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.
It's gotten very, very little play in the fake news media mob.
Why?
Because it doesn't fit their narrative and exposes what we have been telling you, which is two and a half years and, well, now really longer than that, of pushing lies, propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, the biggest hoax, as Greg Jarrett calls it in the biggest mass delusion in American political history.
And it goes on from there.
And in the process, the slander, the libel, the besmirchment, the character assassination is never ending.
And it just, it's sort of like a quickening.
Art Bell once wrote about the quickening, meaning that things happen faster.
Now they get exposed faster.
You know, claims on CNN, I guess, that Trump has killed millions more than Mao, Stalin, and Hitler combined.
Not even a, not one bit of pushback.
But my, oh, I think my IFB was not working that night.
Or just the latest in what is a series of scandals, including their anti-Semitism and tweets that are unbelievable on 9-11 and tweets about the great revolutionary Mao.
Forget about the millions of people that starved to death and was slaughtered.
We won't talk about that.
It's the New York Times, the paper record, bragging about they used an entire newsroom to work on only one story, but the story didn't turn out the way they thought it would.
And they were exposed for lying.
Now they're exposed for lying again, as we saw this week about Justice Kavanaugh, keeping out the key detail that the woman that is the alleged victim that they're writing about doesn't recall any such incident with Judge Kavanaugh, but a third party political hack, apparently, that worked with Clinton on the Lewinsky case with Williams and Donnelly and Connolly in 1998.
Yeah, that's going to be our source for that.
Well, now we have Horowitz confirming to Congress that he, in fact, recommended a criminal prosecution because that's what it is.
They just say it is a referral.
They don't say criminal referral, but that's basically what it is.
And he even went on to justify that and to basically agree to investigate whether Comey also lied to Congress.
You know, he went into great, great, you know, explanation that, yeah, we've identified things that plausibly would be criminal to the Department of Justice and that he's required by the Inspector General Act to send that information that they've identified that could plausibly be criminal to the Department of Justice.
That's how we put it.
But we're awaiting his report on FISA abuse and it should be a slam dunk.
We continue.
John Solomon, investigative reporter.
Greg Jarrett, his new book is out next week, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
David Schoen, criminal defense civil liberties attorney.
David, let me go to you.
You watched Horowitz this week and I saw a guy that was not going to whitewash anything about Jim Comey.
And now that we know the FISA report is finished, it's been sent to the Department of Justice.
Attorney General Barr will look at any possible needed redactions after the FBI Director Ray weighs in.
I don't have a lot of confidence in the current FBI director.
He's not shown any willingness to clean up the premier law enforcement agency in the world, which is very troubling to me because up till this point, they've had the best reputation as well.
And it's only a few and not the 99.9% that are great agents.
That's right.
I mean, I think Director Ray has been a disaster in a way.
If you just look at the Roger Stone case, the idea of what happened to him with that raid, that's a whole nother chapter here.
It's outrageous.
And he's never come clean about how that could have happened.
But listen, I've been friendly with Michael Horowitz for over 25 years.
I first met him in a case in the Southern District of New York, in which he was brought in to clean up corruption among DEA agents.
He had the guts to do it then.
He's had the guts all along.
It's a very difficult position he's in.
Remember, his career path has crossed with Comey and all of these folks all along, but he still stood strong.
I can tell you this: as a prosecutor, he never would have signed off on any of these FISA applications we've spoken about, and he would have fired any prosecutor who worked with him who omitted the kinds of credibility and reliability details that had to be on those applications.
He's a man of integrity, and now you see McCabe attacking him.
That's outrageous.
McCabe's got nowhere to turn anymore.
And neither does Comey, frankly.
But I personally thought that Michael Horowitz could have been stronger in some of the IG reports that have been submitted already.
That is, I thought the acts of criminal conduct were even clearer and stronger than were reflected in there.
But he's a solid, balanced guy.
He's a person of integrity.
Everybody likes who meets, and he's an honest man.
And I consider it an honor to be his friend.
Your take now, John Solomon, and what do you expect?
So, what I'm hearing is that the IG's report on FISA abuses is extensive, illuminating, and that's some of the misconduct that has been identified in there.
It goes beyond anything that we've talked about in your show or in my columns or in all the other great work that Greg and Sarah and Joe DeGenov and Victoria Tensing have worked on.
It is comprehensive and it is eye-opening, according to some people who have seen it.
Now, we've seen Horowitz make criminal referrals in his earlier investigations.
The question will be: will there be criminal referrals related to the FISA findings?
And as you saw from that clip that you just played, he was non-committal.
He didn't tip his hand to Mark Meadows in that questioning.
But I believe that this summer, this fall, excuse me, the month of October, particularly, is going to be a very illuminating month about how bad things were at the FBI, how wrong those FISA applications were, how misleading the Justice Department has been, not only to the FISA court, but to the American public.
And I think the boomerang will complete its journey this fall.
First step maybe in the declassification of a small number of documents, followed by the release of the IG report.
I would expect that over the next five weeks.
And your take, Greg Jarrett, five weeks.
Oh, my gosh, that's an eternity.
When are we ever going to get this thing?
And more specifically, Greg Jarrett, I'm not particularly inspired by the movements so far of Director Wright.
No, Ray should be fired.
He has been obstructing Congress.
He has been obstructing legitimate FOIA requests.
But the reason this IG report is taking so long is that the level of malevolence in scheming against Trump is shocking and pervasive.
You know, government officials went rogue and they tried to frame Trump for a collusion conspiracy that never existed.
There was lying, there was spine.
I expect most of it to be digested in the IG report, meticulously specified.
There must be an accounting under criminal law.
Criminal referrals and prosecutions should ensue.
Okay, now the question is: is there any doubt that we now know the following?
That Jim Comey, on at least three occasions that we know of, John Solomon, you reported on two of them.
One was with Bruce Orr when he warned everybody in August of 2016: don't trust Steele.
This isn't verified.
Hillary paid for it.
Kathleen Kavlek did it.
And apparently that was just, what, about 10 to 14 days prior to the signing of the first application for the first Pfizer warrant that Jim Comey signed.
She warned everybody the same thing.
From what we now know, the British government warned it, warned people, warned our government as well about Christopher Steele.
He's not to be trusted.
And from my sources, there's probably at least two, if not three other warnings, direct warnings that were given to the DOJ and the FBI in particular.
Now, with that said, that means it's premeditated.
Now, we also know that, in fact, they never attempted to verify the Steele dossier.
We also know it's unverifiable because its own author, had they even bothered to ask, said under oath in an interrogatory in Great Britain, he had no idea if any of it was true.
When the FBI, John, you wrote this column, eventually got around to verifying the dirty dossier, they were able to determine over 90% of it was not true.
Probably 100%, but they weren't able to prove 100% wasn't true, but over 90%.
That means that they took an unverified Russian dossier full of Russian lies paid for by Hillary, and on a document where they swear that they verified it to be true, it became the bulk of information for the four applications.
Now, the interesting thing to me is that would be premeditated fraud on a court.
Greg Jarrett's identified many other crimes.
I'll let him answer that in a second.
John Solomon, is there any way on earth that the Inspector General does not conclude that they were illegally obtained or obtained under false pretenses?
I don't think so.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll stick to the factual side of it.
It has irrefutably been proven now that information in that FISA warrant from the first one through the fourth was inaccurate.
It was unverified when posited as being verified to the court.
And more importantly, evidence that weighed against the credibility of Christopher Steele was not submitted to the court, even though the FBI was in possession of it when they provided the first FISA.
And I'll just give you one example that a lot of people forget about.
And I think at the end of the day, one other thing I'll say: Christopher Steele himself may be the best evidence that Christopher Steele was warning the FBI his material was politically motivated.
I think we're going to find that out, that Christopher Steele was being candid with the FBI, that he did have a political motive, that he did have a political client, that he had an election day deadline.
I think that's going to be one of the revelations of the report.
And the FBI kept it.
But here's something that is the primary piece of evidence that they used to justify spying on Carter Page, the Trump campaign aid.
They said they had verified that Carter Page had met with two senior Russian officials in July of 2016 in Moscow.
Bob Mueller's report said those meetings did not occur.
It is extraordinary that the primary piece of evidence you used to justify spying on a Trump campaign aid for 12 consecutive months turned out not to be true.
That is the greatest failure that the FBI will have to own up to.
Greg Jarrett, what are the crimes that were committed in all of this?
Perjury, false and misleading statements, obstruction of justice, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, deprivation of rights under color of law, electronic surveillance under cover of law, and contempt of court.
You'll find it on page 101, chapter 3 of my new book, Witch Hunt.
You can pre-order it now, but it goes through all of the six material ways that people like Comey and McCain.
Let me go through it again.
You said perjury.
You said obstruction.
You said fraud.
You said misleading statements.
Keep going.
Conspiracy to defraud.
Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Electronic surveillance under cover of law.
And of course, contempt of court.
These are all crimes.
They're felonies.
And, you know, these judges were deceived in six material ways.
And when the FBI kept getting more and more evidence that they had defrauded the court, the law imposes a duty.
Go back to the court, advise the court.
They didn't do that.
So they compounded their fraud with more fraud.
Unbelievable.
David, you agree with that analysis?
You're an attorney.
Absolutely.
And there's not only constitutional duty to go back, the rules of the court, Rule 13 of the FISA court, requires them to go back for any material omission or misstatement.
Besides the crimes, there's also potentially private causes of action.
Any aggrieved party, which means anyone overheard or the subject of these dissertations, ought to have their head to sue, quite frankly.
But, you know, to put the whole thing in perspective, you know, nobody's guessing anymore about these.
We know that these are facts.
But is it a surprise when we now know, especially after the Mueller testimony, this was the Weissman, Andrew Weissman special prosecution.
The idea that anyone would be surprised that Andrew Weissman is associated with the withholding of Brady material or credibility material or what we call Kyle's material, material that goes to something suspect in the investigation or the investigators.
That's not a surprise to anyone, and it shouldn't be.
And when his background comes out fully, then that ought to speak for itself, quite frankly.
No surprises there.
It's horrible.
It's a horrible chapter in our history, but no surprises.
This is where Mueller went wrong.
And he knew Weissman was bad from the start.
All right, I got to let it go there.
Thank you, all three of you.
And we'll have a lot more on this tonight at 9.
Hannity Fox News.
Another blow-up right in the face, another boomerang right in the face of Democrats and the mob and the media.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
Reverend Sharpton, your current MSNBC co-worker, Joe Scarborough, is my former congressman.
And when Joe Scarborough served in the Congress, he had quite a bit to say about your contribution to the national discussion.
It was in the 106th Congress that Joe Scarborough filed a House Concurrent Resolution 270 entitled, Condemning the Racist and Anti-Semitic Views of the Reverend Al Sharpton.
Mr. Scarborough's resolution began by saying, whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as blood-sucking Jews and Jew bastards.
So my question to you is, does Mr. Scarborough's assertion that you said these things, is that true or did you not say those things?
They are patently untrue.
I never said that.
Okay.
And can I finish my answer?
No, it's actually my time, but you will be.
Well, I thought you raised a question.
So the next question's second comment says, whereas the Reverend Joe Scarborough then wrote, whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has referred to members of the Jewish faith as white interlopers and diamond merchants, have you ever referred to members of the Jewish faith as white interlopers or diamond merchants?
No, sir.
I referred to one in Harlem, an individual who I didn't even know was Jewish as an interloper and said I should never refer to his race.
Mr. Scarborough continued, whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton led a protest in the Crown Heights neighborhood and marched next to a protester with a sign that read, the white man is the devil.
Did you march next to a sign that said, I have no recollection of that.
I've marched in many things where there were signs that I did or did not agree with.
Mr. Sharpton, have you ever referred to African Americans who disagree with you as cocktail sip negroes?
I have.
I'm tired of the magic bitch.
You ain't nothing.
You're a punk f ⁇ .
Now come on, do something.
David, take ass.
You want to get all this on television?
All these people do.
All these talks.
Don't truck with them.
Don't talk to them.
Because you got the whole thing up.
Because you know if a black man stood up next to you, they would see you for the hall that you really are.
We're the best chicken prize in the universe.
And we don't want some kind of sandwich.
White folks was in the cave when we got to slam.
We learned to admire them, but they knew to admire us.
We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek never got around.
White Miller Lobos said I was wrong.
Cracker.
I think cracker is a certain personification of a certain type of person down south.
Just like redneck.
I mean, you know, some people misinterpret cracker meaning all whites is not true.
But the confusion means you shouldn't use it.
I mean, sometimes being flippant, you say things you shouldn't say because it gets in the rear of your message and people don't really understand what you're saying.
Oh, I wonder if Revernal would give a pass.
I tend to doubt it to Donald Trump or anybody else.
And don't forget about, oh, you can all pin your yarmulkes on backwards or whatever he said on that front also.
Yeah, and that's how he referred to the first African-American mayor of New York City, David Dinkins.
Wasn't too flattering, was it?
Anyway, joining us to discuss, to debate, and this and also the House Judiciary hearing on law enforcement, how it has now morphed into, we had a video we have now shown on television of a brutal, brutal, vicious series of beatings and robberies that have taken place.
And we haven't heard a single word from anybody on the Democratic side running for president.
The selected moral outrage over foreign interference in our elections.
Ukraine is the number one example.
Joe Biden on tape, as we played earlier today, and Joe Biden, you know, withholding our taxpayer money to force the firing of a prosecutor that's investigating his son.
The Ukraine is trying to give information to us that they say proves they, the Ukraine, tried to help the Hillary campaign and interfere in the 2016 election.
But nobody cares about that.
Nobody cares about obstruction unless it's Trump.
Nobody cares about Russian lies and interference unless it's Trump.
And meanwhile, every other thing of the Democrats gets pushed to the side.
You know, the question yesterday, if the Jews want to get it on, they can pin their yarmulcas back and come on over to my house.
Then I have to speak, have you ever referred to African Americans who disagree with you as a cocktail sip N-word?
And in the case of David Dinkins, you only want to be the only N-word.
N-word, N-word, N-word.
Anyway, here with us, Pastor Darrell Scott, founder, senior pastor, New Spirit Revival Center.
Also, presiding pastor of Hartford Memorial Baptist Church in Detroit.
That's Reverend Charles C. Adams.
Welcome both of you to the program.
I'll begin with you, Pastor Adams.
You just heard the derogatory language of Al Sharpton.
I've got more hits if you want me to play them.
You know, they were in the caves while we were building pyramids.
And, you know, the N-word and you can pin your, if Jews want to get it on, pin their yarmulcas back and come over to my house.
And diamond merchants and white interlopers.
Does that sound to you like somebody that every Democratic candidate ought to be sucking up to to get his approval and endorsement?
But I think the key word here, Sean, is context.
Context.
Okay, what is that?
You don't know the context in which they were speaking.
Okay, slow down.
Let's go through it one at a time.
Let's go through it one at a time.
You ain't nothing but a punk and then an epithet about gay people.
Is that context or is that wrong?
It is in the context of the context.
I don't know the context.
Well, let me ask you this.
To call the first African mayor of New York City, who happens to be a very decent, nice man.
I didn't like his policies, but he's a really good person.
David Dinkins, the N-word on multiple occasions.
Do you have a problem with that?
Is that about context, too?
Look, the context of New York politics, it can go either way.
I'm sure that's context.
All right.
What about the white men?
What about white men were living in the caves?
What about David Dinkins, then Al Sharpton?
What about white men living?
What about white men living in the caves while we were building pyramids?
That sound racist to you?
This conversation is brought up in the context of a law enforcement hearing.
So instead of talking about police brutality, instead of talking about police.
Okay, I'm not talking about.
Listen, I'm talking this.
Listen, it's my show.
I'll tell you what the context is.
The context is, is just about every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has gone up to Harlem.
They usually go to Sylvia's to eat, and they have been seeking Al Sharpton's blessing and endorsement.
So that's the question.
And I'll ask now my friend Pastor Daryl Scott.
Pastor Scott, do you have a problem with the Democrats sucking up to him?
Well, yes, the Democrats suck up to him, and he's playing them like a fiddle for a fool.
Now, what I want to ask Pastor Adams is this.
What context is okay to publicly use Rachel Slurs in?
Like on a rap CD or something, it's all right.
That's a good context that you can drop the N-word and call women all kind of names or whatever, as long as it's like on a rap CD.
So when you say context, what context would make what Al said acceptable?
Well, we know that the Bible says, Reverend.
The Bible says women keep silent, but that was in the context.
And that was part of his response when he was in the hearing, although we're not talking about that.
Why you were full of style for a minute.
You were filing out soundbites that were done in response to specific individuals.
Stop.
Al is big talk Al.
And honestly, Al got pumped by Congress yesterday.
This big talk Al on his big talk ranch.
Al can drop all the N-word and cuss you out.
And this big, bad Al.
And all Al did yesterday was duck, dodged, deflected, and denied.
Let me, if I can, listen, let me try and call this back a little.
Reverend Adams, I don't think you're doing particularly well in this debate, and I'm going to tell you why, because you just don't say the obvious.
The things that Reverend Al has said and the things he's saying have been egregious.
And there's no conservative or no Republican that ever used that type of language that you would have any Republican candidate looking for their endorsement.
And what you can't seem to reconcile is the case is so overwhelming against the Democratic candidates going to Al, and you just can't say, yeah, you're right.
What he said is inexcusable.
He should apologize and he should work for the betterment of people everywhere and stay out of the political arena.
You know, we lost since Barack Obama's president, you know, 5,200 people in the city of Chicago, 25,000, almost 25,000 shot.
We have these Democratic cities that have been run by Democrats for decades that have these atrocious records where our family, our American family is being shot up.
A nine-year-old was executed this week in Chicago.
The trial is going on this week.
And we have Baltimore, 13 public high schools.
Not a single kid in any one of those high schools is proficient in Baltimore in either reading or math.
We have failed our children.
There are children, and it's happening in every big Democratic city.
And I don't hear you saying, let's fix it.
I want to fix it.
I know what Pastor Scott's doing to fix it.
What do you want to do to fix it?
Well, look, we have developed a $16.5 million market rate senior center, but we did get some HUD money.
We had Dr. Ben Carson come and cut the ribbon.
By the way, we have developed 11 people were shot Wednesday night this week in Chicago.
What I am doing, I'm talking about.
A nine-year-old has been executed.
I just don't get it.
I don't get why is this acceptable?
Because if it's a shooting and the guy posted something one day and he likes Donald Trump, you blame Trump.
Well, how do you not blame the Democratic-run cities for decades for the failure of fixing the violence and education system?
Can't blame Donald Trump for decades of failure now, can you?
You have to look at the poverty rate in those communities.
And look, over half the white shooters, I mean, over half the mass shooters are white.
So I don't, you know, why they hang that on Donald Trump.
You're talking about a mass seuture, but there are mass shootings in Chicago every week.
Every week there's mass shootings, whether it's done by one or whether it's done by several.
There are mass shootings in Chicago every week.
If a white person had executed a black nine-year-old, this country would be torn apart right now.
Every single Democratic presidential candidate, every black Congressman censor would be blaming it on Donald Trump.
If whites beat blacks like that, was happening in Minnesota, there will be riots.
There will be blame placed on President Trump's rhetoric and his divisiveness of this country.
But how come all of the black leaders are silent on Chicago?
There's mass shootings every week in Chicago.
Hundreds.
Not a thousand in Chicago.
Hundreds every week.
Poverty rate in Chicago.
The death rate is in the thousands.
Let me tell you something.
Here we are, thousands.
There's a couple thousand people that have been killed in nine months.
That's over 200 people a month.
That's 50 people a week.
And they're silent.
It's not a topic of national discussion except for on the Hannity show.
What is wrong with you?
Nobody has been silent.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Excuse me.
I'll tell you who's been silent for the most part.
Barack Obama for eight years.
The majority of those 20-some-odd thousand shootings and 5,000 deaths happened on his watch, and he barely touched the topic, maybe twice.
It's wrong.
That's our American family.
A nine-year-old kid, a nine-year-old kid executed in Chicago.
Executed.
All right, we're wrapping up with Reverend Charles C. Adams and Pastor Darrell Scott.
About 40 seconds each.
Reverend Adams, we'll let you go first here.
Your final thoughts.
Absolutely.
I think we have to get to the heart of the issue.
The fact of the matter is education has suffered in cities like Chicago, in cities like Detroit, Milwaukee.
Wherever there is a high concentration of ethnic minorities in this country, you have seen these kind of problems.
And it's related to the increased or the high poverty rates.
Poverty has actually been dropping since 2012.
So we're making progress, but the progress is slow.
And when you add those kind of real issues, and when I talk about poverty, we're talking about food, housing, clothing, basic needs are not being met.
And now we are seeing the fruit of that kind of neglect.
We have been very successful in trying to face that at our church.
All right.
Let me go to Pastor Scott.
45 seconds for him.
Listen, to race dividers such as Al Sharpman, because I want to stay on topic, they need to start being more proactive in the communities rather than reactive and quit waiting for there to be an offense or a transgression or an incident so that they can capitalize off of it and get another 15 minutes of fame and begin to be really proactive regarding the community.
And if we improve the quality of living in our communities, we will have a reduction in these types of incidents.
But what happened in Chicago is indefensible.
What Al Sharpman has been saying is indefensible, and it's a shame and it's something that needs to be a solution filed for very, very soon.
All right.
Thank you both for being with us.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
We'll pick this up tonight.
We are going to educate everybody on the Ukrainian lie and the real scandal.
That's coming up, Hannity 9 Eastern on Fox.
We welcome back Mary Ann Mendoza.
She has an update for us.
Now, remember, she is the mother of Brandon Mendoza.
We got to know Mary Ann.
We love Mary Ann.
Imagine if it's your child that's murdered by an illegal alien.
Well, she's lived through that hell.
And her son, Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, killed in a 2014 car crash caused by an illegal immigrant who was drunk and high on methamphetamine while speeding along the highway in the wrong direction in Mesa, Arizona.
He was only 32 years old.
Anyway, now we find out that Mary Ann Mendoza apparently has been penalized for talking about the crimes against Americans by illegal immigrants on Facebook.
And she's now fighting back against the silencing.
And Marianne, I just wanted to put you on, give you a chance to maybe get the help that I think this audience would love to give you because you told the Epic Times that you received post-removal notification from Facebook last week, and they claim that your posts go against our community standards on hate speech.
Did you say anything hateful?
No, I actually posted a Breitbart article and took a quote out of the article and put that out on my post.
What was the quote?
And it said illegal aliens in it, and it was part of the Breitbart article.
And so they retracted when Breitbart got a hold of them.
They said, hey, she just reposted an article of ours.
So they put that one back up.
But the other one, I'm calling out Nancy Pelosi, like I was on Twitter and when they suspended me on Twitter for six weeks.
And, you know, I'm not speaking anything but the truth.
Illegal aliens is a word that they don't like.
They say it's, you know, being racist, and illegal aliens are not a race.
There are people from all over this world who are coming into our country illegally.
And the American people have a right to use the right language to describe what these people are.
And that's what they are.
And I use the hashtag blood on your hands a lot towards our politicians because their inaction is causing more blood on their hands of every innocent American that's killed by an illegal alien.
Well, the thing is, is for all the people that want sanctuary cities, states, and they protect even criminals that when they get out of jail, ICE would like to deport them as the law requires.
But they fight to aid and abet law breaking against the federal government.
That's what they do.
There's no other way to put it.
So now the question becomes: at what point, if those people that had spent time in jail or criminal aliens that they would otherwise deport if they followed the law, at what point do they bear some responsibility in the actions of those people that don't care and commit crimes, or in this case, get drunk and high on meth and kill your son?
Exactly.
I mean, over 4,300 Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens.
And as bad as 9-11 was and how horrific that was, people need to start standing up and realizing it's worse than that annually.
And it keeps growing every year because we have more and more of them pouring over our borders.
So Angel Dad, Steve Ronabeck, and I have taken to the road.
We're on our Make America Safe Again tour.
We're in Little Rock, Arkansas tonight.
And we're going to Nashville, Asheville, and we end up in Richmond and Virginia, and then in D.C. on September 25th, because we are standing on stages in front of our fellow Americans and we're telling them exactly the messages that we're trying to get out and what they need to do and the importance of, we built the wall.
You know, we're advisory board members for them.
And we are doing, we have shown Congress that the American people can donate money and we can build a wall to protect Americans that Congress will not do.
Well, I got to tell you something.
Is there any recourse?
Are you going to do anything with Facebook to insist that your free speech rights not be violated?
If you're saying, hey, people that don't enforce our laws and aid and abet criminal aliens and help them stay in the country and then they commit other crimes, that they're in some way helpful in that effort, they're going to let people be able to say that truth.
Well, I talked to an attorney when I suspended from Twitter, and he's been very highly visible in a lot of these people trying to come to him.
And unfortunately, the antitrust laws don't allow us to sue them.
Them, Facebook, Instagram, any of those platforms.
So I was really glad to see Prager University and Candace Owens and them going after them.
However, I am making Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs and the congressional members who are fighting this for us.
They're getting all of my information so that they have that as part of their files when they decide, hopefully, to change the antitrust laws and not allow these people to silence Americans.
And it's just the conservative voices.
You go on there and Provost Since Princeton, El Ultralado, and all of these 501c3s that are aiding and abetting illegal aliens are allowed to stay on this platform.
And this is the other thing.
They will not allow me to do a fundraiser for Angel Families LLC on Facebook because they said I have violated community standards more than once.
And they are putting me through the ringer, getting my donate button for Angel's mom's Facebook page, the 501c3.
They're making me send them articles of incorporation, bank statements, the front and back of my driver's license.
I've never had to do that for a 501c3 on Facebook.
And so they're really putting me through the ringer and making it impossible for me to, you know, do the things that I need to do for these organizations and keep the word out there.
Well, listen, we just send you our love and support.
If you need to get a message out, I know maybe I'm not as big as Facebook on the internet, but we'll put anything you want to put up.
And so maybe people can help you and petition Facebook and somehow and help you get your information out.
Somebody that lost a child to an illegal criminal alien in this country.
And wasn't that person arrested before?
How many times for drunk driving or whatever?
Yeah, he had been arrested many times up in Colorado.
But one other thing I want to tell you real quick, Sean, which is like ridiculous.
Facebook is now fact-checking me.
So every article that I put up, I get an article underneath.
We have fact-checked your article.
And then one of them about illegal immigration, the fact-check article from PolitiFax said, people living in the United States illegally is mostly true that it's a crime.
I'm like, mostly true.
It's 100% true.
So now they're, you know, they're fact-checking me.
They're doing everything they can to try and make, put doubt in people's mind that what I'm saying is even true.
And it's just, it's disgusting and it's sickening when somebody like myself who's been affected like this and my amazing son was taken not only from me, but his community.
And I speak nothing but the truth.
I don't put anything on Facebook or Twitter that I have not researched personally.
This was a 24-7 job for me, Sean, fighting for my fellow Americans because nothing I say or do will bring my son back.
But something I say or do, if it prevents this from happening to another American family, I will speak up until the day I die about this.
How could you not?
I don't know how you, listen, I don't even know if I could get out of bed after living through what you lived through.
We had the father of this young woman, Meadow, who was killed in Parkland in the shooting down there on the radio show yesterday.
Not one person in the media wants to talk to the guy because he has views that are different than, oh, we need more gun laws.
And he lost his daughter, one of 17 parents that day.
And I don't know how you get out of bed.
I really don't.
And you certainly have the right to speak out on this topic in light of everything that you and your family have been through.
Because I'm sure when your eyes open every day, if you got much sleep at all, you probably wake up and it probably slaps you in the face first thing, first thought of every day, because I know it would me.
And I don't know if I'd recover.
I don't know if I'd be as strong as you.
Our love and prayers are with you.
And anything we can do, just tell us.
We'll put anything you want up, whatever you need.
Okay?
Thank you, Sean.
Have a wonderful day.
All right, Hannity, tonight, 9 Eastern, another major massive boomerang against Democrats, the media mob.
Yes, their big whistleblower story.
They have now opened the door to do a full examination of, yes, then Vice President Biden and his son and the, oh, oh, leveraging U.S. tax dollars.
Why?
To pressure Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company involved with his son.
We break it wide open tonight on Hannity.
Have a great weekend.
We'll see you back here on Monday.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection