Blake Percival, became a Whistle-blower in July of 2011 when he exposed that the United States Investigation Service, USIS, was billing the U.S. Government for background investigations that had not been properly reviewed. Among the clearances not properly reviewed by USIS were; Edward Snowden, Aaron Alexis, and Imran Awan. For 4 ½ years he was not allowed to talk about the case, but once it settled in December of 2015 that changed. Blake is appalled by the partisan nature in which this hearing is being handled in comparison to his own case, where it took a very long time to get the attention of the DOJ. 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.
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.
All right, glad you're with us.
You know, the more I watch these people, the more energized I get because this is blowing up in their face.
It is so illogical.
I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen such madness in my entire life.
And it's like a mass hypnosis, mass madness.
What are you all looking at in there that got you all around in a circle?
But we don't need to know.
CBS, and I predicted this was going to happen.
CBS bailed out of the coverage today because guess what?
Last Friday, it was a ratings disaster.
Everybody's sick of it.
They're all saying the same thing.
What do we know?
We know the same thing that we've always known.
None of this is firsthand information.
The only thing any of those witnesses can offer is how they feel about the transcript.
And it doesn't matter because they contradict themselves.
And guess what?
The American people are pretty smart.
They can read their own transcript that show aid was never mentioned.
Never.
Not one time in that phone call was aid mentioned.
You know, you go back and I've gone back now a bunch of times and you look at this thing and what do you see?
You see that, oh, the president did say to Zelensky, hey, you know, be careful.
You don't want to surround yourself with some of these bad people like your predecessor.
I'm worried you might be doing that.
Oh, so the president's concern about Ukrainian corruption.
Well, Vinman, Williams, everybody that's testified have all said pretty much the same thing that corruption in Ukraine was a big deal.
Here's a headline from Last Purse.
Public hearings fail to increase support for impeachment inquiry.
And the president's approval ratings, yeah, they keep going up as a result of all this.
But fundamentally, it doesn't matter what any of these people think.
They're acting like it matters.
I mean, I'm watching this guy, Vinman, today, and he's literally, you can tell he's angry.
He's the one, apparently, when a president makes a call to a foreign leader, the president is handed talking points.
Vinman apparently made the talking points.
He's upset that the president, he admits, didn't use his talking points.
Donald Trump's not a talking point kind of guy.
Watch him in his rallies.
I've actually watched behind the scenes.
He's got a teleprompter up there.
The hardest job, if you work on Team Trump, is working his teleprompter because he doesn't stick to the speech at all.
He's constantly going off script.
So he has like, you know, 30 minutes in the teleprompter and then he does a 90-minute rally.
That's how, that's how that president rolls.
A lot of presidents couldn't do that.
By the way, it's very similar to how I do my TV opening monologue.
We have certain things written in there because I'm throwing a certain tape.
But for the most part, we leave a lot of it wide open.
So I just go off and do my rift, which is what I think and what I believe after researching all day.
So now we got the first network.
CBS says, you know what?
This is ratings disaster.
Forget it.
That tells you everything you need to know.
The networks, trust me, they wanted this to work.
They thought this was big.
They're seeing nobody's watching it.
And because nobody's watching it, that's a good sign that nobody's interested in it.
But again, you go back to the transcript, not somebody's feelings about the transcript or somebody's interpretations of the transcript.
The transcript itself, they never mention aid.
What do we know that the president, even with Zelensky saying, I'm beginning to think you're surrounding yourself with some of the bad people that your predecessor hung out with.
I hope that's not so.
That was a big indication of what the president was really worried about, and that was Ukrainian corruption.
And with all that I'm learning about Ukraine, it seems like everybody in government in Ukraine seems to be corrupt.
So Zelensky was running on an anti-corruption platform.
But Zelensky was very clear.
Even the next day in a meeting, what did he say?
The guy, well, the ambassador said, you know, well, yeah, the next day, I asked him, how was the call?
Oh, it went great.
It was fine.
Nothing unusual.
At no point did Zelensky or the foreign minister or anybody involved ever think that there was ever any quid pro quo.
They didn't know the money was withheld.
These are the facts that you cannot get over ever.
And Zelensky stated there was no quid pro quo.
Also, they got the money released and Zelensky did nothing for the money, did absolutely nothing for the money.
Now, what was great about the hearings today is that Jim Jordan was amazing out there.
We're going to play a lot of it in the course of today's radio show.
And he always goes back.
There's four basic fundamental facts that never change in this case.
Zelensky and Ukraine did nothing for the money that was released.
That's a big deal.
Because if there was a quid and a pro and a quo, that would have meant, oh, they only got the money because they took certain actions.
The fact that they didn't take any of the actions means they never thought they were really being asked to take any actions or that in any way it was tied to that.
And they've said it, and they've said it over and over and over again.
So, you know, and by the way, withholding aid to ensure there is consistency with administration policies, which, by the way, Williams and Vinman confirmed today is consistent with the president's policies.
In other words, Schiff is asking Williams today.
Let me turn, by the way, when I say Schiff, you know, I mean the compromise, corrupt, coward, congenital liar.
He's lied to us for three straight years.
We have all the evidence we'd ever need about Trump-Russia collusion, all the evidence.
Anyway, so he's my understanding of the OMB was reviewing the assistance.
This is Williams today to ensure that it was in line with administration priorities, but it was not made more specific than that.
Vinman has asked, that is consistent.
The review was to ensure it was remained consistent with administration policies.
Another point about Vinman today, this kind of shocked me.
Sean Davis will join us later, pointed this out in a tweet I saw, you know, admitting that he kind of went behind the president's back to speak with Zelensky and instruct Zelensky on what policies he should be pursuing and what his posture ought to be towards the U.S. because he already admitted in previous testimony that he told Ukraine to ignore Trump.
You're telling a world leader to ignore Donald Trump?
Okay, I have a problem with that.
And everybody should have a problem with that.
Now, you might say, well, is it common for a president to withhold foreign aid?
The answer to that question is it's very common.
Let's see.
Jimmy Carter did it with Argentina, Uruguay, and Ethiopia over human rights issues.
President Bush suspended military assistance to 35 countries after they refused to pledge to give American citizens immunity before the unaccountable International Criminal Court.
Obama cut aid to Uganda after the country passed a law harshly penalizing homosexuality and Obama directed federal agencies to end assistance to countries that failed to promote and protect the rights of LGBT persons.
And Obama withheld security assistance to multiple countries, including Pakistan and Yemen.
Oh, so Donald Trump's not the only one that's delayed aid or withheld aid and asked for aid in other respects.
Okay, I'm beginning to understand how this works here.
Now, I thought Devin Nunes, as well as Jim Jordan, were so good today that it is why the Democrats even want to continue this is beyond any understanding that I have.
This is bad for them politically.
This is all they've done now for three long years.
Impeach Trump, get Trump, get Trump, get Trump, get Trump.
Well, Nunes, he also goes after the media.
You know, the media has fully accepted the Democrats' reversal on the need for the whistleblower, non-whistleblower.
Oh, and I've got some news on that front today.
And I'll get back to Devin Nunes' great opening remarks today in a minute.
But number one, the polls show that the impeachment hearings have failed to move the American public.
They got a Maris survey out.
Overwhelming majority of American people say they've made up their minds.
No further hearings will have any impact on their decision.
Whoopsie-daisy.
I guess that's not good for ratings for TV networks that think that they need to cover this wall to wall because they hate Donald Trump as much as the Democrats do.
And they always do the Democrats' bidding.
I'm very curious what it was that Lee Zeldon is talking about because I'm watching him say that there was an impeachment testimony taken on Friday that was a game changer.
And anyway, he said, we went back to the skiff in the Capitol basement where there's closed doors deposition going on.
David Holmes is the assistant to Ambassador Bill Taylor in Ukraine and the Office of Management of Budget Official Mark Sandy testifying before Congress over the weekend.
Separate closed door depositions following last week's public hearings.
And according to Zeldon, Sandy went right to the heart of why there was a hold on aid to Ukraine.
And I'm guessing that there's a smoking gun that's going to help Donald Trump.
There'll be some exculpatory evidence that says, oh, he says an answer was given.
A very informative answer by Mark Sandy, said Zeldon.
And I think it would be, it would change some of the answers given by some of these other witnesses this week.
He said you still have those several transcripts, including both David Holmes and Mark Sandy, that have not been released to the public.
We should not go forward with the next open public hearing until the rest of these transcripts are out, because I would have questions to ask these witnesses if they're going to come forward Tuesday morning based off what we heard.
That was before today, obviously.
I was like, okay, well, I want to know what he has to say.
That's getting interesting too.
But you want to know what the big takeaway from today was?
A dud.
You know what the big takeaway again is?
Nothing more than an endless debate, personal opinion of individuals, and they all differ.
That's what today is.
In other words, okay, it seems like it's so important.
Well, how did you interpret the transcript?
Oh, I interpreted it badly.
How did you interpret it?
No, there's nothing wrong with it.
How did you interpret it?
Badly.
How did you interpret?
That's it.
That's all this comes down to at the end of the day.
That's it.
And that it is a common practice.
The president did it.
President's on the call saying he's concerned about the new president and who he's hanging around with and whether or not he's hanging around with bad people.
So that was obvious.
Both witnesses today make clear the aid was withheld to ensure consistency with administration policy.
It was made abundantly clear that the transcripts they said are accurate.
Okay, so now we have issues in terms of Vinman also coming out.
We have Vinman's supervisors.
They had serious concerns about his judgment.
Morrison says it in his testimony.
And among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition was our team, their strengths and weaknesses.
And Fiona and others raised comments about Vinman's judgment.
And other concerns were raised that he was a leaker.
And others said they circumvented Morrison, to whom he directly reports to express concerns about the call outside of normal channels.
I mean, this guy, you know, going, advising the president of Ukraine on how to deal with the president's call and don't listen to Trump.
Okay, that's a little bizarre.
But what you have is an unprecedented impeachment sham based on policy disagreements, based on opinions.
You know, Williams' concerns are based on nothing more than policy disagreements.
You know, no witness accused the president of perjury.
A great moment by Congressman Ratcliffe.
He did a word search of all the transcripts.
The word bribery is never used.
Now, I know they focus grouped that word and they decided, oh, people don't know what a quid pro quo is.
Let's now move on to bribery.
That's the next thing we'll do.
Another thing the mob and the media will ignore is quid pro quo Joe.
Vinman even said Barisma demonstrated a pattern of questionable dealings.
You think?
You got a former vice president looking for a quid and a pro and a quo.
We got one.
Joe Biden, you're not getting the billion.
You fire the prosecutor, you get the billion.
Prosecutor Joe Biden was told multiple times was investigating zero experience hunter who's being paid millions.
Morrison's prior testimony, by the way, you know, also says a lot of this.
It's just an unbelievable, I cannot believe this is where these people are that corrupt.
They're making this all up.
It is all a crock.
It is all BS.
It is all one big massive witch hunt that never ends.
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 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.
One other thing I love is that you got all these people.
They all disagree with each other.
You got, for example, Morrison and Midman.
Morrison's prior testimony challenges Vinman.
I'm sorry, Morrison challenges Williams' claims.
You got, and by the way, this is fairly common that they start disagreeing with each other.
And which kind of makes me laugh because a number of the claims that were made by Williams in his first testimony were undermined by what Morrison had to say to the committee.
You know, so Morrison contradicts Williams' claim that the word burisma was mentioned on the president's call with Zelensky.
Okay, you were on the call.
Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up in the call?
No, I do not believe that.
Morrison's prior testimony disputed Williams' concerns that there was any political angle.
And then despite what Williams' personal opinion may be, Morrison made clear there was nothing improper about the president's call with Zelensky.
Morrison says, I want to be clear.
I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed at all.
And in your view, there was nothing improper that occurred in the call?
Correct.
So where are we?
We're back to the same place we started.
A transcript and a bunch of people having a little different opinion on the transcript.
And some people obviously don't like this president and they think they should be president, but they didn't run for president.
And they don't get to set foreign policy.
Like Mr. Vineman, a little upset, I guess the president didn't use his talking points.
Sorry, president gets to make his own talking points.
Say whatever he wants.
He's the commander in chief.
He sets the policy.
You don't set the policy.
And they all admit, by the way, that one thing is they all agree on.
There's rampant corruption all over Ukraine.
Everything to do with Ukraine.
And they do agree barisma was a problem, but nobody ever wants to talk about that in the mob and the media.
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 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 with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm going to read from the transcript here.
Why didn't you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison?
Your response was, this page 102, because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him.
Then I asked you, did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report to go around Mr. Morrison?
And you said, actually, he did.
Say that I shouldn't talk to any other people.
Is that right?
Yes, but there's a whole, there's a period of time in there between when I spoke to him and when he circled back around.
It wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to.
Enough time to go to talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is, right?
I've been instructed not to, Representative Jordan.
Well, here's what I'm getting.
The lawyer told you, don't talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to Secretary Kent, and you talk to the one guy, Adam Schiff, won't tell you, won't let you tell us who he is.
Is that right?
Representative Jordan, I did my job.
I'm not saying you didn't.
All I'm saying is the instructions from the lawyer was you shouldn't talk to anybody, and you interpret that as don't talk to my boss, but I'm going to go talk to someone that we can't even ask you who that individual is.
As you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies.
What agency was this individual from?
If I could interject here, we don't want to use these proceedings.
It's our time.
I know, Chair.
But we need to protect the whistleblower.
Please stop.
I want to make sure that there's no effort to out the whistleblower through the use of lease proceedings.
If the witness, as a good faith, believe that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for.
And I want to advise the witness accordingly.
For the longest time, this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistleblower complaint.
But after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible, we saw a shift from the Democrats.
They briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the July 25th call as extortion.
And now it shifted again last week to bribery.
Ms. Williams, you used the word unusual to describe the president's call last on July 25th.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman used the word inappropriate and proper.
Now, I word searched each of your transcripts, and the word bribery or bribe doesn't appear anywhere in that.
Ms. Williams, you've never used the word bribery or bribe to explain President Trump's conduct, correct?
No, sir.
Colonel Vindman, you haven't either.
That is correct.
The problem is, in an impeachment inquiry that the Speaker of the House says is all about bribery, where bribery is the impeachable offense, no witness has used the word bribery to describe President Trump's conduct.
Okay.
No witness.
And that last clip was from, what's his name, Ratcliffe, on the committee today.
The exchange with Jordan, and then you got the corrupt compromise coward congenital liar Schiff.
You know, a point of order that the gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you to enforce the rules with regard to disclosure with regard to the intelligence.
Yeah, thank you, Council.
As you know, I've indicated this committee will not be used to out the whistleblower.
The same necessity to protect the whistleblower will persist.
Mr. Chairman, you can first stop the time.
I don't lose time.
You are recognized, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Chairman, I don't see how this is outing the whistleblower.
The witnesses had testified in his deposition.
He doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
You have even said, although no one believes you, that you don't know who the whistleblower is.
So how is outing the whistleblower to find out who the individual is?
That's such a, I mean, it's such a sham.
You know, but Schiff effectively revealing how information was leaked to the whistleblower because his repeated objections in the hearings revealed more about how the information was leaked because during the hearing, as Schiff was shutting down the questioning about the unnamed whistleblower, the unnamed individual that Vinman provided information about Zelensky, the Zelensky call to, Schiff claimed the questioning could be used to out the whistleblower,
making it abundantly clear that this individual is likely either the whistleblower or relayed that information to them.
Whoopsie Daisy.
Oh, maybe this guy is the source to the whistleblower, whistleblower, non-whistleblower, hearsay whistleblower.
And then under questioning with Jordan, Vinman made clear that he did provide information about the president's call to an unnamed individual.
Whoopsie Daisy.
You first told us that three individuals at the NSC, your brother and two lawyers, and then you said there was a group of other people you communicated with, but you would only give us one individual in that group, Secretary Kent.
And the chairman would only allow you to give us that name when we ask you who else you communicated with.
You would not tell us.
So I want to know first, how many other people are in the group of people that you communicated with outside the four individuals I just named.
And then Vinman goes, well, Mr. Jordan, on call readout, certainly after the first call, there were probably a half dozen or more people that I read out.
And those are people with proper clearance and need to know.
And then he said, I know in this case, because of the sensitivity of the call, Mr. Eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else.
I only read outside of the NSC two individuals, two individuals, Kent and one other person, Jordan.
And you're not willing to tell us who the other individual is.
That's when you get the cowardly shift jumping in.
Unbelievable.
And then, yeah, they did do a poll and they had to do a poll.
They realized quid pro quo is not working.
Let's try bribery.
Let's see if we can do that.
It's amazing.
There's comments that were now we just got from the president of Ukraine, Zelensky.
I think everybody in Ukraine is tired about Burisma, number one.
He says, number two, we have our own country, our independence.
We have problems and questions.
That's it.
He's sick of getting the questions because he already said there's nothing wrong with the call.
He got the aid.
He did nothing to get the aid.
Should be checkmate game over.
No, this is how corrupt your modern, extreme, radical, socialist, democratic.
I want 97% of every penny you make party is today.
New York Times says the Democrats in Congress took their case to the public last week, but after hours of testimony, thousands of news reports, days of streaming headlines, there's one thing clear.
Most Americans weren't listening.
Then it says in the Hill viewership fell by more than a million for Friday's televised impeachment hearings.
Business Insider, Wednesday's numbers were also a major departure.
Yeah, and now CBS pulled out.
They're done.
They don't want any part of this.
They pulled out of the testimony.
And by the way, that's going to be a cascading effect.
Networks are now going to say, yeah, you know, well, we covered the major parts of this.
We're out.
You know, you look at all of this, what's going on here, and you look at this Democratic Party.
You know, they thought Vinman today was going to be their big game-changing star witness, just like last week, Bill Taylor was going to be their big witness.
But it's another dud.
It's another hearsay, hearsay, their say, we say, she say, he say, grandma's nephews, uncles, third cousins, sister-in-law's brother's cousin, third cousin, said.
Here we go.
You know, but what are the facts?
Vinman admits, yeah, it's the president that sets U.S. policy.
Yeah, he admits he's not really the principal advisor to the president on Ukraine.
Nope.
He never had any contact with the president.
He has no firsthand knowledge of anything.
None.
Zero about aid or investigations.
He's only following news accounts.
Really?
We want to bring people in, put them under oath and get them to interpret the news for us now.
That's how sick this has become.
You know, the president would have been well within his right to ask Ukraine to investigate.
Oh, you mean like, for example, the election interference that a Ukraine court admits that they participated in to assist Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections?
That's a big deal.
Yeah, that would matter.
The fact that we have a vice president that shook down this country with our tax dollars, I know I keep saying it.
You're not getting the billion.
You get a billion.
You know, fire the guy.
You're not getting the billion.
You have six hours.
That sounds like a shakedown.
Sounds like bribery to me.
Sounds like a quit and a pro and a quo with Joe.
And then what do we know?
We know we knew the New York Times told Joe Biden at the time.
Others told Joe Biden at the time that that prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden.
And how many times can I say that's the dumbest interview in the history of mankind?
Any experience?
Nope, nope, nope.
Why'd you get the millions of millions?
I don't know.
Maybe because your dad's the vice president.
Probably.
Okay, any other American going to get those millions?
I have a friend of mine in my studio right now.
He'd love that gig.
No experience.
Here's millions of dollars.
Do nothing.
And then they just use your name to go to the Obama State Department and say, well, please stop investigating Barisma because we have Hunter Biden on our board, which they did.
Oh, so they were paying for the name.
They were paying for the access.
They were paying for cover and they apparently got it.
You know, Vinman saying it was definitely not unprecedented for the transcript to be kept on a secure server.
Media's tried to blow that up into a big deal.
And that the transcript was very accurate.
They all say it was accurate.
That's what happened on the call.
Because if that's what's happened on the call, that's all they got.
Now the only thing they're going to give us is their opinions about what's in the transcript.
That's all.
Vinman never used the term bribery.
Nope.
White House readout of the call, the root out corruption, said that too.
Vinman said Hunter Biden's role on the board of Ukrainian gas company.
Yeah, that was an appearance of conflict of interest.
Why are we getting into any of these things?
Yeah, Vinman, Burisma demonstrated a pattern of questionable dealings.
You think?
You think?
Yeah, I think.
I think, Pete, would you like millions of dollars for free?
Sure.
Sure, right?
His son's here with you.
Would you like millions of dollars?
Yeah.
It's like saying, okay, I'm going to now give you millions of dollars.
You just hang out at the radio show.
That's it.
That'd be a pretty good deal, right?
You don't have to do anything for it.
I do this every day.
Yeah, exactly.
I'll take it.
I'll take the money.
Then Williams, well, okay, Williams' prior testimony offered nothing but personal opinion again.
It's all conjecture.
It's all about interpretation.
But with all due respect, I mean, I kind of, one common theme that I keep seeing in all of this is I never kind of realized, I thought ambassadorships were kind of like, you know, oh, yeah, you donated a lot of money to the campaign of the president.
You get hired.
That's what they always seem like to me.
I'd like to be the ambassador.
You know, one of us, the best one is former Senator Scott Brown.
He's over in New Zealand.
I want to go to New Zealand.
I want to go to Australia.
I want to go down under.
You know, I've never been there.
I'd like to go there.
We're going to take a day when we went over to Vietnam.
I traveled for business.
I traveled.
Yeah.
I went to Vietnam for the summit.
We went to Singapore for the summit.
Helsinki, you know, for the summit.
We went to, where else did we go?
Oh, then we went in the middle of an anti-Trump protest in England, dopey me thinking nobody would recognize me and I'll just go out there.
Yeah, that didn't work out very well.
Within like three minutes, we had a pretty hostile crowd surrounding us.
And then I'm looking at the cops.
They have no guns in Britain.
I'm like, great, I'm doomed.
That was not a good moment.
So we urge you to leave immediately.
This thing's getting very hostile.
We will escort you.
Thank you very much.
Get out of here.
Get the hell out of here.
Fast as I can get the hell out of here.
When you have the transcript and you have the president of Ukraine saying it was a perfectly fine call, the money's released.
Obama, Bush, Carter, all these presidents, they all withheld money at different times, wanting the president of Ukraine to not surround himself with bad people.
That was on the call.
Sounds to me like the president did everything right.
Sounds to me if he's saying, well, you interfered in all elections.
I want you to get to the bottom of it.
I think he was just doing what the Democrats said for three years they wanted done with Trump-Russia collusion.
Because we know a DNC operative, I know because I read it in the Politico January 11th, 2017, this woman, Chalupa, that she was a DNC operative and contractor who was paid a lot of money, that she went into the Ukrainian embassy.
And we know that the purpose was to collude with Ukraine for the purpose of digging up dirt on Trump and his associates and people like Paul Manafort.
And that article goes on to say, and they were successful at interfering.
And then a court in Ukraine confirmed that they were successful.
You see where all this is going?
All this hypocrisy in life?
Pretty breathtaking.
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.
All right, Kerry Pickett has some breaking news that we're going to get to in just a second.
That apparently we got the compromise, corrupt, coward, congenital liar shift well, it looks like two people that work in his office were friends with the hearsay non-whistleblower whistleblower.
So that's coming up with Kerry Pickett at the top of the hour.
Then we got Greg Jarrett, much, much more.
As we continue, big breaking dud day, another dud impeachment day for the Democrats.
We'll continue.
Sean Hannity Show.
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 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.
As you know, the intelligence community has 17 different agencies.
What agency was this individual from?
If I could interject here, we don't want to use these proceedings.
It's our time.
I know, Chair.
But we need to protect the whistleblower.
Please stop.
I want to make sure that there's no effort to out the whistleblower through the use of lease proceedings.
If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for.
And I want to advise the witness accordingly.
I mean, you can really, you can plead the fifth, but you're here to answer questions and you're here under subpoena.
So you can either answer the question or you can plead the fifth.
Excuse me.
On behalf of my client, we are following the rule of the committee, the rule of the chair with regard to this issue.
And this does not call for an answer that is invoking the fifth or any theoretical issue like that.
We're following the ruling of the chair.
Counselor, what ruling is that?
If I could interject, counsel is correct.
Whistleblower has the right, statutory right to anonymity.
These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower.
Out the clock.
And I've advised my client accordingly, and he's going to follow the ruling of the chair.
If there's a alternative or you want to work something out with the chair.
That's up to you, Mr. Newman.
Thanks and gentlemen.
I'd like to address a few brief words to the American people watching at home.
If you watched the impeachment hearings last week, you may have noticed a disconnect between what you actually saw and the mainstream media accounts describing it.
When you saw three diplomats who dislike President Trump's Ukraine policy, discussing secondhand and thirdhand conversations about their objections with the Trump policy.
Meanwhile, they admitted they had not talked to the president about these matters and they were unable to identify any crime or impeachable offense the president committed.
What you read in the press were accounts of shocking, damning, and explosive testimony that fully supports the Democrats' accusations.
If these accounts have a familiar ring, it's because this is the same preposterous reporting the media offered for three years on the Russian hoax.
On a nearly daily basis, the top news outlets in America reported breathlessly on the newest bombshell revelations showing that President Trump and everyone surrounding him were Russian agents.
It really wasn't long ago that we were reading these headlines.
From CNN, Congress investigating Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.
This was false.
New York Times, Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.
Also false.
Slate was a Trump server communicating with Russia.
This was false.
New York Magazine, will Trump be meeting with his counterpart or his handler?
This was false.
The Guardian, Manafart held secret talks with Assaj and Ecuadorian embassy.
Also false.
BuzzFeed, President Trump directed his attorney to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower project.
All of these were false.
That was the most powerful opening statement.
That was Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the committee earlier today.
And it pretty much sums up where this whole thing has been, where it goes.
You know what the top takeaway of today is?
Another dud.
I mean, both witnesses made very clear aid was withheld to ensure consistency with the administration policy.
I mean, you can't get any more clear than that yourself, or Vinman confirming that the call is accurate.
Because if the call is accurate, then guess what?
Nothing bad happened on that phone call.
Nothing.
You know, also, the media won't cover this part.
You got quid pro quo Joe.
You know, well, you fire that prosecutor or he'll soon are getting a billion dollars.
Fire him, he get a billion.
Don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
You got six hours.
And he knew was warned repeatedly that his son was being investigated by the prosecutor.
He's now using taxpayer money to get fired.
Unbelievable.
A real quid pro quo.
Vinman acknowledging that the need to root out corruption in Ukraine.
Yeah.
In other words, the president's demand is smart.
It is, we're not going to throw good money after bad.
Then you got this woman Morrison disputing Vinman's recollection of the call.
I mean, they can't even agree with each other, which is how corrupt this whole thing gets as you move.
The president of Ukraine stated clearly, no quid, no pro, no quo of any type.
There's never any mention of any aid on that phone call, none whatsoever.
When the aid, remember, they didn't know that the aid was held up.
And when they got the aid, guess what?
They got nothing in exchange for the aid.
No wonder why the president, the foreign minister said, we thought it was a great call.
No, we didn't even know the aid was held up.
And no, they asked for nothing.
And then, of course, the open-ended question, Sonderman will be on, I guess, or whatever Soderman is this week.
Him saying, yeah, the president said there's no quid pro quo.
Withholding aid, by the way, happens to be very commonplace.
Obama did it.
Bush did it.
Carter did it.
They all did it.
You know, so the witch hunt just continues.
And you're not going to get the mob in the media.
They're not going to ask the questions that matter.
Like, oh, who are these two people that, you know, Kerry Pickett's story today, and she'll join us later in the program, are telling us about that actually now work for Adam Schiff, that they knew the non-whistleblower hearsay whistleblower and were friends with them.
Oh, how convenient.
You know, and then you got the mob in the media.
They'll just regurgitate every opinion.
That's all this is, is opinions of people.
When you have the actual transcript, you don't need their opinions because opinions, okay, everybody clearly now has a different opinion about it.
So the only real evidence that would actually be admissible in a real courtroom would not be hearsay evidence about what people think about what they thought about somebody's grandmother's, father's nephews, third cousin's wife thinks of the call, and they just do this because what they have a policy disagreement.
But, more importantly, they hate the president, they hate the fact that we, the people, voted for him.
That was not their chosen candidate and uh, so that they know they can't beat him well, let's just impeach him.
You know we have policy disagreements.
Uh oh, when they asked the question Radcliffe today anyone, any of you, ever mentioned bribery?
No, because we now have the corrupt media all.
Stop saying quid pro quo.
Let's change the name after we focus group it to bribery and, of course, again ignore you know, not going into the whole real scandal which is Joe Biden anyway Sean Davis, co-founder of the Federalist Greg Jarrett with US FOX NEWS, legal analyst, author of the NEW YORK Times bestseller Witch Hunt.
Uh I I, I honestly find this to be the biggest, most colossal waste of time and I watch the media breathlessly acting like it's something when I see nothing.
Greg, there's nothing here.
Read the transcript.
None of this testimony matters in the least.
Vinman testified he was concerned about the president's conversation with Zelensky.
That's nothing more than opinion, an impression or a feeling.
We all have them.
They are a poor substitute for facts.
The unvarnished truth is that Vinman just didn't like what Trump said on the phone call, because the president did not strictly follow Vinman's notes that he'd prepared for the discussion.
And in fact, in describing the call, Vinman said, well, this was not in the preparation material I had offered.
You know, as if to say, how dare Trump deviate from my planned script.
So Vinman then complains.
Instead of going to his direct supervisor, he conveys his feelings to an individual in the intel community that he won't identify, who's likely the source for the faux whistleblower who then filed a complaint that doesn't qualify under the whistleblower statute as a valid complaint.
So Vinman, it appears, was instrumental in initiating the impeachment.
Insanity it Really is Sean Davis.
There is an insanity here because if you want to quid and you want a pro and you want a quo, you got to look at Joe.
Fire the prosecutor, you get a billion.
If not, you're not getting the billion.
Call Obama.
You're not going to get it.
I'm leaving in six hours.
There's your quid pro quo.
Right.
And it was, I'll take issue just very briefly with one thing he said earlier.
He said this hearing was a dud for the for impeachment.
I think I would disagree with that.
I think it was a bombshell, but one that blew up in the hands of Democrats.
They had planned today to be a display of a uniformed military officer lowering the hammer, lowering the boom on Trump.
And instead, what we learned was that Alex Vinman was actually patient zero in the anti-Trump bureaucracy's coup epidemic throughout the government.
This was a guy who was clearly starting the entire whistleblower effort against Trump.
He said that before he went to his superior, before he even went to the NSC lawyer, that he spread around his so-called concerns about this call to more than half a dozen officials who he called his coordination partners, and also an individual who worked in the intelligence community whom he refused to name.
Now, remember, this guy, he said he didn't know who the whistleblower was.
And yet, when he was asked that question, who'd you talked to in the intel community?
His lawyer said, well, he can't answer that because it might identify the whistleblower.
This entire sham blew up in the Democrats' face today.
And it did so because their number one plotter here, Vinman, was revealed to have been instrumental in starting this entire thing.
And his testimony showed him to be completely untrustworthy.
Here's the other thing, and you tweeted this out today, Sean, and I hadn't thought about this, but it's profound, is that Vinman admitted to going behind the president's back before the president spoke with Zelensky, giving Zelensky instructions on what policies he should pursue and what his posture should be towards the U.S.
And having already admitted in previous testimony that he was told that he told Ukraine to ignore Trump.
There's your bombshell.
He had really contradictory testimony, you know, both today and compared to his previous deposition, where he claimed, you know, I never went outside the chain of command.
The president's always in charge.
And yet we have him admitting, yeah, I went around his back.
I told the Ukrainians not to get involved in this or that.
I told him that, you know, they need to do this policy, not this other policy that the president wanted.
This is unconscionable behavior.
This is the kind of thing that if you did in the military and combat and you went around a commander's back, you would have serious legal implications for you.
And yet you have this guy just out there openly admitting, yeah, yeah, I went behind his back.
I did this stuff.
And it was clear in questions today when he was asked, do you work, does the Secretary of State work for you?
Do these ambassadors work for you?
Does the president work for you?
This man bristled whenever he was reminded of his actual place in the hierarchy in our government.
And the reality is he's a mid-level bureaucrat.
He's not a principal.
He's not a decision maker.
And he was clearly riled at being reminded of that, that it's the president, not a mid-level bureaucrat, who makes American policy when it comes to foreign nations.
By the way, what guy would ever think, Greg Jarrett, that he has the ability to go behind the president's back the way he did?
And you're right, he was obviously insulted that his prepared talking points weren't used by the president.
I don't think President Trump is a talking point kind of guy.
And this was not the conversation for anything deep anyway.
It was more of a congratulatory call.
And by the way, don't surround yourself with the corrupt people that your predecessor surrounded himself with.
I'm worried about that.
And then said, hey, your country was involved in our election interference with what the Ukrainian court had determined and Politico wrote about in January of 2017.
So I think that the president was faithfully executing the laws, but apparently Mr. Vinman thought his policies and advice to Zelensky was more important than anything else.
It sounds like he was trying to set up a meeting like a Ukraine-first policy.
Right.
Vinman thought that he's above the Secretary of State, above the president.
He's some super special expert to which all, including Trump, should confer.
And the interesting moment occurred when the witness was reminded about how he touted or more likely exaggerated his unparalleled credentials and authorities during his deposition.
And I'll quote him, I'm the director for Ukraine.
I'm responsible for Ukraine.
I'm the most knowledgeable.
I'm the authority for Ukraine, for the National Security Council and the White House.
My word.
I mean, the self-puffery was unbecoming, but it really spoke volumes about what motivated Vinden when, you know, the president had the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that this mid-level bureaucrat NSC staffer did not pre-approve.
How important was Vinman in the White House?
He never so much as met the president.
So that explains his testimony.
It's all hearsay.
None of it would be admissible.
Anyway, stay right there.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
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 with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, wrapping things up.
All right.
Summary, Sean, I'll ask you first, Davis from the Federalist, 30 seconds.
How does this now end?
I think this ends with a vote in the House that is completely partisan with all Democrats and no Republicans voting to impeach.
I think that gets to the Senate and it goes nowhere in the Senate.
They may have a trial, but there's no way on earth Trump's getting convicted.
The whole thing is a show meant to damage him ahead of the 2020 election.
Greg Jarrett, how does it end?
Same way Sean said it would.
This is a carnival.
And frankly, I wrote a column that said Trump should hope that Schiff's carnival never stops because it only extends to his benefit.
It ensures his continued residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The backlash against Democrats here will be severe.
All right.
When we come back, thank you both.
Davis, Greg Jarrett, 800-941 Sean, we'll get to some of your calls.
You're actually going to talk to a real whistleblower and what are the real protections.
Kerry Pickett is going to break some news at the top of the 5 o'clock hour about now we know that the hearsay whistleblower now was friends with two people in Schiff's office and served with two people at the same time in the early days of the Trump White House.
That's coming up.
A lot of your calls.
We have an amazing Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern Fox News will continue.
I'm going to read from the transcript here.
Why didn't you go to your direct report, Mr. Morrison?
Response was this page 102 because Mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him.
Then I asked you, did Mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report to go around Mr. Morrison?
And you said, actually, he did say that.
I shouldn't talk to any other people.
Is that right?
Yes, but there's a whole, there's a period of time in there between when I spoke to him and when he circled back around.
It wasn't that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to.
Enough time to go to talk to someone that you won't tell us who it is, right?
I've been instructed not to, Representative Jordan.
Well, here's what I'm getting.
The lawyer told you, don't talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to Secretary Kent, and you talk to the one guy, Adam Schiff, won't tell you, won't let us won't let you tell us who he is.
Is that right?
Representative Jordan, I did my job.
I'm not saying you didn't.
All I'm saying is the instructions from the lawyer was you shouldn't talk to anybody.
And you interpret that as don't talk to my boss, but I'm going to go talk to someone that we can't even ask you who that individual is.
Unbelievable.
Part of the insane hearings that went on, went down today.
This was not a good day for the Democrats.
It is the same old hearsay.
Another day, another dud, and another group of witnesses that know nothing beyond that which they themselves either read or were told, except you have Vinman, who's apparently out there running his own foreign policy and upset that President Trump didn't use his talking points.
And even more shocking and alarming to me is literally admitting that, you know, before the president speaks with Zelensky, instructing Zelensky on what policies he should pursue.
Okay, is that your job?
I don't think so.
You know, this whole issue of the whistleblower was big today and a lot of back and forth.
And we're going to have at the top of the next hour Kerry Pickett reporting that there were two people that worked with the hearsay whistleblower in the Trump White House that now work for Adam Schiff.
So now that mystery gets deeper in terms of the corruption that likely went on there.
Who knew what went and where?
What did they talk about?
How often did they meet?
And why did Schiff lie about it when he first said, oh, no, we'd like to talk to the whistleblower, but no, we have not had a chance.
And then had to admit he lied, just like he lied for three years, which is why I call him a corrupt congenital liar.
Told us for three years, oh, the evidence is overwhelming.
I've seen it.
And Trump-Russia collusion.
Well, he saw it, but the FBI didn't see it after nine months.
And we know the House Intelligence Committee, they didn't conclude what he concluded.
And then we got on top of that.
Let's see.
Oh, the Mueller report.
That didn't conclude it.
And the House, the Senate Bipartisan Committee didn't conclude it either.
So he lied for three years, saying it was a Sam Dunn case, while simultaneously ignoring Hillary Clinton's Russian dirty dossier full of lies that she actually paid for, that actually was used as the bulk of information in a Pfizer warrant so they could spy on an opposition party candidate, then a transition team, and then a president.
That's how screwed up this all has gotten.
Now, we've had people from Andy McCarthy to Greg Jarrett, so many other smart attorneys on this program that all say, well, this so-called whistleblower doesn't even qualify as a whistleblower, which also then raises the question, okay, the attorney of the whistleblower was talking on day 10 after Donald Trump was sworn in, day 10 about a coup.
This is the whistleblower, non-whistleblower's lawyer.
That's what he was talking about and tweeting out on Twitter.
But there are real whistleblowers.
And one of them joins us now.
Blake Percival is a whistleblower.
became one in July of 2011 when he exposed the U.S. Investigation Service was billing the U.S. government for background investigations that had not been properly reviewed.
And among the clearances, not properly reviewed, let's see, Edward Snowden, Aaron Alexis, Imran Owan.
We've covered that story pretty extensively.
That ended up badly.
That was a real disaster in terms of national security.
And by the way, he is apparently appalled at the partisan nature of this compared to your own case.
Blake, welcome to the program.
What can you tell us about being a real whistleblower and what you think of this hearsay whistleblower?
Hey, thanks, Sean.
It's such a pleasure to be with you today.
Thank you.
You know, yes, sir.
You know, when I became a whistleblower, one of the first things they verified about me was that I had firsthand information and that I was the best source for that information.
I remember them going over that back and forth.
You know, and I also remember watching with my case as it bounced around in congressional hearings.
You know, at first, when my case, when I filed it and everything, it didn't appear the federal government cared about it.
You would think national security clearances, they'd have been all over it.
But at first, it appeared they didn't even care about it.
And then it went back and forth from party to party who were, you know, cheering on my behalf, on the behalf of what I was doing as a whistleblower.
So, you know, yeah, I've seen it firsthand.
It appears in this situation that, you know, the whistleblower is something they're using to get to what they want to get to.
And in my opinion, if the Democrats get to what they want to get, really what they want to prove is that the president of the United States was seeking out corruption.
Yeah, I mean, it's pretty amazing.
So you actually would need, in other words, if the only thing that they can offer is their interpretation of a transcript that both witnesses today were very clear confirming was accurate.
The only thing they disagreed on, and I love when the non-whistleblowers or the witnesses, oh, no, I think Burisma was mentioned.
No, it wasn't mentioned.
Yes, it was mentioned.
No, it wasn't.
I mean, they can't even agree on that.
And so what we're talking about here is we got another dud.
We got both did make it clear that it was the transcript was accurate.
They made clear that the aid was to ensure consistency with administration policy.
We've already established that that's normal procedure.
And Carter, Bush, Bush, Obama, they all did the same thing.
And basically, we're now listening to the testimony of more people and their personal opinions about a phone call that we all have a transcript of that they agree is accurate.
That's where we are here.
That's right.
And if the transcript is correct, then what are they blowing the whistle on?
The transcript out there.
That's a great point.
I mean, I wish I could answer that.
I would.
Anyway, so let's talk about, so one of the things the whistleblower statute that I know they do is they absolutely ensure that there will be no repercussions, no retribution of any kind.
And I agree with that.
I mean, if you come forward and you expose truth like you did in your particular case, you needed to be protected and you had direct evidence of it.
You were directly involved in it.
Was there any indication that you expected that your privacy and anonymity would be protected?
You know, when I filed my case for two and a half years, they considered me a protected federal witness.
And by protected, all that meant was they didn't release my name.
And during that two and a half years, that was, it was supposed to be 90 days by statute.
They had 90 days to investigate my case.
And what they did, you know, the criminal investigators within the federal government is at the end of 90 days, they said, we need more time.
And they kept doing that for two and a half years.
Wow.
And really, in my opinion, the only reason it ever moved forward is because of the congressional hearings involving Snowden and the Navy Yard shooter.
Did anybody that you know of, were they mad at you because you were a whistleblower?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, right now, whistleblower is like a catch term.
But if you think about it, nobody wants a whistleblower around.
You know, that we should.
I mean, you know, whistleblowers, you know, have been very important to this country all the way back to the 1777, I believe was the first one within the United States.
But, you know, my experience has been, I mean, I can't even, I couldn't even find a job after this, you know, happened with me.
Whistleblowers are not popular.
Yeah, but you did it anyway, but you never had any repercussions in terms of your career.
I lost my job, lost my job, couldn't find another job.
And I'll never work in the background investigations business again, I don't believe.
Wow.
Yeah, you know, and yet whistleblowers are supposed to be protected.
Wow.
So didn't you have any recourse then?
Well, see, I worked for a contractor for the federal government.
It was a weird situation.
It was a contractor, but this was a company that Congress created.
So the bottom line with that means that the contractor can run out of work or just fire you on a whim and not tell you that you're really being fired for being a whistleblower.
And you believe that that's what happened, which sounds like it probably did.
Unfortunately, you haven't been able to get another job since?
Well, no, not that I can't get another job.
When this happened, I was the director over the facility that processed about 90% of all of the United States government's background investigations.
So once I got fired from that, nobody in that business would touch me.
So, you know, you walk away from a high, high-flying job like that.
Where do you go?
I took menial level jobs and my whistleblower case took four and a half years to play out.
So during that four and a half years, I found myself stocking grocery shelves.
I found myself back home in Alabama working as a magistrate on third shift and working as an entry-level investigator doing background investigations.
So, you know, you do what you have to do to make ends meet.
And then at the end of the day, when I won my case, you know, I properly invested my money and I'll never have to work for anybody else again.
Good for you.
You didn't deserve that.
And by the way, I would say the same with this whistleblower deserves to be protected.
I was reading Drudge Vinman, the army is ready to hide me.
I would hope and pray that people don't like my opinions that we're allowed to still disagree without being violent in this country.
That would be a nice, that'd be a nice basic fundamental thing, you know?
But if we could only get back there.
All right, Blake.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
These are unbelievable times that we're living in.
And I will tell you, it's almost like the truth is a lie and the lie is a truth.
Up is down, down is up.
You know, purple is green and green is purple.
That's how, that's how distorted, that's how corrupt, that's the level of hypocrisy.
I've never in my entire life ever witnessed anything this insane.
Because if you're looking at the transcript and you're bringing in witness after witness after witness, asking them what they think of the transcript that you can read for yourself and no aid is mentioned and hear from the president of Ukraine, the newly elected president.
I didn't, no, that was a great call.
I didn't know about any aid withheld.
The guy did nothing.
How do you in any way conclude that there's anything wrong with that?
But simultaneously, you got a former vice president on tape that was in charge of Ukraine policy while he's vice president.
And I'll say it as many times as I need to.
He's saying, you're not getting the money, meaning a billion dollars, unless you fire the prosecutor.
You fire the prosecutor, I'll give you the billion dollars.
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 got fired.
And he knew his kid was getting investigated by the prosecutor.
So who gets this gig where you get millions and millions of dollars?
And he goes on the dumbest 49-year-old ever interviewed on television.
Did you have any experience with Ukraine?
No.
Any experience in energy?
No.
Any experience in oil?
No.
Any experience in natural gas?
No.
Why do you think they chose you to pay you millions and millions of dollars?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Good question.
Yeah, I don't know why they did.
Do you think maybe it had to do with the fact that your father was the vice president of the United States and charge of Ukraine?
Yeah, you know what?
Probably.
Yeah, that's probably the reason.
And you get, you have to ignore all that.
This is beyond sick.
This is as illogical, senseless.
This is like a group madness, a mob mentality with no concern about any American and their life, their safety, their security, their families, their economy, their jobs.
They don't give a flying rip about any of us.
That I can tell you.
We'll continue.
Coming up next, our final news roundup, an information overload hours.
Mr. Jordan, on call readout, certainly after the first call, there were probably a half a dozen or more people that I read out.
Those are people with the proper clearance and the need to know.
In this case, because of the sensitivity of the call and Mr. Eisenberg told me not to speak to anybody else, I only read out outside of the NSC two individuals.
Two individuals.
Jas Kent and one other person.
And you're not willing to tell us who that other individual is.
Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, point of order.
The gentleman suspend counsel.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to enforce the rule with regard to the disclosure with regard to the intelligence officer.
Thank you, Council.
You know, as I indicated before, this committee will not be used to out the whistleblower.
That same necessity for the first stop, so I don't lose the time.
Don't persist.
You are recognized again, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Chairman, I don't see how this is outing the whistleblower.
The witness has testified in his deposition that he doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
You have said, even though no one believes you, you have said you don't know who the whistleblower is.
So, how is this outing the whistleblower to find out who this individual is?
Jordan, this is your time for questioning.
You can use it any way you like, but your questions should be addressed to the witness, and your questions should not be addressed to trying to out the whistleblower.
Well, okay, okay.
Witnesses who aren't allowed to answer questions about who they talk to about the phone call, we get this.
All based on some anonymous whistleblower, no firsthand knowledge, bias against the president.
These facts have never changed.
We learned these right away.
Who worked with Vice President Biden, who wrote a memo the day after somebody talked to him about the call, but waited 18 days to file a complaint.
18 days to file a complaint.
What did he do in those 18 days?
We all know.
Ran off and talked with Chairman Schiff's staff and then hired the legal team that I just talked about, that I just talked about.
One of the steps in the whole impeachment coup, as his legal team has said.
This is scary what these guys are putting our country through.
It is sad.
It is scary.
It is wrong.
And the good news is the American people see through it all.
They know the facts are on the president's side.
As Representative Stefanik said, four facts will never change.
We got the transcript, which they never thought the president would release.
Shows no coordination, no conditionality, no linkage.
We got the two guys on the call, President Trump, President Zelensky, who have said, nothing wrong, no pressure, no pushing here.
We got the fact the Ukrainians didn't even know aid was held up at the time of the call.
And most importantly, we have yet to have one witness tell us that any evidence from anyone that President Zelensky did anything on investigations to get the aid released.
Those facts will never change.
The facts are on the president's side.
The process is certainly not.
It has been the most unfair process we have ever seen.
And the American people understand it.
Those 63 million Americans, they understand it.
And frankly, I think a lot of others do as well.
They see this for what it is, and they know this is wrong, especially wrong, just 11 months before the next election.
I yield back.
All right, amazing moments from Congressman Jim Jordan from earlier today, 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, news roundup information overload, we've got a lot of stuff breaking that we've got to get into here.
Kerry Pickett, who we'll talk to in a minute, reporting for the Washington Examiner and on our website, carrypickett.com, she had a story on Ukraine today about the non-whistleblower, hearsay whistleblower whistleblower, that the guy that was identified pretty much everywhere.
If you want to find it, just look it up.
It's everywhere.
Was close friends when he was at the White House with an official who's now a key aide to the compromised and corrupt coward.
This guy, the congenital liar, for three years, he's been telling us Trump-Russia collusion.
We have all the evidence.
We have all the evidence.
We have all the, he had no evidence.
He had nothing.
So he's a congenital liar, and yet the media mob just falls into this, you know, hookline and sinker just because they hate the president so much.
Anyway, they were close friends at the White House.
And this guy now works for Adam Schiff.
And the guy was the director for the Gulf States at the NSC at exactly the same time that the alleged hearsay whistleblower, non-whistleblower was Ukraine director at the NSC.
And anyway, so we're getting more connections now as it relates to the whistleblower and Adam Schiff's office because you know what?
We're not getting those answers.
So when Adam Schiff, the congenital liar, first said, no, we'd like to talk to the whistleblower, he was lying through his teeth.
Then he got caught lying through his teeth.
Oh, I should have said something.
Oh, okay.
And he didn't.
Anyway, Kerry Pickett is with us, as well as Tom Finton, who's the president of Judicial Watch.
Kerry, let's start with your breaking news.
That's right, Sean.
I mean, as he just mentioned, there initially denied he had any knowledge about the whistleblower complaint prior to its filing around mid-August.
And he said around September 17th that we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower, but we'd like to.
But then it was later found out that his statement was false and that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.
So he looked kind of stupid.
So now what we are finding out was that the alleged whistleblower and this staffer of Adam Schiff, they had worked together over at the National Security Council during the Trump administration.
And it wasn't just that they had worked together.
They were buddies.
They were really good friends, according to a National Security Council staffer.
And they hung out together.
They went to lunch together.
They palled around.
They were described as bro-like.
Now, it wasn't just that they were good buddies.
They also had really antagonistic attitudes towards the Trump administration.
And that tended to be a very bad problem because the alleged whistleblower seemed to have some leaking problems as well as Adam Schiff's staffer because he was accused of leaking very often to the press bad stuff to the press.
So they had a lot of issues as far as being antagonistic to the Trump administration.
Tom Fitten, as we watch this and we stand by, I mean, you see all the parallels and everything, including the Russia witch hunt, which went on for two and a half years.
The amazing thing is what I keep talking about, this bifurcation of people's brains where, you know, you have to, you know, care about Russian election interference, but you'll ignore the dirty dossier and you'll just go along with a conspiracy theory and a hoax that is, well, according to Attorney General Barr, I think this is about to blow wide open and it's going to hit these people so hard.
I don't, their mothers will feel the vibration.
Yeah, that's what this coup is about, Sean, which is to protect those who were implicated in the criminal misconduct against the president.
You know, the Justice Department has confirmed, the media doesn't want to talk about this, but there's confirmation that there's evidence of criminal misconduct in the opening of the investigation into President Trump.
And so it further bolsters, frankly, the president's inquiries with Ukraine as to what was going on here.
And he was entirely appropriate to ask these questions.
And who cares what people like Mr. Vinland think?
Who cares what Ambassador Yavanovich thinks?
They didn't care about corruption in the broad sense of the word.
They had this narrow view of corruption.
And any corruption that interplayed, it's interesting, any corruption that involved the Democrats or Obama or the typical deep staters, they weren't terribly interested in that.
But as you point out, Lieutenant Colonel Vimmin went running to at least three people he shouldn't have talked to about this classified material, this phone call with the president.
After his lawyer said, don't talk to your boss, he went and talked to three people about it.
So you've got some legalities here that people like Vimman and the leaker have to deal with.
And frankly, Mr. Schiff have to deal with because laundering this classified information doesn't make it legal just because you call it a whistleblower complaint.
Well, it's pretty unbelievable.
And by the way, There are two now Adam Schiff staffers that work with the hearsay whistleblower Kerry Pickett, because you wrote about that also.
So it's not just one, there's two.
And I got to imagine there's extensive contact.
Now, Schiff's office said, well, the whistleblower's attorney has gotten in touch with us and he's looking for ways to testify.
Well, how are they going to let that person testify?
What are they going to do?
Put him in shadows on a closed-circuit TV from some undisclosed location.
I have a very tough time thinking that the Democrats are going to even want to allow that this alleged whistleblower is even going to be put up on the stand anywhere or anywhere in these hearings.
They seem pretty adamant that they're not going to allow this alleged whistleblower to testify.
And the only way it's ever going to happen is if there's a Senate trial.
But I will say this, though.
What's interesting here is that you have this visa whistleblower, or rather this alleged whistleblower.
Every single former NSC staffer that I have spoken to, every single encounter that they have had with this alleged whistleblower has always been hostile.
Anytime they have spoken to this person, it's always been, this person hated me.
This person was a snake.
This person always was up to something.
Nobody liked this alleged whistleblower.
It was always the same pattern as if there was some sort of operation going on.
This alleged whistleblower seemed like he was actually gathering information.
And that's, by the way, how Adam Schiff's staffer was just described to me by this latest former NSC person.
He said, it seemed like he was asking questions about me and that he was digging up dirt on me.
It seemed like the only reason why he was there was just to dig up dirt.
So where does this go from here?
Tom Fitton, you know, I guess at some point you're probably already making your list of, you know, Freedom of Information Act requests for all the corruption that took place here, but that's a year from now that we'll have you back on.
And, oh, remember, Tom Fitton filed that a year ago and he announced it on the program.
And when you, when we now, we now have a date for Michael Horowitz to go before Lindsey Graham's committee.
That's December the 11th.
So we're going to get the Pfizer report.
That's coming out.
Then you've got the Attorney General Barr giving what I thought was the most unbelievable speech ever by an attorney general as he talked about, you know, how he loves our constitutional institution and how unfortunate it is that we have now seen a steady encroachment on presidential authority and goes into what the framers and our founders believed and then goes into a very,
very, very profound diatribe, even, if you want to call it that, is how they have tried to destroy this president.
And he's describing the people in the highest, you know, when he talks about the resistance.
The fact of the matter is that they're waging the scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance against this administration.
It is the left that is enraged in the systematic shedding of norms and undermining the rule of law.
And I was pretty profound to me.
Yeah, and you kind of see this in the desperate attacks on the presidency through this coup process where they're suggesting the president doesn't have a right to hire and fire ambassadors, remove them from positions, doesn't have a right to set policy.
The deep state should be setting the policy.
Lieutenant Colonel Vinman can go to the president of Ukraine and essentially counterman the president of the United States.
And this is something that whether or not he's ultimately impeached, I don't even think that's for sure, given the weakness of these hearings.
It damages the Republic because what the new standard is that if you're a president who's elected, that if the opposite party runs the House, they can impeach you for jaywalking or doing nothing inappropriate at all in the case of President Trump here.
So it's a real damage to our Republican form of government.
And the Attorney General placed it in a broader historical context that it involves the deep state, involves the judiciary, and it involves Congress and the Constitution and the people's right to govern themselves by electing the president and allowing him to do his job is being undermined.
All right.
Quick break.
More with Kerry Pickett.
More with Tom Fitton on the other side.
800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll get to your calls coming up next half hour.
An amazing Hannity tonight.
We're going to rip this thing apart.
It was a disaster today.
And on top of being a national disgrace, nine Eastern on Fox.
All right, as we continue, final moments.
We have about 30 seconds each.
Kerry Pickett, Tom Fitton.
So, Tom, you're suggesting you think this is going so bad, you don't think we even get to impeachment here in the House.
They only had these hearings, Sean, because of pushback for transparency and more due process.
And the reason I didn't want the hearings was what we're seeing today in the last few days.
They don't have any evidence of misconduct by the president.
And I'm sure there are some Democrats in the House asking Adam Schiff, why have you been lying to us for the last three months on what President Trump had been doing?
You have nothing.
Amazing.
Kerry, how does this end?
Do they impeach him or not?
As of now, I still think they're going towards impeachment, but there's going to be a number of Democrats who are going to vote against impeachment as of now.
You got 16 or 17.
It's over, right?
What's the magic number?
17?
I believe that is the number as of now.
Yeah.
All right.
Thank you both.
When we come back, wide open phones, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
Your calls and much more coming up straight ahead.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, there's a lot of other news that is, you know, not getting any attention.
It was an unmitigated disaster.
Now, let me backtrack and say this.
I don't give a flying hoot about the royal family.
You know, look, I know people are into the royals, the royals.
Obviously, the people of Great Britain are into their royals.
Look, Princess Di, wonderful woman, Prince Charles, all the drama, all the cheating, all the madness and insanity.
We all know about that.
William and Harry.
And you got, you know, they always talk about an heir and a spare.
If you're the spare, I guess you're kind of not that happy being number two.
But that was Prince Andrew.
Although Prince Charles doesn't seem like he's ever going to get it because, well, the queen stays in power.
How many years has she been in power?
So here's the thing.
So Prince Andrew's connection to the Lolita Express, that is Jeffrey Epstein's jet that apparently had all these young women on it.
And, you know, hobnobbing with him was apparently a very common thing.
Bill Clinton was on the Lolita Express, and he's got this island where all these young women have now come forward and said that, yeah, this is, yeah, we were abused as kids.
This guy's a pedophile.
And remember, then that crazy deal that he got down, you know, he was convicted pedophile, but basically got to go to his office every day for a year and never really got the proper sentence.
I will never understand.
So with all the connections, Prince Andrew decides, well, I'm going to do an interview.
It turns out to be an unmitigated disaster.
What was the word that he used, Linda, when he said, oh, boorish behavior or something to that effect?
I'm like, the guy's a pedophile, you jackass.
What are you talking about?
This is a guy that is assaulting young women regularly.
That's what the charge is.
Anyway, it's now, I don't know how this is going to end.
It's not going to end good for him because he denies the claims that were made by this one woman who apparently Amy Rohbach of ABC's Good Morning America had interviewed her and they spiked the interview at ABC, which we still have not gotten a real answer on that.
Anyway, so, you know, he said in this particular interview that he was, well, she had claimed that he was heavily sweating as they danced at a London club.
His answer was, oh, no, no, I didn't sweat at that point in my life.
Yeah, because now we got pictures of him sweating up a storm at that age and that time of his life.
That's lie number one he got caught in.
Then he says he's clueless about even the, I've never heard of this bar or this club called Tramps, I guess, where this woman claimed that they danced and he was buying these underage girls booze.
Well, he said, I never heard of it.
Well, now we have photos of him at the club showing he regularly attended Tramps, where the dance floor is only a stone's throw from the bar.
Whoopsie-daisy.
Then we got another lie.
He suggests that his photo of him with his arms around her with a grinning, you know, fixer, this woman Maxwell, who apparently was, I guess, securing these young women to do these, quote, massages at Orgy Island and on the Lolita Express, because he says that it has to be a fake because royals don't do public affection.
I'm terribly sorry, but it was a member of the royal family and I have a photograph taken and I have taken very, very few photographs and I am not one to, as it were, hug, he said in this sit-down interview.
The only problem is we got other pictures of him.
Yeah, scores of women on camera, pictures.
You know, they showed one in the New York Post of a woman with his arms around him licking his face.
Yeah, that is lie number three.
Then he said that he's had more proof of the snap, the picture with the woman that it was doctored, he claims, you know, because he never was out and about in the city without being properly dressed.
And he said traveling clothes, you know, an open neck shirt and slacks, et cetera, et cetera.
The only problem there is we got all sorts of photos of him dressed exactly the way the woman says he was dressed.
That's a problem.
Then he claimed he had no recollection of ever meeting this woman who claims that they had sex on three different times.
Here's another big problem, and that is one of Epstein's pilots on the Lolita Express in a deposition said that he did fly the prince with the woman in question and Epstein together on a private plane, not once, but twice, and gave the exact dates.
I'd say he's in a lot of trouble.
Let's see how the Royals deal with that mess that's created there.
You know, another Epstein accuser says that she sat in Bill Clinton's seat aboard the Lolita Express.
That came out too.
Apparently he was on this plane quite a bit.
By the way, oh, good news for New York.
We got the great governor of the great state of New York now is going to free suspects accused of manslaughter.
Well, they have the list.
You're going to get low bail or no bail at all with this new bail reform bill, even if you're being charged with second-degree manslaughter, aggravated vehicular assault, third-degree assault, promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child, possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child, promoting a sexual performance by a child, failure to register as a sex offender.
Oh, we won't put you in jail for that.
Making terroristic threats, aggravated vehicular homicide, and criminally negligent homicide.
I feel so much safer reading all of that.
I really do.
By the way, 95% of adults skip these impeachment hearings on Friday.
Oh, Stephen A., our buddy, who works over at ESPN, he just lit up Kaepernick.
He doesn't want to play.
If he had showed out, I'm here to tell you, I believe he would have had a job inside of two weeks.
Wow.
Nobody paid any attention to what Mike Pompeo did for Israel, another promise made and kept.
But the settlements of Israel are now consistent with the law and the State Department legal opinion change.
That's three big promises with Israel that this president kept.
Amazing.
What other president would have moved the embassy to Jerusalem and recognized it as the capital or recognized the sovereignty of Golan?
All right, let's get to our phones.
Let's see.
We have Don in Iowa.
Don, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Thanks for hanging in there.
Sean, thank you so much for taking my call.
I appreciate it.
I love your show.
I listen every day.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate it more than you know.
Well, sir, I'm a Marine veteran and I happen to have a special intelligence background.
And oh, before I start, I've got a nephew that graduated from Marine Corps Officers Canada School on Saturday.
Wow.
Congratulations.
Congratulations.
Sen for Phi.
He is also a Sean.
So congratulations, Sean.
Well, he's the good.
We'll call him the good Sean and me the jerk, Sean, but that's okay.
Both do a ton for our country, sir.
Anyway, what I was calling for is Lieutenant Colonel Veneman violated many, many laws, not just rules.
He violated laws with his actions by going to a lawyer.
He violated his chain of command, which we are not allowed to violate in the military.
We cannot violate that chain of command.
He made a conscientious effort to go to a political route instead of a military route.
That's illegal.
That's punishable under the UCMJ.
The other thing that he did that he violated was he violated the need to know.
The people that he spoke to about this phone call may have had clearances, but if you don't have a clearance with the need to know for the information you're being given, you can't, that's that's a violation of espionage laws that he violated clearly.
And so this is not whistleblowing.
This is conspiracy.
Listen, I'm just going to tell you something.
Every aspect of this, just like with the Russia witch hunt, is corrupt.
And all of it goes back to the, you know, I guess these people just think they're so smart.
You know, how everybody gets to go off the cliff, not once, but twice with the congenital liar.
The guy lied to everybody, and then the media dives right into the next conspiracy theory headfirst, right off the top, the high diving board.
I used to swim in a pool when I was a kid.
Wrath Park was a place in Franklin Square, New York.
And they had a high dive.
I think it was like 10 or 11 feet.
And I looked down.
I remember the first time I dove, I was a little scared.
These idiots are diving off another congenital liar shift diving board into an empty pool again.
And I guess, you know, and then they'll move on to the next conspiracy theory.
And then I guess when Trump's re-elected in 350 days, which you will have the power to shock the world again, boy, that will really piss them all off.
They'll probably try to impeach him another three times.
If he cured cancer, they would impeach him for curing cancer at this point.
That's how much they hate this guy.
I've never seen anything like it.
And all of this is conjecture.
All of it is opinion.
All of it is a point of view.
None of it is necessary.
None of it is admissible.
It's all hearsay.
Let us go to Keith in Kansas.
Keith, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Sean, here's what I look at.
This is a farce because it all goes back to only 21% of the people are paying attention.
And you can see why.
If they go back to February of 2014 to February of 2016, they are already investigating Biden.
They're trying to find out between the EU and United States why $23 million is put into Hunter Biden's account.
And so all of a sudden, Yovanovich says, hey, you know what?
I was given all the information on this.
That might be a conflict of interest.
So I have to go to Biden.
Okay, so then you go to the July of the 25th call with Zelensky, and he's congratulating him.
He's asking him to say, and I know you were elected to fight corruption.
So that's legal.
He wants to fight corruption.
He said so when he was elected.
He said, this is going to be my big deal.
We're giving money to countries that are corrupt.
So he had everybody.
Hey, Keith, remember what he also said to Zelensky?
I'm a little worried you're surrounding yourself with the same people that your past president had that he was corrupt.
So he's kind of admonishing the new guy in a nice way, saying you better not surround yourself with these idiots.
And here's another thing, Sean.
If 21% of the people have already said they're not even paying attention to it at all, they're going to vote for Trump.
And now, the way the Republicans are doing in the impeachment, you're going to have another 50%.
So I'm looking at a tremendous, tremendous landslide in the next election.
And now, if we ever get another Supreme Court justice, that's going to be a great conservative Supreme Court.
Let me just tell you, buckle up because I'm telling everybody and anybody that'll listen.
And it's going to be 350 days of madness insanity.
It's going to be intense.
It's going to be combative.
And you better buckle up because you haven't been on a roller coaster ride that's this bumpy.
I'm telling you.
The emotional ebb and flows.
One day you're going to think, oh, I think we're going to win this.
The next day, you're going to think, oh, no, I think we're going to lose this.
Next day, you've got to think, we're going to win it.
Then we're going to lose it.
And then they're going to impeach him.
And then what if he gets impeached?
And I'm telling you, you just have to, everyone, we need to steady the ship a little bit and not too high, not too low.
Sort of like where I've always looked at ratings in radio and TV.
You don't get too high when they're great and you don't get too low when they suck.
Right now, nothing's sucking.
I'll tell you that.
But it is kind of a good way to look at it.
Pam in Connecticut, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hello, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
About Ivanovich, it's turning into a pep peeve of mine.
She was not fired.
She was removed as the ambassador and they gave her her choice of assignments.
Correct.
So for everybody to say that, and I'm finding everybody doing it, saying she was fired, it misrepresents the truth and it just contributes to a fallacy.
And it's dishonest and it's disingenuous.
And I just, it's important because there are enough false things that are out there that we have to try and decipher and filter through that we need everybody, especially even those on our side on the president's side to say, hey, wait a minute.
No, no, no.
She was reassigned and she got her choice of assignments.
So let's do that.
And then can I just say one more thing with Shifty yesterday?
She would never have known anything if he hadn't opened his mouth.
Right.
So in essence, he was rather intimidating towards her.
Well, I got to tell you something.
This is going nowhere.
This is what these guys haven't been able to figure out yet.
And I will tell you, every single person, this is anecdotal.
And I've been in Detroit.
I've been in Chicago.
I was out a lot this past weekend.
Every person I talk to don't stop, keep fighting.
And I'm just guessing that Donald Trump hasn't lost a single voter from 2016.
And now those voters are pissed off.
And they'll stand in the freezing cold and rain and get out and vote.
And I bet the rest of America will be open to the prosperity that he's brought back to the country after eight years of Biden-Obama.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right, loaded up tonight.
Jim Jordan, Lindsey Graham, Steve Scalise, Andy Biggs, Matt Gates, Don Jr., Geraldo, Dan Bongino, and much more.
That's all coming up.
9 Eastern.
Set you DVR.
Hannity on the Fox News channel.
We'll see you then.
We'll be back here tomorrow.
always, thank you for being with us.
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.
