John Solomon, Fox News Contributor and Investigative Reporter, is here to discuss the report out on Peter Strzok and the IG report that was released on FBI confidential Human Resources. Joining him is Fox News Legal Analyst and author of the NY Times bestseller Witch Hunt, Gregg Jarrett and Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). He is an attorney and co-host of Jay Sekulow Live and author of the new book, out tomorrow The Next Red Wave: How Conservatives Can Beat Leftist Aggression, RINO Betrayal & Deep State Subversion. 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.
Now I'm Carol Markovich.
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 Delaware, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Wow, what a day this is banned.
This is like an atom bomb has now blown up the entire charade.
And the Democrats thought they had it all done today.
They thought, uh, this is great.
Sondland is saying gonna say this, and he's gonna say that.
And Sondland's opening statement is damning.
And you even have the compromise corrupt congenital liar running out to the TV cameras saying this Sonlin has tied Donald Trump directly to aid because every other witness has been a hearsay witness or an opinion witness.
What I think of what the transcript said.
This is the first guy that actually talked to Trump, and and he thinks that Trump tied aid to Ukraine.
I'm watching this and I'm watching, and I'm it's unfolding, and I'm like, this doesn't fit with what he said behind closed doors because Sondlin is the guy that actually said, uh, yeah, no, I talked to the president.
The president said there's no quid, no pro, no quo.
I don't want any quid pro quo.
I want to end the corruption.
That's all the president had ever said.
That's what he testified.
He used those terms over and over and over and over again in his audition testimony behind closed doors.
So we knew what he had said.
So I was just assuming, but he, you know, he starts out and now he's giving false hope to the mob and the media and to the corrupt compromise congenital liar shif.
But then the Republicans start digging in and asking questions.
There have been rock stars on the Republican side.
I'm gonna put I'm gonna tell you where this all ended today.
Uh, Congressman Turner crushed it today.
Jim Jordan crushed it not once, but twice today.
Uh, what's the Congresswoman from New York's name?
She was amazing uh also today.
And then we have Congressman Ratcliffe today, because he got Sonland to agree.
No, there's nothing sinister or nefarious in any way in all of this.
Let me play where it died today for the Democrats and the mob in the media.
It died.
It literally blew up in their faces.
We'll start with Congressman Turner and the first Jordan uh uh cross on this, because it all of it ends because we had Turner get him to say repeatedly, nobody ever told you that Donald Trump was linking or tying aid to actions, right?
And then Jordan, when he gets in, and he said, Okay, when did Zelensky make the public announcement about the investigations?
Uh never.
Oh, so he got the aid, and there was no announc no announcement.
So there really never was a quid pro quo on top of what we now know.
And the president, by the way, he released there are three occasions where the president of the United States invited the new president of Ukraine, Zelinski, to the White House without any connection to him doing anything.
That also came out today.
Let's start with Congressman Turner, and then the follow-up by Jordan.
This Was like a bomb that just exploded right in the faces of our corrupt media mob.
And by the way, Turner calls them out, and the compromise corrupt congenital liar Schiff.
An awesome moment.
Listen.
After you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony.
And if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid.
Is that your testimony today, Mr. Master Sonlin, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to the aid?
Because I don't think you're saying that.
I've said repeatedly, Congressman.
I was presuming.
I also said that President Trump.
So no one, not just the President Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you, nobody, Pompeo didn't tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations.
Is that correct?
I think I already testified.
No, answer the question.
Is it correct?
No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations.
Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong.
No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Yes or no?
Yes.
So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Other than my own presumption.
Which is nothing.
I mean, that's what I don't understand.
So you know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador.
Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Do you know what made-up testimony is?
Made up testimony is when I just presume it.
I mean, you're just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences, and CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations, and you don't know that, correct?
I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
Nope, but you did.
You have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not.
You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations.
I yield back.
I finally called the president.
I believe it was on the 9th of September.
I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me.
But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.
What do you want from Ukraine?
I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that.
What do you want?
And it was a very short, abrupt conversation.
He was not in a good mood.
And he just said, I want nothing.
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
Tell the Zelensky to do the right thing.
Something to that effect.
President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings.
The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Barisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meetings.
The aid was my own personal guess based again on your analogy, two plus two equals four.
So you didn't talk to President Trump when Ambassador Taylor says that that's what you told him?
Is that your testimony here?
My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections.
So you never heard those specific words.
Correct.
Right, but never heard those words.
Over.
The president's in a bad mood.
He said he didn't want a quid pro quo.
It's over.
And here, Congressman Turner actually gets this guy to admit that the compromise fact witness congenital liar, Schiff ran out and said, We got him.
Sondland just tied Trump, said he can tie Trump to the aid being withheld.
We got him.
But then he goes on and says Trump told him he didn't want a quid pro quo directly.
Every other witness up till now, every other one was either hearsay, so-and-so's uncle's brother's grandmother's third cousin's niece's father.
Said.
Or, well, I didn't hear it myself, but um, what I read in the transcript, or I was on the call, and you know, that's the exact stuff that happened on the transcript.
This is critical.
It is over.
It's done.
This is the end of this.
Let the Democrats impeach all they want.
None of the hearsay, none of the interpretations matter.
And Sanlin blew it out of the water because he is now the greatest fact witness for the president of the United States, because he's the only one that actually talked to him.
And the president's directive was clear.
What do you want from Ukraine?
Nothing.
I don't want to quit pro quo.
Just you know, get rid of the corruption.
Which is all in the transcript anyway.
Now let's go to the issue.
Jim Jordan follows up.
And Jim Jordan is like asking, no, well, when did Zelensky make the announcement that he was going to investigate Hunter and Joe and election interference?
When did he because he got the money?
So he must have done something.
No, we blow this out of the water here.
Listen.
Ambassador, when did it happen?
When did what happened?
The announcement.
When did President Zelensky announce that the investigation was going to happen?
On page 14, you said this.
Was there a quid pro quote?
Today's open your opening statement.
As I testified previously, with regard to a qu requested White House call, White House meeting, the answer is yes, that they needed to be a public statement from President Zelensky.
When the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars, you said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelensky.
So I'm asking you a simple question.
When did that happen?
Never did.
Never did.
They got the call July 25th.
They got the meeting, not in the White House, but in New York on September 25th.
They got the money on September 11th.
When did the meeting happen again?
Never did.
You don't know who was in the meeting?
Which meeting are you referring to?
The meeting that never happened.
Who was in it?
You know how people know how Zelensky.
You know how Zelensky announced it?
Did he tweet it?
Did he do a press statement?
Did he do a press conference?
You know how that happened?
I mean, you you got all three of them wrong.
They get the call, they get the meeting, they get the money.
It's not two plus two, it's oh for three.
I mean, I I've never seen anything like this.
And and you told Mr. Castor that the president never told you that the announcement had to happen to get anything.
In fact, he didn't just not tell you that.
He explicitly said the opposite.
They said the opposite, they did nothing.
The president said, I don't want to quit pro quo.
This is Jordan now again.
And this round, he's following up on what Congressman Turner said.
Listen to this.
You said to the president of the United States.
Is that right?
I don't know if that's a fair characterization.
I think he's careful.
He's expressed concerns about Fort Nago in certain countries.
Okay, fair enough.
Uh, and he knew Ukraine was corrupt.
Is that right?
He believed Ukraine was corrupt.
Yeah, and he wanted Europe to do more.
Definitely.
Definitely wanted Europe to more.
And the president had a belief that Ukrainian government officials, some senior Ukrainian government officials supported his opponent in 2016.
Uh won't go into all the details, but I think of the one member of parliament who said the majority of Ukrainian politicians want Hillary Clinton to win.
So he had that belief as well.
And obviously he understood what was happening.
We got a brand new guy in Ukraine.
This Zelensky guy wins, right?
Right.
And his party takes over, and President Trump wants to see with all these other things that are of concern to him.
He wants to see if this new guy's actually, as I like to say, the real deal, a real reformer and actually gonna deal with the corruption problem.
So it gets held up for 55 days, gets held up on June 18th, or excuse me, July 18th, and then is released on September 11th.
But it seems to me more important than the 55-day pause is the 14 days when Ukraine realized aid was held up on the 29th.
We've now had you testify to that.
The two witnesses yesterday testified that, the political article.
So A gets held up on August, Excuse me, Ukraine learns aid is held on August 29th, and then of course released on released on September 11th.
In those 14 days, there are three important meetings with senior government officials and President Zelensky.
There's the August 29th meeting between Ambassador Bolton and President Zelensky.
There's the meeting September 1st that you're a part of.
Vice President Pence meets with President Zelensky.
And then there's the meeting on September 5th, where U.S. Senators Murphy and Johnson meet with President Zelensky.
None of those meetings, none of those meetings did any linkage to security assistance dollars and an announcement or start of any investigation ever come up.
None of them.
But it seems to me the one that's the most important is probably the one we've talked least about, and that's the September 5th meeting.
Because that's actually a meeting where there is no one.
Well, it's much more congressional focused than White House focused.
This is the meeting where Senators Murphy, Senators Murphy and Johnson, bipartisan, meet with President Zelensky.
And what's interesting is what both senators in the last two days have given us letters recounting what happened in that meeting.
Senator Murphy said, I broached the topic of pressure on Zelensky from Rudy Giuliani and the president's other emissaries to launch investigations of Trump's political rival.
Murphy brought it up.
He brought you got two senators who both strong supporters of money going to Ukraine.
These guys are all for it.
And Senator Murphy, the Democrat, even brings up the issue everyone's been talking about.
It seems to me, if ever there was gonna be a time where the president of Ukraine says, guys, you don't know what I'm dealing with.
I'm getting pressure from the president of the United States.
He wants me to do this.
I gotta make it an It seems if ever there was a time that the President of Ukraine, the new guy, who now knows the aid has been on on hold.
If ever there was a time to bring it up, that would have been the time.
But guess what?
At no time, Senator Johnson tells us, at no time during this meeting or on any other meeting on this trip, was there any mention by Zelensky or any other Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for military aid.
Not even, Senator Johnson says, not even after Murphy warned them about getting involved in the election.
So Murphy gave this big deal on Giuliani, and nothing, nothing.
And guess what Murphy also said?
I do not dispute any of Senator Johnson's factual factual representations regarding the meeting.
If ever it was gonna happen, September 5th was the day.
That would no one from the White House there, not Ambassador Bolton, not Vice President, no one it never came up.
What have we learned?
What do we learn?
We learned that, yeah, no, no, no, no.
The president said no quib pro quo.
And no, the president never tied aid to it.
They got the aid and they never did anything.
It's over.
We'll continue.
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 SAS.
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, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcast.
All right, let's go back to the tape.
More Jim Jordan, and then I'm I'm gonna break this all out for you because this couldn't be a better day for President Trump.
Listen.
You said to the President of the United States, what do You want from Ukraine.
The president.
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
I want Zelensky to do the right thing.
I want him to do what he ran on.
What did he run on, Mr. Ambassador Sonlin?
Transparency.
And dealing with corruption, right?
That's right.
Mr. Castro raised another important point.
Why didn't you put that statement in your opening statement?
I think you said you couldn't fit it in.
Is that right?
Say we might be here for 46 minutes instead of 45.
It wasn't purposeful, trust me.
Wasn't purposeful?
No.
Couldn't fit it in a 23-page opener.
The most important statement about the subject matter at hand.
The president unites in a direct conversation with you about the issue at hand.
And the president says, let me read it one more time.
What do you want from Ukraine, Mr. President?
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
I want this new guy, brand new guy in politics.
His party just took over.
I want Zelinski to do the right thing.
I want him to run on and do what he ran on, which is deal with corruption.
And you can't find time to fit that in.
A 23-page opening statement.
You know what a quid pro quo is?
I do.
Just for that.
Right.
Looks to me like Ukraine got that three times.
And we there was no this.
There was we we didn't do anything.
Or excuse me, they didn't have to do anything.
I've never seen anything like that.
And this is this is when the call came out.
Y'all remember this when the call came out?
Everyone said, we're gonna quid pro quo.
There's gonna be a that was what was in the call.
And of course, of course that didn't happen.
That didn't happen.
Remember what they what the complaint said?
Remember what the memo said of the whistleblower?
This call was frightening.
This call was scary, all those things.
None of that materialized.
None of that materialized.
I mean, it was it just couldn't go any better.
Every witness before Sonlin today was either a hearsay, so and so, so and so, so and so, so and so, so and so, so and so so so so said, or a let me tell you what I think of the transcript that I didn't hear, witness.
Now you got the one guy that did talk to the president.
And what did we get from testimony today?
Very clearly stating in a conversation with Donald Trump that the president said when asked an open-ended question.
Do you what do you want from the Ukrainian leader?
The new president.
Nothing.
I don't want a quid pro quo.
I want him to get rid of corruption like he ran on.
That's it.
That's over.
It's done.
And then the question is, okay, well, when did Zelensky announce, based on the transcript, that he was going to investigate Barisma and Hunter and Quid Pro quo Joe?
Zero experience hunter and quid pro quo Joe.
He never did, but he got the money anyway, didn't he?
It's over.
This is not an issue anymore.
No one on the planet told you the President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Yes or no?
Nobody told me.
So you really have no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for the investigations.
Uh, other than what I presumed.
How many times this guy presumed?
He presumed a lot in the course of all of this.
You know, he said, I believe these and probably these investigations, I believed the resumption.
It was likely this.
Uh I presume we presume this and that.
We I likely believe, I don't know, I have no idea, but I was presuming that, you know, but it was a short conversation.
The aid was my own personal, I guess, you know, based again on an analogy, two plus two equals four.
That was my presumption, my personal presumption.
My again, I was presuming these things, but when he actually talked to the guy, he said, I don't want this.
I don't remember, but it seems logical.
I don't know.
I've just, you know, I guess I have my own beliefs.
I'm listening to these other people, and they're saying this.
That's what we got today.
Jim Jordan got to the heart of it.
You said there, you know, when did they say that there was gonna be a public announcement from Zelensky to look into the things that President Trump mentioned about election interference and quid pro quo Joe and Hunter?
Yeah, no, he never made an announcement.
But he got the money anyway.
Jordan actually said, you got all three wrong.
They get the call, they get the meeting, they get the money.
And the president invites this guy three times.
You got now the letters released today.
Come to the White House without any quid or pro or quo.
This is so sick how the Democrats are acting in this country.
No one on the planet ever told you President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
They never told me that.
Nope.
Never heard that.
He said just the opposite.
I mean, you know, the president rightly, I mean, we're going to go back to things.
You know, president was right about election interference and right about quid and pro and quo Joe.
What did I say?
I've been saying the president's faithfully executing the laws.
For three years, we've heard from the compromise corrupt coward and congenital liar ship, and all these Democrats, oh, foreign election interference matters, but we'll ignore the dirty Russian dossier.
And then we'll also uh, yeah, it matters, but we don't care about Ukrainian interference.
Get to that in a second.
Because Sonlin outlined in detail the epidemic of corruption in Ukraine.
Yeah, it was an epidemic.
It was a total epidemic.
I don't know how Sonlin missed this statement that there was never a quid pro quote because he said it multiple times in the last hearing.
Because he didn't say it in his opening statement, Democrat, oh, we got him.
This is awesome.
Changing his testimony.
No, he didn't.
You know, but he made a lot of presumptions.
And then outruns, you know, the corrupt compromise congenital lie.
We got him.
CNN fake news, we got him.
Then he said, no, actually, that never happened.
Just the opposite happened.
Unbelievable.
This is this is like a it just all the wind is out of their sails.
It was like an atom bomb in this thing.
And he had testified the first time repeatedly.
They all know that he that this is the conversation.
They don't care.
He's the only guy up until now.
Still no quid, no pro and no quote.
He made it clear.
The president made it clear.
Don't want that.
I want Zelensky to do the right thing, which was what the president was saying from the very beginning.
Ron Johnson talks about that meeting.
It never came up, the issue of aid or withholding aid tied to any actions by any of them ever.
If you go back to the original transcript, and I went back today and I looked, I said, wait a minute, I get they're forgetting a big part of this.
Because the big part of their early discussion is about, yeah, we want to drain our swamp here in this country.
That's Zelensky saying that to Trump, just like you're doing in Washington.
And the president actually was a little skeptical.
He goes, you know, in the very paragraph where he said, I'd like you to do us a favor, which is to get to the bottom of election interference and what Ukraine did.
That's what he mentioned, you know, crowd strike and you know, one of your wealthy people, the server, Ukraine was involved in this.
Well, they were.
And the president says, I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
Why is he saying that?
Because he doesn't want any more corruption.
Because they did interfere in our elections.
And we know it because the Ukrainian court told us so.
Yeah, this might surprise you.
New York Times, Ukraine court rules, Manafort disclosure caused meddling in U.S. elections.
Holy moly, where'd you get that, Hannity?
Well, we actually do research on the show.
In the research, guess what we find out?
The truth.
By the way, new polling out on all of this.
You got uh MU law poll shows that Wisconsin, the support for impeachment has dropped four points in the past month.
It's now just below 40%.
National poll now morning consult.
Yeah, only 40% of independents support this, a 10-point drop.
Gallup found the president's approval rating is ticking up since this all began.
That shouldn't surprise anybody.
You know, you got, and it's just all corruption.
All of this.
By the way, House Republicans, they're gonna subpoena the whistleblower and Hunter Biden.
Good.
They need to.
Pretty amazing corruption that we now are experiencing.
And in this country and elsewhere.
You look at the Kiev court lawmakers' release, they were involved.
But we've been telling you all of this that they were involved from the very get-go.
We've been telling you all of this.
That, you know, the whole January 11th, 2017.
You know, what was that whole article about that was in politico?
It was about their corruption.
It was about, yeah.
The whole thing is bad.
Yeah, that they helped Hillary at a very high level.
Politico wrote again, January 11, 2017, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kiev officials scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump during the election by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
And they also, meaning Ukraine, disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aid in corruption, and they suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and advisors, a political investigation found.
Now it even gets more interesting.
A Ukrainian American operative.
Later they identify that person as this woman Shalupa, who was a paid consultant for the DNC, met with top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, meeting the 2016 race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advanced the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the East, Russia.
But they were far less concerted or centralized, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, that all happened.
Well, there's other testimony bombshell, by the way.
No, nobody wants to get into this.
You have a State Department official who served in the embassy in Kiev telling Congress that Obama administration tried to partner in 2016 with the Ukrainian gas firm that employed Hunter Biden.
George Kenneth said that.
I'll tell you another thing that's happening.
This is all is John Solomon.
He'll describe it in the next half hour.
He's going to join us.
You know, there was a mini little, as he had predicted, report from Michael Horowitz that nobody's paying attention to.
Michael Horowitz concluding that Peter Strock was cited for misconduct, security violations, exceptionally poor judgment in FBI memos.
This is just part of what Bard did the other night, a preview of coming attractions.
And the FBI, quote, the FBI's vetting of informants like Christopher Steele slammed by the inspector general Michael Horowitz.
This report now is going to be out in the first week of December.
And December 11th, Horowitz goes before Lindsey Graham's committee.
They found significant weaknesses, inadequate resources dedicated in the FBI to vet informants, artificial limits on long-term reviews, et cetera.
These factors increase the likelihood that the FBI was not adequately mitigating the risks associated with long-term associations like Steele, including the risks posed by overly familiar, non-objective handling agents and relationships.
Most troubling revelation is maybe some FBI analysts that used to vet informants complained they were discouraged from documenting their conclusions and recommendations.
Oh, so they could use Steele's dirty Russian dossier paid for by Hillary to help Hillary get elected.
Oh, yeah, that's gonna be a big deal, too.
And it's all coming.
This whole thing is about to blow up in their face, every bit of it.
And today was just the first part of it.
It's unbelievable.
By the way, Radio Free Europe About election interference, the and and the court decision in Ukraine.
Yeah, the court said the publication of the so-called black ledger documents quote led to interference in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and harm the interest of Ukraine as a state.
And by the way, the White House today releases uh a letter from President Trump, you know, to Zelensky.
You know, inviting him to the White House with no zero zero.
Quid pro quo.
It's over.
This whole thing is done.
Except the mob and the media will just try and keep it alive anyway.
They'll cherry pick, but they'll they'll they will purposefully propagandize, mislead, slander smear besmirch, and advance conspiracy theories and lies to the American people.
That's how corrupt they are.
This is dead.
It died today.
That's what happened today.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markovitz.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings, the The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Barisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting.
The aid was my own personal uh, you know, guess based again on your analogy, two plus two equals four.
So you didn't talk to President Trump when Ambassador Taylor says that that's what you told him?
Is that your testimony here?
My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections.
So you never heard those specific words.
Correct, right?
But never heard those words.
Never heard those words.
And it goes on from there, which raises the question, okay, if you never heard this or that, but you made an assumption, uh, well, you write the word out, assume, and you can assume all you want.
One of the things that is becoming very, very clear to me is you've you've got this sort of bubble among the ambassadorships, and it's kind of like they think they ought to be setting foreign policy, and that they think they that they know what's best, but nothing contradicts what's in the actual transcript.
And now that the president released the letter to President Zelensky on top of the two transcripts where aid was never mentioned and there was never any mention of any one individual about a quid pro quo and everybody admits that, then you gotta say, well, why are we even here?
And then if you get to the substance of what it is that the president is asking in the transcript of President Zelensky, well, we have the New York Times acknowledging, we have politico acknowledging, and we have a Ukrainian court acknowledging that in fact 2016 election interference with Ukraine actually happened.
Well, I thought Democrats cared about that, because a big part of that would then be Alexander uh Shalupa, a DNC contractor being paid by the DNC, Going to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and colluding with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Manafort and President Trump for the purpose of helping Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential race.
And I thought that those were all things that we were supposed to care about.
Apparently not.
And then again, we get back to, okay.
Well, if everyone's concerned about the quid and the quo and the pro, then you gotta think of Joe.
And Joe's on tape bragging that you're not getting the billion dollars.
Now, why would a vice president ever demand the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor and that you're not getting the billion and you've got six hours?
Why would that ever happen?
Well, we now know why, because the dopey 49-year-old sonter was being paid millions, putting aside the millions that he got from China ten days after flying with his vice president's son to China, and then Romania and uh apparently other countries may be involved too.
But he gets millions of dollars, and he's yeah, he's asked, Do you have any experience with Ukraine?
No.
Energy, no.
Oil gas, no.
You have any idea why then they would pay you millions of dollars?
I don't know.
Do you think maybe it's because your father is the second highest elected official in the United States?
Yeah, uh, you know what?
Probably.
I think that's it.
John Solomon, who's come under fire?
I mean, this is a pretty amazing moment because you know, this woman, Maria Yanovich, whatever her name is, the former ambassador.
Well, John Solomon actually was one of the few people.
He, along with the Washington Post and ABC News, he was one of three people that had interviewed the fired prosecutor, this guy named Shokin.
And Shokan had said in all three interviews he was fired because Joe Biden demanded it, and or else they weren't going to get a billion dollars.
So, how do you bifurcate your brain as a Democrat not care about that?
And then John Solomon also interviewed the prosecutor general, and that prosecutor general is on video saying to John Solomon, uh, yeah, that woman gave me a list of names not to prosecute.
Now I'm beginning to think, well, if we cared about election interference, we cared about corruption, and we cared about quid and pros and quos.
How do the Democrats ignore all of that?
Anyway, John Solomon is here with us now.
He also has new information to discuss as it relates to the IG report that we now know is coming out around the first week of December because Michael Horowitz is scheduled to appear before Lindsey Graham's committee on December the 11th.
That's right.
Uh investigative reporter, Fox News, John Solomon.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
I think, you know, uh I we said this several weeks ago, right?
Uh Sean, that these impeachment hearings might very well be the weapon of mass distraction that keep that was designed to keep people's eye off of the Russia developments.
And here's a great example.
Today, we have these hearings where no one has established a quid pro quo yet for the aid, and yet everybody's ignoring an extraordinary Inspector General's report released late last night that concludes that the FBI has systematically failed to manage and vet the confidential human sources like Christopher Steele that are used to can conduct counterintelligence and uh regular criminal investigations.
And we're talking about serious misconduct, serious oversights.
We have FBI officials quoted in this IG report saying that when sometimes when they came across an alley.
Oh, whoa, slow down.
When John speaks quickly and says, we have FBI officials quoted in the IG report, that means, you know, let's set off alarms here.
You're about to give us information that nobody knows before has heard before.
So we're getting the IG report in early December, and Horowitz is scheduled to appear before Graham's committee in the Senate on September the 11th.
You're saying you have information, what's in the report?
Now, this is not the FISA report.
It's a preliminary one.
It's the one I told you about two weeks ago would be coming out.
I don't know if you remember this, but the informant report.
Confidential informant report.
It came out last night.
And see, the Democrats did such a good job of distracting us with impeachment.
We didn't even know this report came out, which is exactly why these hearings were started, to keep our eye off the ball on the unraveling of the Rush investigation.
But let me tell you what it says.
We were all wondered.
Remember, we've all sat along, we've talked on your show endlessly, Sean, how could it be that the FBI would allow a guy like Christopher Steele being paid by Hillary Clinton, professing hatred for Donald Trump, having an election day deadline, uh, and and uh leaking to the media.
How could we let that guy be the primary source we used to get a FISA warrant to look at the Trump campaign in the final weeks of the election?
How could that have happened?
Well, Inspector General Horowitz released a remarkable and damning report last night uh on his on the website.
It's public, but not a no one in the media's picking up on it.
It says the FBI under James Comey, under Andrew McCabe, under Peter Stroke, that they failed to manage and vet um uh human sources, informants, just like Christopher Steele, regularly, routinely.
And one of the most serious things it highlights is that FBI officials are quoted in this report released last night, saying when we sometimes found derogatory information about informants, a la Christopher Steele, we were told don't put that in the documents, because it would help the defense lawyers or or it would prevent our informants from becoming witnesses at trial.
So basically keep bad information about sources off the books.
That is a damning acknowledgement and helps us explain how the heck did we end up with Christopher Steele.
They kept the derogatory information they had about him off the books.
All right.
So what we have is the FBI substantiating that Peter Strzok uh had engaged in a dereliction of duty, had committed misconduct through these text messages with Lisa Page as anti-Trump bias.
Um on his official FBI phone committed security violations by performing official government work on his personal email.
And we got one official recommending termination, another recommending suspension.
And yet the leadership in the Bureau at the time, they chose the more severe of the two penalties terminating struck last year.
But so w what is this tell us about in terms of a preview of coming attractions?
Well, remember after the first IG report that focused on the Hillary Clinton email, one of the conclusions that was there is that we that the I Horowitz said about the Clinton email case.
He couldn't say for sure whether political bias affected Peter Stroke's judgment or decisions on on uh the Hillary Clinton email case.
What you can clearly see from the disciplinary file that was released on Monday uh by the FBI and the Justice Department in the Stroke lawsuit.
Stroke claims he's a victim, should never have been fired.
The Justice Department thinks very differently.
His disciplinary file, his uh a misconduct file states clearly that his expression of bias cast a pall over both the Clinton email investigation and the Rush investigation, one that may not leave the FBI for a long time.
The FBI blames Peter Stroke for causing all of the credibility issues that we now have about the Russia and the Clinton email cases, a very strong indictment of Peter Stroke's misconduct.
When he said all those things about smelly people at Walmart and we're gonna stop the president, all those things.
And Hillary should win a hundred million the FBI saying in its own words.
So but we really not getting to the heart of what what I think or where I think that the Horowitz report should go, which is premeditated fraud perpetrated on the uh Pfizer court.
You think we're getting there?
Absolutely.
I think these reports I I think listen, I think there's a story being told in pieces, right?
Peter Stroke really was a bad guy, despite the fact that he tried to sue us recently, claiming he wasn't uh he was wrongfully terminated.
That's not true.
That's the first piece to get in place.
Then a couple days later, the IG goes and says, you know, before I tell you anything about Christopher Steele, just know the FBI's been cheating on informants or doing bad things with informants for a long time.
I think Michael Horowitz, Bill Barr, John Durham are laying the predicate for what's going to be an explosive 500-page report, 550-page report is what I'm told, on uh on all of the misconduct that occurred in the FBI investigation.
But I think some of these earlier reports, the ones I'm mentioning, are designed to lay the foundation to for you to understand that there was a culture in the FBI of leaking, leaking evidence so that you could then cite the evidence in your court filing.
That's what we're gonna find in Russia.
There was a culture of of not vetting your informants and looking the other way at their flaws.
And there was a really bad guy at the helm, Peter Stroke, that had the two most important cases of the last half century, and this guy had political bias and misconduct and security violations.
All of those were released to set the stage for the FISA report.
But what's interesting, you really can't blame this, though, on Peter Strzok, can you?
Oh, it's much higher.
It goes much higher.
Yeah, it has to be.
Yeah.
Because look, it's it wasn't only it wasn't only Comey.
Remember, not only did he work for Mueller, Muller took his phones and Paige's phones, and oh, he sent them back to the factory to get cleaned.
Wonder why.
Yeah.
You're exactly right.
Listen, uh, Peter Stroke is the symptom of a much ser more serious and sick FBI, which I think at the end of the day, James Comey's FBI, Andrew McCaid's FBI is the reason we have this mess.
And then the only question we need to find out is who at the CIA, who at the White House were they communicating these tactics to.
But when the I think another thing, though, that you pointed out in your interpretation of this early release is that the vetting of informants like Christopher Steele, and remember Steele's dossier, when they finally did review it, they disproved over 90% of it.
Um I guess they couldn't disprove all 100% of it, but then we've got to get into the Well Well, then we got Kathleen Kavlak and Bruce Orr, and I think there are as many as five warnings that the DOJ, that would be the FBI, that would be James Comey who signed three of the four FISA applications.
The bulk of information we're told was the steel dossier that was we now know unverifiable because he didn't stand by his own own dossier when when push came to shove in an interrogatory.
So the vetting of these informants was slammed by the Inspector General Horowitz 2.
Yeah, and what it basically says is there was a culture of hiding derogatory information about informants.
And now let's go back to why that's relevant to Russia.
In the footnote, standing by Christopher Steele for all four of the FISA warrants that were used to spy on Carter Page in the Trump campaign, they kept saying the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information about uh confidential human source ones, Christopher Steele.
Why is that important?
That is where you have the willful misleading of a court.
You ask, well, we get there, that's how they get there.
The FBI was in possession of significant derogatory information about Christopher Steele, political bias, hatred for Trump.
Oh, remember uh it was Comey himself that went to Trump Tower and tried to say, well, this is not verified but salacious, but meanwhile, in October the previous year, he went and signed the Pfizer warrant.
So he was lying to then President elect Trump.
Stay right there.
John Solomon will also be joined by our legal team.
We'll get into his interpretation of the Ukrainian events as well.
Um all of this on Hannity tonight, news the mob will never tell you about.
All right, final moment this half hour with John Solomon, he'll stay with us and we'll bring in Greg Jarrett and Jordan Sekulow.
Um, just your quick summary of what's missing in this Ukraine story, because there's a lot missing here.
Yeah, I Sean, I think the single most important thing.
You saw all these Ukraine experts paraded out there, the State Department NSC so-called experts.
If all of them knew that the president was looking to see if if there was an investigation to be done on Barisma and Hunter Biden, they all failed to tell the president.
In February and March of 2019, Ukraine on its own, with no pressure, chose to reopen the investigation of Brisma based on new financial evidence they had.
Why did not a single one of those so-called experts not tell the president before all of this other shenanigans begin?
I think it's an extraordinary letdown of this career staff that they didn't tell their own president.
Mr. President, you don't need to ask for an investigation.
It already has been opened based on the merits in Ukraine.
That is an irrefutable fact.
February, March of this year, they reopened it.
Nobody in these hearings has picked up that line of questioning.
Great point.
All right, more with John Solomon.
We'll bring in Jordan Seculo, Greg Jarrett on the other side.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, A little insane.
That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country.
Without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
After you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony.
And if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says Sonlin ties Trump to withholding aid.
Is that your testimony today, Mr. Master Solomon, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid?
Because I don't think you're saying that.
I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming.
I also said that President Trump.
So no one, not just the President Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you, nobody, the Pompeo didn't tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations.
Is that correct?
I think I already testified.
No, answer the question.
Is it correct?
No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations.
Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong.
No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Yes or no?
Yes.
So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Other than my own presumption.
Which is nothing.
I mean, that's what I've never said.
So do you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador?
Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Do you know what made-up testimony is?
Made up testimony is when I just presume it.
I mean, you're just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences, and CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations, and you don't know that, correct?
I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
Nope, but you did.
You have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not.
You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations.
I yield back.
An amazing moment.
That was Congressman Michael Turner today.
Wow.
That just blew that out of the water.
And it shows you how corrupt the well, compromised congenital liar is.
How corrupt fake news CNN is, NBC and every other news organization is.
You can't be any more clear than that, can you?
It doesn't get any more clear than what the witness that they're using as blockbuster has said today.
This is madness.
This is insanity.
They will ignore anything that is exculpatory towards this president.
And they'll run with conjecture and they'll run with hearsay and they'll run with, I don't know.
You got a bunch of bureaucrat ambassadors.
No offense to them.
I guess they're serving their country.
Well, boy, they think an awful lot of themselves when they're not the commander in chief either.
And on the substance of everything, this president was right to say, hey, are you surrounding yourself with the same bad people that the prior president of Ukraine was surrounding himself with?
Because if you are, that's not good.
And can you help us?
Do me a favor.
Get to the bottom of your country's role in election interference and any other corruption That was going on there.
And by the way, simultaneously ignoring the real evidence, the real quid, the real quo, the real pro with Joe and Hunter, zero experience hunter, millions of dollars.
You're not getting the billion.
Fire the prosecutor, you get the billion, you got six hours.
It doesn't get any more clear-cut than this.
But they try to, you know, muddy those waters and cherry pick that which they think, oh, I can use this to bludgeon Trump again after two and a half years of this with Russia that ends in nothing.
Anyway, joining us on top of John Solomon, who remains with us, Greg Jarrett.
Of course, he has his bestseller out, as long as Jordan Seculo.
He put it up on Hannity.com, both of them.
Greg, that was to me one of the defining moments today.
Oh, it truly was.
You know, at first I thought Sonlin would say, well, my presumption was based on what other people told me.
It's worse than that.
As Turner pointed out, it's a presumption that he conjured up out of thin air.
He didn't even get it from anybody else.
You know, there are two main points today.
Uh, and you certainly heard uh one of them.
Uh but the other is that uh, you know, Sondland underscored that the president said to him repeatedly, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.
Uh but he also then made a rather stunning admission when he said, I never heard the president say that aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations.
Why then is it continue here?
Why is this even an issue, even at this point, though?
It shouldn't be.
But as you know, as my my friend and colleague uh uh, you know, John Solomon pointed out, this is the you know, weapon of mass distraction.
They they know what's coming down the pike, the IG report, and this serves as their subterfuge.
Jordan Seculo, your thoughts.
Yeah, well, our takeaway is this.
I mean, to just build on what Greg was saying, is then Sodlin gets asked again, did you hear from anyone in the world, anyone on the planet that this was, and he says no.
And to us, I mean, this was this was the most key moment because it contradicted the entire narrative from the beginning of his whole testimony.
I mean, I saw Kin Starr talking about, you know, Kinstar was like, Yeah, he's warning the warning labels, and then he heard that statement.
He said, I can't even believe an ambassador of the United States would leave that clear cut of a statement out of his opening statement, because it is literally what everyone has been talking about.
Now, I think it gets to the point also that uh the attorney for the minority made uh that this is this is again someone who takes no notes, he doesn't remember anything, and he can't, you know, when he says he can't get other people's documents.
I want everybody to understand this.
It's other people's documents.
It's not he can't get access to his emails and text messages and his staff.
It's he can't get access to whatever he wants at the State Department.
And you know, he decided to not use executive privilege to put himself through this.
I think as the president said, uh, from what he knows from from his dealings with him, he's been a pretty good guy.
But you know, uh as he kind of this is the only witness who's had to the direct interplay with the president of the United States.
He's admittedly said he kind of, I mean, they really overplayed that interplay, and they kind of acknowledged that they wasn't as much as it sounded like, or he ever they tried to imply it was.
And then when it was, but also when he spoke to anyone else, no one ever said this.
He's just presuming it.
Now, I can understand why maybe at this point, lots of people would try would presume that, because if you read news crawlers and things like that, you could start presuming it.
So I think it's very clear that we make that that point for everybody to understand that this is people are making this up.
This is made up.
This is this is just taking out thin air, not even basing it as great.
It's not even basing it on what someone else told him.
He didn't even get a lot of things.
It was one of the most stunning moments, I think, in this whole charade.
I really do.
I mean, I'm I'm sitting there and and he's right.
I mean, that's what the fake news media was doing.
And I read the opening statement, and I said, okay, uh, this doesn't seem right.
This doesn't gel with what he said in his prior testimony.
Uh, and then we get to the rationale and the reasoning behind it.
Well, I just was listening to other people, so I put two and two together.
But yeah, the president did say I don't want a quid pro quo.
The president at no time ever said there's any linkage.
He actually said the opposite, John Solomon.
And, you know, the White House, very cleverly, I thought, releasing the actual letter invitation to Zelensky with zero, no ties to anything to meet with the president in the Oval Office.
Yeah, and listen, that's the most important part.
When you get to cases like this, and we're going to get to a trial perhaps someday in the Senate, facts matter, statements matter, witness testimony matters, contemporaneous events and evidence matter, the contemporaneous evidence and the primary testimony uh clearly indicate the president wanted no quid pro quo tie between the aid and the uh investigations.
He wanted investigations for the reasons he cited, but at the end of the day, there was no quid pro quo, which is what he's being charged with in this allegation of bribery or extortion or whichever term the Democrats have bolt tested today.
But at the end of the day, those facts are going to be very relevant to a uh any trial attorney or any jury looking at it.
Because prior to this point, Greg Jarrett, all we had were people's interpretations of what they thought of the of the transcript, which frankly is meaningless.
It's all hearsay.
None of it would be admissible in the Senate.
Um and I can't imagine that the chief justice presiding over this circus, if it gets over there, and I'm assuming it probably will, because that's how unhinged the Democrats are.
Um whatever deny the president and his attorneys uh his sixth amendment rights, which is the right to confront his accuser.
You know, if uh the federal rules of evidence are invoked by the Senate, uh if that's what the majority wants to do and they should, um you know, none of these witnesses are gonna be able to testify.
Uh the Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is bereft of facts, so he's determined to remove the president from office based purely upon the opinions of others who surmised or imagined uh this quid pro quo that doesn't exist anywhere in the transcript of the telephone call.
And now we learn from ambassador Sondlin um that the president told him directly, not once, but twice.
There's no quid pro quo, uh, and that n aid is not tied to anything.
And so none of these people could ever testify.
Um they might, you know, Sondland might be able to say this is what the president told me in that telephone conversation.
But beyond that, all of these witnesses are nothing but rank speculation, conjecture, and hearsay.
You know, this is impeachment by rumor and innuendo.
It's unbelievable.
Now there was an interesting story that came out today, Jordan Sekulow, uh, from Zero Hedge, and it's I did the headline says a lot.
The Ukrainian Ukrainian indictment claims 7.4 billion Obama-linked laundering puts Biden group take at 16.5 million dollars for quote their services.
You know, the w one of the things I'm really having a hard time here that you know, and I say it often, probably repeated too much, is that uh fire the prosecutor, you get the billion, don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
He knew his sum was being investigated and his son paid millions for zero experience.
That that gets under my skin.
Well, it doesn't this is why trying to base the impeachment off of Ukrainian foreign policy, which you know that's what we've ultimately gotten to is disputing over policy, and when when you get to Sodlin's point, it's not even that.
It's like just presumptions over what you think, which almost sounds like he was setting up the president.
I mean, I haven't just based off kind of how he said why was he calling all these times and kind of asking it this way.
It's like he was asking it this way, and the president's screaming back, I don't want him doing anything.
Like what do you like I maybe even picking up on this, but but at the same time, the recklessness here, because they've also uh as we get every time that these hearings and every day, and anybody that's watching it, uh, and the media can't, they can try to cut around it when they do their their clips later in the day, but they can't do it while people watch it.
Every day it's coming up that this Biden and these questions about why are they even getting involved when you're when your dad's vice president, why get involved with any of these companies in in Ukraine with the mess that Ukraine was?
Um and and that if you're gonna base things off U Ukraine's either side, I mean it's like uh listen, they going after uh reporting, and John knows this very well now.
Going after reporter, because he talked to one Ukrainian, another Ukrainian says this Ukrainian is wrong, and that Ukraine is wrong.
It's it's we're also dealing with their you know, you can talk to whoever you want to, it's politics too, but also a level which is very different from you know being a reporter to decide I'm gonna actually be on their board, but oh, we're not gonna talk about this.
Now, I think that that's the recklessness of Democrats.
That's how bad they want to go after President Trump and a lot of these government officials from both sides of the aisle who work in the in the bureaucracy, who may have you know initially worked for Republican, then they work for a Democrats.
But I you know, I want them just reading their talking points for him.
And if you don't read their talking points, they try to take you down, and they don't like this.
They don't, I mean, you could see they're just they are so upset that they prepare talking points, and this president decides to govern independently.
All right, we'll wrap things up.
Amazing developments today.
Uh you know, I gotta tell you, your mob in the media, they are so corrupt.
They're such liars.
They won't even they won't even tell you about Sonlin's beatdown today.
They're not even gonna tell you that.
They're not gonna tell you about the IG preliminary report about Peter Strzok and his misconduct and his poor judgment.
And uh, or will they tell you about how the FBI vetting of informants slammed by Michael Horowitz, or what uh attorney General Barr had to say.
I'm not gonna tell you any of this.
So sick, corrupt, it's unbelievable.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, wrapping things up.
We only have about 20 seconds each.
Final thoughts, John Solomon, 20 seconds.
Ukraine is Russia redo.
It's a hearsay case that's gonna turn out not to be true.
Wow.
Unbelievable.
Greg Jarrett.
Well, this is an example of how desperate Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are, and Democrats at large in the House of Representatives.
Um, to call nothing but hearsay witnesses and witnesses who presume things, you know, that that's not evidence.
That's garbage.
And that's essentially the only argument that uh Democrats have against the president.
It's based on junk.
Last word, Jordan Secular.
Last word, Jordan Seculo.
All right, we lost Jordan Seculo.
Uh, we're gonna have to end it there.
John, thank you.
Greg, thank you.
We have a massive Hannity tonight on the Fox News channel.
This just blew up.
This is worse than a this is like an atom bomb uh to the star witness.
They thought they had it all.
Got blown out of the water.
When we come back, I know a lot of you want to uh weigh in.
800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Quick break, right back.
Hannity at nine tonight.
This this is an amazing day.
In more ways than I can even tell you straight ahead.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
This morning to dedicated public servants speaking truth to power in the face of withering public criticism from President Trump and his allies.
It's absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses who, as everyone has pointed out, are so clearly fact witnesses.
These are career professionals.
And Zinman struck me as the most devastating we've seen in a public hearing to date.
This is someone who obviously looks the part, is the part.
Look at him.
He's in the uniform of the United States Army.
And he, you know, almost was emotional at the end of his opening statement.
Clearly, these ludicrous accusations don't reflect committee members who are honestly searching for the truth.
They are the actions of partisan extremists who hijacked the Intelligence Committee, transformed it into the impeachment committee, abandoned its core oversight functions, and turned it into a beach head for ousting an elected president from office.
You have to keep that history in mind as you consider the Democrats'latest catalog of supposed Trump outrageous.
Granted, a friendly call with the Ukrainian president wouldn't seem to rise to the same level as being a Russian agent, but the Democrats were running out of time.
If they waited any longer, their impeachment circus would intervene with their own candidates 2020 campaigns.
So you have to give them points for creativity in selling this absurdity as an impeachable offense.
All this explains why the Democrats have gathered zero Republican support in the House of Representatives for their impeachment crusade.
In fact, the vote we held was a bipartisan vote against this impeachment inquiry.
Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, and Chairman Nataler, the key figures behind this impeachment crusade, all proclaimed that impeachment is so damaging to the country that it can only proceed with bipartisan support.
Are those declarations suddenly no longer true?
Did impeachment become less divisive?
Of course not.
They know exactly what kind of damage they're inflicting on this nation, but they've passed the point of no return.
The Democrats have zeroed in on an anonymous whistleblower complaint that was cooked up in cooperation with the Democrats on this very committee.
They lied to the American people about that cooperation and refused to let us question the whistleblower to discover the truth.
Meanwhile, the Democrats lash out against anyone who questions or casts doubt on this spectacle.
When Ukrainian President Zelensky denies anything improper happened on the phone call, the Democrats say that he's a liar.
When journalists report on an Ukraine election meddling and Hunter Biden's position on the board of corrupt Ukrainian companies, the Democrats label them conspiracy theorists.
When the Democrats can't get any traction for their allegations of quid pro quo, they move the goalposts and accuse the president of extortion.
then bribery, and at last resort, obstruction of justice.
The American people sent us to Washington to solve problems.
Not to wage scorched earth political warfare against the other party.
This impeachment is not helping the American people.
It's not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars.
And it's definitely not improving our national security.
All right, that was Devin Nunes.
The hearings earlier today, no matter what the mob and the media says, this is what we know Sondland said.
He outlined the epidemic of corruption that is the country of Ukraine in great detail.
He repeated again and again, nobody ever told me that aid was tied to anything.
His opening statement even made clear that President Trump never once discussed a quid pro quo.
And he couldn't be more clear when asked about this very issue.
Yeah, no, I just presume this.
No, I did not hear from the president.
You know, when he was asked, he said in his opening remarks, uh, I was acting good for good faith as a president appointee.
And he said, I want nothing.
The president, when he talked to the president, I want no quid, no pro and no quo.
He had no knowledge, direct knowledge of why aid was withheld, and yet we're still back at the same point.
You know, uh, he comments, well, about why aid was withheld.
I'm just guessing.
Well, guessing isn't real evidence, as we've been pointing out here.
Um, it is amazing that this is where they have now taken us, nor do they care about the security and safety of the American people.
No evidence of a link between security aid and the public statement.
None whatsoever.
Now, there's three separate times that President Trump offered an unconditional White House visit to President Zelensky three times.
Sondland couldn't be any more clear.
The president was not involved in any of this.
He discussed it over and over again today.
Voker the same thing.
Uh all these other people testify the same thing.
They didn't know why there was any hold, but the president was clear in his discussion with Zelinski that the reason is because he you better not be involved with the same people the last president, because that's going to be really bad for you.
Anyway, Bill O'Reilly is with us.
Uh, get his thoughts on this.
Bill O'Reilly.com, his best uh selling book, The United States of Trump, How the President Really Sees America, top bestseller.
How are you, sir?
Um confused.
Very confused today.
Do I need to help you?
Do we do we need to get you a shrink, O'Reilly?
You need to give me more than that.
Uh you know I'm a simple man.
I've always been a simple man.
I'm no no.
You're you're anything but a simple man.
You're a complicated simple man club.
So you're a complicated guy.
I I don't know why I have to watch 36 hours of this.
I I I don't I much rather watch Dr. Phil or Judge Judy.
I'm knocking off all my favorite shows.
So uh I wrote in the United States of Trump, and this is essential for everybody to understand that Donald Trump feels that he is a victim of people who wanted to destroy him and his campaign.
And those people were harbored by the Obama administration.
By the way, is he right?
Well, see, because his Justice Department is investigating that as we speak.
So he feels he's a victim and he's obsessed with writing the wrong he believes was delivered to him.
That's what this is all about.
Nothing more.
So, in the pursuit of exposing the wrong he believes happened to him, he makes a call to the president of Ukraine, Zelinski.
And he says, Do me a favor.
All right, you're the new guy, the new sheriff.
Investigate all of this stuff that I'm hearing is really bad about how Ukraine tried to interfere in the election and how Joe Biden and his son conducted themselves in your country.
Let me know what happened.
He did it.
There's no question, it's in the transcript.
He did it.
But if you look at the context that his thought process is, I have to expose all of this corruption that happened in the 2016 election.
It makes perfect sense, and he's entitled to do it because he's the chief law enforcement officer of America.
He's in charge of the Justice Department.
He's entitled and under the law, and I've just looked it up.
He can't allow foreign aid to flow to a country that he believes or his administration believes is corrupt.
He can't by law do that.
So here's what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain this to me because you're much smarter than I am.
Why does he have a good idea?
But by the way, Bill O'Reilly is being such a wise ass right now.
I'm a simple man.
You're not simple.
Hannity, you're much smarter than I am.
You're so full of crap.
I got 625.
All right.
Well, look.
That means you're three times smarter than me.
Okay.
All right.
So why doesn't he?
And we talked about this last week.
And you tell me why he doesn't do it.
Just go out and say what I just said.
Just listen to the Hannity O'Reilly discourse and say just what I just said because it's absolutely true.
He told me this for the book for the United States of Trump, it's in the book.
That was way before any of this dog and pony show.
Let me read something to you.
What?
So if we go back to the transcript, and by the way, there are two transcripts, and now we have three separate invitations with no conditions of the president inviting Zelensky to the White House.
But if you go back to the original transcript, which you know, all these people are commenting on, President Trump, in the very paragraph where he said, you know, I'd like you to do us a favor, you know, because our country has been through a lot.
Ukraine knows a lot about it, and they we now know they were involved up to their eyeballs, but then he says, I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
I would right.
And that is that is the reason enough to hold up aid to see what's going to happen.
So why not explain all this?
Why do I have to look at the lieutenant colonel up there and I have to look at some woman who knew somebody and heard an overcall?
Why do I have to listen to this?
Just go out, you're the president, look into the camera, and explain what happened, and that's it.
You know, if he did that, that would undercut all of this bull.
It would make it it wouldn't make it go away because Schiff and Pelosi are never going to stop until the Senate uh says, no, we're not going to remove a president uh because it's your opinion.
He tried to do this for self-gain, but there's enough evidence that says this was perfectly legitimate line.
And by the way, I'm not little boep thinking that Donald Trump didn't want to get dirt on Joe Biden.
He did.
But did he use the power of his office to do some corrupt thing to get that?
No.
He asked for a favor, a favor.
And the favor was in context of an investigation that is going on now in the Justice Department.
If he would just do this, I'm telling you, this whole thing would evaporate.
Let me point out two things that I've been telling the audience all day.
There was a court decision bill in Ukraine.
Actually, even the New York Times wrote about it.
That their headline was Ukraine court rules Manafort disclosure cause, quote, meddling in U.S. election.
The court in Ukraine, in a statement that they issued at the time, they had the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and they released the information.
Um, and they said that the violation resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damage the national interests of Ukraine.
Stay with me one second.
Politico, January 11, 2017.
Headline, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kiev officials scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump was not the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump by publicly quite questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election.
Then it goes on to talk about Alexander Chalupa, Ukrainian American, who met with top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in quote, an effort to expose ties between Trump and a top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact on the 2016 race, having forced Manafort's resignation.
So the president is saying, because I thought Democrats cared, Bill, about foreign election interference, a Ukrainian court and politico admitted it all happened, and we know it happened.
Yeah, it happened.
Look, this is so complicated that no American outside of the people like you and me who are paid to do this can follow it.
Nobody can follow it.
I just want to break it down.
There's no doubt Ukraine tried to help Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump angry about that.
Donald Trump wants that exposed.
And if Joe Biden was a part of that, which he could have been, he wants that exposed.
He has a right to withhold any foreign aid if he believes the country is corrupt.
He asked Zelinski to please investigate what happened, all right, and then tell the world.
By the way, that's the right thing.
That's the right thing to do, but stay there.
All very rational.
Trump's a deal maker.
This is what he does.
All right.
Hang on one second, Bill.
We'll take a break.
When we come back, where does Bill O'Reilly think this is all gonna end up?
And uh we have a little announcement.
Bill has his big speech, and I'm gonna be uh there, and I get to introduce him.
It's gonna be fun.
All right, our final moment with uh Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly.com is uh book is everywhere, the United States of Trump, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
All right, one we're gonna appear together.
I've agreed to introduce you in Huntington, Long Island.
Um it's in December.
Number one.
And number two, where do you think this is gonna go?
All right, I'll get to the speech at the end.
Shev is gonna uh file articles of impeachment, given the Nadler.
Uh it's gonna be a bribery charge, abuse of power.
Then it goes to the Senate.
The Senate will acquit.
Uh, I don't know how long it'll take.
The turtle, as you call him, Senator McConnell has is already knows what he's gonna do, but he's not gonna tip his hand.
He'll go, oh, yeah, yeah, we'll give it a f an airing, but it's not gonna lead to the removal of the president.
As for you introducing me, I am uh setting myself up for the biggest fall of my career.
Oh, seriously.
Hannity unchained can say whatever he wants about me.
No, I'm staying out there.
I'm gonna probably I'm gonna end up talking for an hour.
You know me.
I'm not gonna shut up.
But what do you think?
Do you think I'm actually gonna say something bad about you?
You invited me to your event.
Yeah, and I'm coming.
The place is sold out.
All right, Bill O'Reilly, uh, Bill O'Reilly.com.
Uh it's December 15th.
I'd offer you tickets, but it's sold out.
Uh, I'm gonna introduce Bill, but I'm also gonna do a little song and dance before I introduce him.
Uh and uh Bill, great to have you.
Thanks for being with us.
Thank you, Sean.
All right, 800 941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
I know many of you want to weigh in on all of this madness.
That is next as we continue.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Uh, let's go back to where we started the program today.
Because Democrats, amazing moments with this guy, Sonlin today.
And we got him.
We got the president.
This is amazing.
Oh my gosh.
Well, unfortunately, Congressman uh Turner, who was amazing today, and Congressman Jim Jordan, who is amazing today, they blew the entire narrative out of the water, which should end the entire witch hunt, which should end the madness.
But it's not going to because they're that corrupt.
They're that dishonest.
Coupled with, of course, you know, little side note, the unbelievable statements now, the little preview we're getting from Michael Horowitz as it relates to Peter Strzok, the FBI, their vetting of informants like Christopher Steele, basically saying that, yeah, Hannity was right.
That they they they used the bulk of information from a guy that was corrupt that had an agenda that gave you literally unverifiable material, and you used it to spy on a presidential candidate transition team and president.
Well, let's go back to where we started.
Michael Turner, Jim Jordan, it ended today.
No matter what this was their day, and it it is like an atom bomb dropped in that room today.
After you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony.
And if you pull up CNN today, right now their banner says Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid.
Is that your testimony today, Mr. Master Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to aid?
Because I don't think you're saying that.
I've said repeatedly, Congressman.
I was presuming I also said that President Trump.
So no one's heard not just the President Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you, nobody, the Pompeo didn't tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations.
Is that correct?
I think I already testified.
No, answer the question.
Is it correct?
No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations.
Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong.
No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Yes or no?
Yes.
So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Other than my own presumption.
Which is nothing.
I mean, that's what I don't understand.
So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador.
Here say is when I testify what someone else told me.
Do you know what made-up testimony is?
Made up testimony is when I just presume it.
I mean, you're just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences, and CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations, and you don't know that, correct?
I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
Nope, but you did.
You have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not.
You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations.
I yield back.
Ambassador, when did it happen?
When did what happened?
The announcement.
When did President Zelensky announce that the investigation was going to happen on page 14?
You said this.
Was there a quid pro quote today's open your opening statement?
As I testified previously, with regards to the quest requested White House call White House meeting, the answer is yes, that they needed to be a public statement from President Zelensky.
When the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars, you said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelinski.
So I'm asking you a simple question.
When did that happen?
Never did.
Never did.
They got the call July 25th.
They got the meeting, not in the White House, but in New York on September 25th.
They got the money on September 11th.
When did the meeting happen again?
Never did.
You don't know who was in the meeting?
Which meeting are you referring to?
The meeting that never happened.
Who was in it?
You know how people know how Zelensky announced it?
Did he tweet it?
Did he do a press statement?
Did he do a press conference?
You know how that happened?
I mean, you you got all three of them wrong.
They get the call, they get the meeting, they get the money.
It's not two plus two, it's oh for three.
I mean, I I've never seen anything like this.
And you told Mr. Castor that the president never told you that the announcement had to happen to get anything.
In fact, he didn't just not tell you that.
He explicitly said the opposite.
This blew everything out of the water today.
And you know, when I was listening, I gotta tell you, Mike Turner, who he will be with us on Hannity tonight.
One of the most spectacular moments I have ever seen.
Happen in a Washington hearing.
And and followed up by Jim Jordan.
Okay, when did they make the announcement?
When did they make the announcement meeting?
When did they say they were going to investigate election interference and Barisma and Hunter and Joe?
That never happened either.
And the point is they got the money.
That means there was no quid, there was no quo, and there was no pro.
There is one with Joe.
It never happened.
The four facts never change, do they?
as Jordan always says, we are at a moment, a precipice in time, where you have to suspend all intellectual thought, honesty, fundamental fairness, objectivity, and you have to be willing to go along with, we'll forget Joe Biden and Hunter, the real quid pro quo, That's all proven.
It's all available, all the evidence.
And you have to infer that something happened here that didn't happen but was way below the level of what we know happened with them.
No reason, no common sense.
Bifurcate your brain.
Cut off all connection to objective truth.
Compartmentalize all of this and justify it because of a rage and a hatred for Donald Trump.
This is a spectacular moment that has been captured today.
It's spectacular.
It was like, you know, you're reading this, you're hearing this, the innuendo, the thought.
I piece together, hearsay.
Yeah, I talked to the president.
Oh no, he never did it.
No, no, no.
He said just and then he goes on to explain again and again.
Oh, no, no.
The president was clear that he didn't want to quit pro quote.
How many times does he have to say this?
And then you got the what did I say?
Corrupt, compromised, coward, and congenital liar racing out in the middle of the hearings to the cameras.
We got him.
Fake news CNN and MBC and ABC, the all of them doing the same thing.
We are, this is this is beyond now any, you know, journalism being dead.
No, it's we've got we've got activism, propaganda.
Very, very it's actually frightening that you can have so many people buy into a lie.
The lie is the truth, the truth is a lie.
Because that's the spectacular level of hypocrisy that you've got to absorb to do this.
You've got to, you've you've got to literally, you you just I I assume you can't look at yourself with the mirror and be honest.
Because if you're honest, you're gonna say, yeah, Joe, quid pro and quo.
Zero experience, hunter paid millions.
There it is.
Fire him, you got a billion.
You don't fire him, you don't get a billion.
And here you have their number one witness, the only guy up to this point that wasn't assuming that wasn't basing their comments off a transcript.
That was, you know, their opinions, hearsay.
The first guy, I actually talked to Trump.
Yeah, he's he was very clear.
No quid, no pro, no quo.
Yeah, no.
What Schiff said is a lie.
That's not true.
None of that is true because Chip was saying that you're testifying that you're tying Donald Trump to aid.
Well, I was just presuming that.
I nobody, nobody told you, Donald Trump didn't tell you, Mick Mulvaney didn't tell you.
Secretary Pompeo didn't tell you that any aid is tied to the actions.
Yeah, nobody said that ever.
So you got a chairman, congenital liar lying to the American people.
And you got a news media that are their accomplices.
That's what we proved today on a spectacular level.
Maybe I should be happy, not happy to see this happening to this country.
No, I'm not.
Anyway, uh, let's get to our phones here.
You've been very patient.
I know a lot of you have uh just yeah, your blood is boiling like I am.
Mine is.
Greg in South Dakota.
Greg, how are you?
We're glad you called.
Thank you, Sean.
You have to put you in a mindset of a Democrat and things like them, and that just disgusts me to drop to that level.
But I think I see this ultimate end game that they're after.
They want Trump.
They want pimps.
And then they delegitimize his whole his whole presidency, and they want the Supreme Court justices removed, and all federal appointments that he has made.
Ultimately, that's where they're headed.
Have they done anything to help our safety and security?
Have they done anything to help our economy, create jobs, create prosperity for the American people?
No.
I'm a farmer.
I'm a farmer out here, Sean.
I'm sitting in my tractor right now.
I shut it down to talk to you.
By the way, is that true?
Well, in your track, what do you farm?
I'm corn and soybean farmer in South Dakota.
Now you're probably not going to believe what's about to come out of my mouth and what I'm about to say.
You know what I you know what I wish many days?
I wish I was you.
Everyone thinks being on TV and radio is so much fun.
You know what?
I this is such madness that I'm immersed in every day.
I think I'd rather do what you do every day in the peace in God's country.
That's what I feel like doing right now.
I'm sitting out here and I can look for miles.
And I see very little going on around me.
But you know what?
you know what you do?
You feed all of us.
Thank you.
Every farmer that works his ass off feeds all of us.
Thank you for your hard work.
Because it's not easy.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
President Trump has done more for the farmers.
President Trump, how many speeches I've listened to him give?
And he starts off talking about the farmers.
Other presidents, maybe, maybe, maybe 30 minutes down the speech, we'll give you one sentence, and then you're forgotten about.
Not with President Trump.
I'll never leave the man.
Never.
And there's a lot of people out here, majority, big time majority, are the same way.
Yeah, have we been pinched?
You bet.
But President Trump has done some things with the tariff money to help us farmers out.
And we don't forget those things.
You know what?
Thank you for what you do every day.
Every farmer in this country feeds us.
And you know, I know we go to our grocery store, we just pick out this and we pick out that, but a lot of hard work goes into that, sir.
Thank you for what you do.
Amazing.
Wisconsin, Eric, Sean Hannity Show.
Hi.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for taking the call.
Um I mean, this inquiry isn't it's a joke right now.
Um, and what I've been trying to understand the past couple days is what is a Democrats' end game here?
Because right now they kind of can control the process.
But Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to kick this over to the Senate, which they have the votes to do so.
What's what's the end game?
Because now you open up Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff to potentially have to testify.
I listen, I love the other side of this, just like, you know, I mean, we've been on in a way we're on defense for these many weeks, but the Horowitz thing is going to put us on offense, number one, and the Senate is not going to allow hearsay, and your opinions don't matter.
Facts matter, truth matters.
Uh, the rule of law matters.
The Sixth Amendment matters.
Yeah, the circus will end in the Senate.
And I just hope that in 349 days, and you can help me out, Eric, because you're in a state that Donald Trump desperately needs to win.
Yeah, I'm just I hope in 349 days every Green Bay Packers supporters out there supporting the president.
Well, yeah, I mean, the other thing too is is what how can they risk so if Joe Biden's called to test to testify, he's off the campaign trail.
What happens to Warren?
What happens to Harris?
What happens to you know Sanders?
Well, I can tell you what I think is going on.
You really want to know what I think?
I think that the Obama machine has determined that Joe Biden can't cut it.
Warren and Sanders aren't going to cut it, and Buddha judge, who's in the lead now in Iowa, New Hampshire, can't cut it.
So they're now Axelrod, Obama's comments that the two extreme this weekend is all planned out.
I think their plan is to hope and pray that they can push Dall Patrick into that position.
That's what I think is really going on.
I'll be in the thick of it in Milwaukee for the circus DNC next year.
So I'll be there.
I'll be there.
How's Aaron Rodgers doing?
All right.
Yeah, he's hanging in there.
Are you an owner of the team like everybody else in Wisconsin?
No, not me.
Not one of the thousands, unfortunately.
Well, thank you for your call.
All the best, sir.
Democrats get blown up at the hearings.
We've got all the coverage, the mob and the media will never tell you.
Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Turner was a rock star.
Mark Meadows, who's been unbelievable.
Alan Dershowitz, Matt Schlap, Greg uh Jarrett, uh, John Solomon, and much more.
Nine Eastern Hannity, Fox News.
Hope you'll join us.
The news, the information, the mob and the media will never give you.
We'll see you tonight at 9 back here tomorrow.
9 back here tomorrow.
What smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
Now I'm Carol Markovich.
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 podcast.
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.
