Carter Page, former Trump policy advisor discusses the ridiculous charade today being put on by nutty Nadler and his merry minions. It’s completely defamatory, wrought with lies and fabricated information to further a narrative that has no legs. Carter has been a victim of these lies for over 2 years now, and is fighting back. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Oh, wow.
We're missing Louie Gomert.
He just stepped up to the plate.
Let's dip into Louie.
We love Louie Gomert.
Let's see what he says.
They are absolutely disputed, and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know you can't rely on hearsay on hearsay, but we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages.
So here we are, and I would submit we need some factual witnesses.
We do not need to receive a report that we don't have a chance to read before this hearing.
We need a chance to bring in actual fact witnesses.
And there are a couple I can name that are critical to us getting to the bottom.
They work for the National Security Council, Abigail Grace, Sean Misco.
They were involved in the U.S.-Ukraine affairs.
And they worked with Vice President Biden on different matters involving the Ukraine.
They worked with Brennan and Masters.
They have absolutely critical information about circumstances.
All right, let me just, you know, I was going to start the show off and say there's really two breakout stars in all of this.
And honestly, with full respect, the Republicans, they've just been better than they have been in the past.
And I don't know if there's something that has shifted in the House because if you know, I've been so critical over these many years over Republicans and their weakness and their fecklessness and their inability to get things done.
And they're all part of the swamp and they're afraid of their own shadow and no spine and no backbone.
And I don't know, maybe, look, Kevin McCarthy was a very interesting sign when he moved over Jim Jordan over to the shift show to let Jim Jordan do what he does best.
And he played a powerful role there.
So something has changed.
Every Republican on the same page.
I'd even expect that Mitch McConnell behind the scenes is really probably in Mitt Romney's grill saying, you know something?
There's nothing here.
Are you going to let your rage and hatred of all things Trump get in the way of constitutional order?
Because that's what this all comes down to.
Now, the stars that broke out, I'll give Louie now honorable mention here because we love Louie, but and he deserves it, are definitely two people.
And that would be Doug Collins.
By the way, Governor Kemp of Georgia, did you see Doug Collins today?
Did you watch any of it today?
Because I know you've been telling everybody to trust you, that the person that was donating $750,000 to Mitt Romney and donating monies to John McCain and involved with groups that aren't conservative.
And I even saw a picture.
I don't know if it's true.
Is that picture legit?
That she was with Stacey Abrams when she was being honored at an Atlanta Hawk, at an Atlanta basketball game.
Steve Holman, my own, I think it might have been the Hawks game.
I don't know.
But anyway, so I mean, you got to be kidding me.
Not proving anything.
You got a rock star in your midst where you have no need for any explanation or no need for trust me.
No, no, no, this person will be conservative.
Trust me.
Worst words of the English language.
I'm here from the government.
I'm here to help you.
I don't want your help.
So it was a stark contrast.
And in Georgia, this hit home today because he has been Doug Collins, a rising star in Republican ranks.
If it wasn't for Doug Collins, he single-handedly was releasing the transcripts of all these interviews and nobody else had the courage to do it.
Nobody else did.
And I'd actually say that Doug Collins is this impressive to me.
And I was there emceeing Cobb Galleria the night Newt Gingrich became speaker, his event.
And Bob Barr's event was right next door.
It was all together, a huge crowd, big night, big Republican.
First time in 40 years, Republicans take over the House of Representatives, led by Newt Gingrich.
It all started with renewing American civilization, a bunch of tapes, and then going out there, getting better candidates to run and getting people motivated.
Contract with America.
They kept the contract.
They kept the promises.
It's amazing what happens when you keep promises and you serve people because they're supposed to be public servants.
I'd say since Newt, I'm looking at Doug Collins as probably the boldest and boldest conservative leader that has emerged in Georgia.
That's why it was a no-brainer for Governor Kemp.
I have friends in Georgia.
They are so ticked off today.
They are beyond angry.
Linda printed out some of the Facebook page comments on the governor's Facebook site.
I'm reading it.
I'm like, holy moly, does this guy pay any?
Does he care at all?
There are considerations of, oh, well, this woman can be Kelly Lawthorff a self-funder down the road.
That means more money for the rest of us.
Like, why would that ever be a consideration?
How about serving the people that put you in office?
And by the way, that didn't even mean serving Trump.
No, the voters are at the top of the pyramid and you're at the bottom of the pyramid.
You're the base of the pyramid.
You're supposed to serve them.
You're their representative.
But apparently, it doesn't matter.
Anyway, I digress.
But the other real Star.
I've known Jonathan Turley now for many, many, many years.
As he pointed out, he voted for Clinton.
As he pointed out, he voted for Obama.
He didn't vote for Trump.
He voted for Hillary.
And you look at the, the others are such partisans.
I'll get into that in a minute.
But the two stars emerging today are Jonathan Turley and Doug Collins.
And the reason I start with this today is because, you know, in the midst of madness and insanity, and this is the culmination of three years of psychotic rage and a disconnect from reality and an inability to accept the results that duly elected a president of the United States,
that you would sink to this depth of depravity because none of this is good for our country.
What they're doing and what they have been doing, it's hurting the country.
President's still out doing his job.
He's out working.
Just take it on Macron, take it on, you know, our NATO allies.
Hey, pay your fair share.
Trudeau thinks he's cute.
Oh, 40 minutes.
And he says he's two-faced because what I've heard, sources tell me Trudeau kisses up to the president every time behind closed doors, then hides it in public.
Pretty amazing.
Let's start with Jonathan Turley.
Everyone's mad.
I mean, he had so many good lines.
It's kind of hard to go through them all.
But, you know, as he points out repeatedly in all of this, that this should all transcend all politics.
This should transcend politics.
He goes, I'm not a supporter of Trump.
I voted against him.
He said there's no evidence Trump committed any crime.
You guys are saying that he's obstructing justice because he's seeking remedy in the court on the issue of executive privilege.
No, that would be what the role of the judiciary is about, which is to settle disputes when they exist between the executive branch and the legislative branch.
That's where the judicial branch comes into play.
I mean, he goes, you are abusing power by saying that is obstructing the justice of any kind.
Anyway, let's go to some of the highlights.
Everyone's mad is one of my favorites.
We are living in the very period described by Alexander Hamilton, a period of agitated passions.
I get it.
You're mad.
The president's mad.
My Republican friends are mad.
My Democratic friends are mad.
My wife is mad.
My kids are mad.
Even my dog seems mad.
And Loon is a golden doodle and they don't get mad.
So we're all mad.
Where has that taken us?
Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad?
Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration?
That is why this is wrong.
It's not wrong because President Trump is right.
His call was anything but perfect.
It's not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy.
It's not wrong because we're in an election year.
There is no good time for an impeachment.
No, it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.
This case is not a case of the unknowable.
It's a case of the peripheral.
We have a record of conflicts, defenses that have not been fully considered, unsuppoened witness with material evidence.
To impeach a president on this record would expose everything to the state.
I'm going to interrupt Jonathan Turley and let's go live to Jim Jordan, rock star that he is.
He's on a tear.
Constitutional?
Seems a little backward to me.
I mean, we can't get agreement.
I mean, we got four Democrats or four people who voted for Clinton, and they can't agree.
Yet today, we're talking about the Constitution.
Now, Professor Turley, you've been great today, but I think you were wrong on one thing.
You said this is a fast impeachment.
I would argue it's not a fast impeachment.
It's a predetermined impeachment.
Predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair, partisan fashion we have ever seen.
No subpoena power for Republicans.
Depositions done in secret in the bunker in the basement of the Capitol.
17 people come in for those depositions.
No one can be in there except a handful of folks that Adam Schiff allowed in those depositions.
Chairman Schiff prevented witnesses from answering Republican questions.
Every Democrat question got answered.
Not every Republican question.
Democrats denied Republicans the witnesses we wanted in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago.
And of course, Democrats promised us the whistleblower would testify and then change their mind.
And they changed their mind.
Why?
Because the whole world discovered that Adam Schiff's staff had talked to the whistleblower, coordinated with the whistleblower.
The whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, bias against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, whose lawyer in January of 17 said the impeachment process starts then.
That's the unfair process we've been through.
And the reason it's been unfair, let me just cut to the chase.
The reason it's been unfair is because the facts aren't on their side.
The facts are on the president's side.
Four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change.
We have the transcript.
There was no quid pro quo in the transcript.
The two guys on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky, both said no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo.
The Ukrainians third didn't know that the aid was held up at the time of the phone call.
And fourth, and most important, the Ukrainians never started, never promised to start, and never announced an investigation in the time that the aid was paused.
Never once.
But you know what did happen in those 55 days that the aid was paused?
There were five key meetings between President Zelensky and senior officials in our government.
Five key meetings.
We had the call on July 25th, very next day, July 26th.
We had Ambassador Bolker, Taylor, and Sondland meet with President Zelensky in Kiev.
We then had Ambassador Bolton, end of August, meet with President Zelensky.
We then had the vice president meet with President Zelensky on September 1st, and we had two senators, Republican and more importantly, Democrat Senator Murphy with Republican Senator Johnson meet with President Zelensky on September 5th.
None of those five meetings, none of those five meetings, was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into anybody.
Not one of them.
And you would think the last two, after the Ukrainians did know the aid was being held, you would think it would come up then, particularly the one where you got Senator Murphy, the Democrat, there talking about it.
Never came up.
The facts are on the president's side.
But we got an unfair process because they don't have the facts.
We got an unfair process.
Most importantly, and this gets to something else you said, Mr. Turley.
And this is scary.
How mad the country.
That was so well said.
This is scary.
The Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people.
To Mr. Turley's point, 17 days ago, 17 days ago, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
All right, I'm going to interrupt here.
We're going to pause it on our end.
We can actually do this and pick it up on the other side of this.
This is powerful stuff.
That was Jim Jordan.
That was all live.
We'll get back to that.
Jonathan Turley, great article by Greg Jarrett on all of this today.
We'll get Bill O'Reilly and Carter Pages take.
Also preview the Pfizer report due Monday.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, the big star of the day, Jim Jordan.
Let's pick it up right where we left off.
Amazing.
Wow, monologue.
Listen to this.
Portland, this gets to something else you said, Mr. Turley.
and this is scary, how mad the country, that was so well said.
This is scary.
The Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people.
To Mr. Turley's point, 17 days ago, 17 days ago, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives called the President of the United States an imposter.
The guy 63 million Americans voted for who won an electoral college landslide, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives called that individual an imposter.
That is not healthy for our country.
This is not healthy.
The facts are the facts.
They are on the president's side.
That's what we need to focus on, not some constitutional hearing at the end of the process when you guys have already determined where you're going to go.
With that, I yield back.
Jim Jordan will be on Hannity tonight.
I mean, you just can't say it any better.
Now, look, Jonathan Turley, you know, made a lot of good points in all of this.
By the way, I'm going to tell you how sick this has even gotten.
And then I'll get into when we get back up the three extremists that hate Trump that they brought in as if we want their opinion.
We already know their opinion.
They've already predetermined their impeachment, as Jordan said.
You actually had this professor, liberal professor Carlin say, I'll give you one example that shows the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility.
So while the president can name his son Baron, he can't make him a Baron.
You got to attack a 13-year-old kid.
That's how sick and low this has gotten.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down, a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What comparisons, Professor Carlin, can we make between kings that the framers were afraid of and the president's conduct today?
So kings could do no wrong because the king's word was law.
And contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants.
And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility.
So while the president can name his son Baron, he can't make him a Baron.
Wow.
Professor Carlin, one of the three.
Yeah, by the way, you know, besides Jonathan Turley, who's a Democrat that didn't vote for Trump either.
He voted for Clinton, Obama, and Hillary.
This is a woman now that we now have records.
She's been donating to socialist leftist extremist Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren.
She started raising the prospect of impeachment back in 2016.
You know, it claimed the election was illegitimate, stolen by the Russians in 2017.
We got like Area 51 Roswell, Rachel, Maddow conspiracies right there testifying before Congress, their opinions, just like the shift show.
It was nothing but opinions and hearsay and hearsay and more hearsay.
And the only one fact witness that talked to the president, the only one that wasn't hearsay or wasn't opinion, although he had a ton of opinions, a lot of conjecture, a lot of, I guess, I don't know, I thought, I think, two and two and four and four is the guy that said, yeah, what did you ask the president about it?
Yeah.
What did he say?
What do you want?
Nothing.
Nothing.
No quid, no pro or quo.
And Jim Jordan follows up.
Okay, when did the Ukrainians make the announcement?
You just heard Jim Jordan go through his list.
Four facts that never change in this whole thing.
No aid was discussed on that call ever.
Not one bit of aid was ever discussed on that phone call with President Zelensky.
Know what?
Both sides deny a quid pro quo or any pressure.
Zelensky did it again this weekend.
He didn't even know the aid was being withheld.
And he never did a thing.
Jordan goes to Sutland.
Well, when did they make the announcement?
What an announcement?
That they were doing all these things the president was demanding.
They never made an announcement.
They never did it.
No, they never did it.
But they got the money.
That's how those are the facts that never change.
And he keeps saying it over and over and over again because he's right.
And he pointed out rightly.
So five key meetings after the call, five of them.
Not one of them did they ever say aid was contingent on anything.
President was clear in the call.
I'm worried who you're hanging out with.
I'm worried these guys you're hanging out with.
But now we're going to attack a 13-year-old son of the president just to make a cheap political point by somebody who's wanted to impeach him.
This is not, this, this is a witch hunt.
Exactly what we've been saying.
And only the latest in a long line in impeachment coup attempts by do-nothing, zero-nothing Democrats.
You know, your witness list.
What do you all you've got here are Trump critics, one after another.
That's it.
You summon Noah Feldman, Havid, law school professor.
Why didn't you bring in Dershowitz?
Because they don't, they know Dershowitz isn't going to say what they want.
He's among the first people to suggest Trump was trying to bribe Ukrainian government officials.
But by the way, not Joe Biden, not Biden, who's on tape.
You're not getting the billion.
I know, Linda, just you got to bear with me.
I can't take it.
It's this is everything they're claiming Trump did, Biden did, and nothing Trump did.
That's the bifurcated, sick, twisted level of hypocrisy.
I'm trying to tell you, that's what you have to do to your brain to be a hypocritical psycho-democrat or part of the media mob.
You know, Democrats, you know, they've adopted the term when it was Feldman who started the whole thing.
What makes Trump's alleged conduct so terrible is not that he froze aid to Ukraine for a policy purpose, is that, you know, the alleged con by the way, the president invited Zelensky three times with no conditions.
Nobody pays attention to that either.
You know, then you've got Stanford professor, the Warren supporter, Pamela Carlin, former Obama Justice Department official.
Wow.
Of course, you're going to bring her 42 legal scholars who signed a letter before Trump took office urging him to change his views on a number of issues.
Oh, they've hated all of it.
We sincerely hope you will take your constitutional oath seriously.
So far, you've offered little indication you will.
You got a third guy, Michael Gerhart, University of North Carolina law school professor, writing in the Atlantic.
The impeachments are fully legitimate.
So let's bring in everybody that hates Trump.
Let's stack the deck.
And I really didn't put it or think about it the way that Jim Jordan just laid it out.
But yeah, Professor, he's right when he says this, this was all predetermined.
There's no fundamental fairness.
Never has been.
It never will be in this.
They never wanted it to be in this.
That's not who they are.
That's not what they wanted at any point.
Norm Elson, the lawyer hired by Nadler for the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee that's questioning the quote hate Trump witnesses for their opinions.
Okay, this guy, that lawyer working for Nadler, tweeted his support in 2016 for the anti-Trump movement.
Get this.
Viva La Resistance 2016, December, tweeted a joke about impeaching the president.
He hadn't taken office yet.
Also, December 2016, tweeting, ramping up to coordinate massive pushback against Trump before he's even taken office.
January 20th, the day of the president's inauguration, let the battle begin.
That's the lawyer that you're hearing from here.
It doesn't fit the bill as someone that is interested in any truth, does it?
You know, you got a former Obama White House official, a CNN pundit.
They're leading the charge here.
Eason, by the way, worked with this crazy organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and Washington crew before going to join Obama.
Breitbart pointed out in 2011, Andrew Breitbart, that he was serving as the ethics czar.
In that capacity, he opened up White House visitor logs to the public.
White House would not confirm the identities of the people on the logs, leading Breitbart to mock the logs as a guest list.
Which is pretty funny.
But nothing but a Trump hater from the start.
Big supporter, Russia-Russia collusion, collusion, collusion.
By the way, they're all saying that, oh, Republicans are buying into a conspiracy theory.
They're saying Russia didn't do it.
Ukraine did.
No, we're not saying, I don't know anybody that's saying that.
Maybe some are.
I've always said Russia is a hostile regime.
Putin is a hostile actor.
Yeah, they've been, Devin Nunes was warning everybody in 2014.
They do it in 2016.
We all know that this is what they do.
They've done it forever, going back to the Soviet Union days.
But that's separate and apart from what we now know about Ukraine.
If you believe the Ukrainian court, don't believe Sean Hannity.
I've read it to you many times.
Or the January 11, 2017 Politico article that talks about, yep, DNC contractor operative meeting at the Ukrainian embassy, Alexandra Chalupa, for the purpose they say.
We got Seanette, who's Politico.
For the purpose, they say, of what?
They wanted to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort to help Hillary.
You could have, by the way, I wouldn't be surprised if others interfered in 2016's election.
I've heard a lot of interesting things that I'd like to get answers to.
But Russia, yeah, they did it.
Ukraine, they tried to help Hillary.
According to Politico in a Ukrainian court, want to quit in a pro and a quo, you got it.
You know, you got this, you know, Noah Feldman.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
He already expressed his opinions on this.
He already knows that he supports his standard for impeachment.
It was hilarious.
He's called for impeachment when the president took an action, made a statement that he disapproved of, and he did it less than two months after the inauguration.
Feldman was already arguing for impeachment over a tweet by the president.
Over a tweet?
Misconduct.
The only constitutional response for the tweet would be impeachment.
Okay, we're impeaching the president for tweeting, though we had freedom of speech and pardoning Joe Arpaio.
That action would amount to an impeachable offense.
Everyone, they've been saying impeachment as we've played forever and ever and ever.
And this is what they, this is who they are.
These are their experts.
This is their team.
Then you got this guy, Gerhardt.
He spent decades in partisan politics also.
Special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Democrats during confirmations of the president.
Oh, he was there for the Kavanaugh hearings.
Oh, I should have known that.
Working for Diane Feinstein.
Counsel to Pat Leahy.
He's been around for a while.
Deputy Media Director Al Gore's Senate campaign on the Clinton transition team.
He's a hardcore leftist.
Spent a lot of years being a hardcore leftist politician.
He's also previously warned Democrats against rushing to impeachment.
Yeah, he said noting the process should be meticulous and slow.
Well, that's not what we're getting here.
That's not what it's designed to be here.
That's the whole point of it all.
They want this president.
Now we'll say he's not a baron and call his son Baron, but he's not a baron.
Wow.
That's pretty sick.
Invoking the president's child as part of your rage against a duly elected president.
You know, legal scholar, no, committed progressives.
That's who they are.
This is what they do.
This has been what they've wanted to do from the beginning, and they're now doing it.
And they've now gone to the, it doesn't matter what the four facts that Jim Jordan always talks about that never change mean.
Doesn't matter that five meetings after the call, not one of them mentioned aid.
Didn't matter that aid was never mentioned in the call.
Didn't matter that the president was very skeptical of who the new president was hanging around with.
You know, you're hanging around a lot of the bad guys in the last administration.
Doesn't look good.
I don't know what you're doing there, which would be a legitimate reason.
There's not one bit of evidence at all, just the opposite, you know, in terms of impeaching this president.
There's no legitimate reason, which, by the way, and we'll get into this, we have Greg Jarrett at the top of the hour, Carter Page in the next hour, Bill O'Reilly also coming up today.
But John Solomon, he's come up with what we can expect Monday.
Reporting has been pretty dead on accurate.
We are going to get specific examples, he says, identifying up to a dozen specific failures and acts of misconduct, serious offenses like, oh, altering government documents, failure to provide the court's evidence and information as required under the FISA process, then exculpatory evidence withheld.
In other words, did the FBI fail to tell the FISA judges, which is required, about the evidence of innocence concerning some of the Americans it targeted, which has been raised for a long time by Mark Meadows, Devin Nunes, and the IG, are they going to identify exculpatory statements?
Let's see that they held back on George Papadopoulos, which we've all talked about.
What about the derogatory information about Christopher Steele?
Because the FBI stated to the court in a footnote that it was unaware of any derogatory information about the former MI6 agent it was using as confidential human source number one in the Russia case.
Now we know, remember Grassley Graham memo, Nunes memo saying bulk of information they used, and Andrew McCabe said no FISA warrant without the dirty dossier.
We now know the dirty dossier was unverifiable.
They never even tried to do it.
Anyway, this idea that this guy, they were unaware of derogatory information is going to be proven false.
And they were given multiple warnings.
Don't trust Steele.
Hillary paid for it.
It's not verified.
They did it anyway.
That's where the premeditated fraud on the FISA court comes in.
You know, you have, once this all comes out and then it gets into the hands of Durham, watch out.
Arowitz can't convene a grand jury.
Durham can.
Now he can, you know, make referrals.
He's referred Comey and McCabe.
Lack of candor, lying.
Both of them lying.
Nothing's happened, but Durham can charge them.
I'd be shocked if that is not the case at the end of this process when we get to the very end here.
But British government apparently told the FBI and our government about Steele and his reliance on questionable sub-sources.
Bruce Orr testified that he suspected Steele's intelligence was raw, needed vetting, and he warned everybody.
That's where the premeditation comes in.
Kathleen Kavlik at the State Department warned them 10 days before they issued the first FISA application.
That would be premeditated fraud on a court.
Also leaking to the news media and saying, yeah, well, we'll leak the dossier.
You report it.
We'll say circular reporting that's independent.
That's where hacks like and conspiracy theorists, you know, come into play.
Michael Izakoff among them.
Verification under the Woods procedure.
I mean, this is going to be, it's going to be a big deal.
You got James Comey testifying under oath.
Steele dossier was salacious and unverified.
He told the president-elect in January of 2017.
And he yet signed in October of 2016 that it was verified because he signed the FISA application.
Homie shared all of that.
It's all coming out as it should.
This is going to get very interesting.
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.
We can be theoretical all we want, but the American people is really going to look at this and say, huh?
What are we doing?
Because there's no fact witnesses planned for this committee.
That's an interesting thing.
Frankly, there's no plan at all except next week an ambiguous hearing on the presentation from the hipsy, the other committee that sent us the report and judiciary committee, which I'm not still sure what they want us to present on, and nothing else.
No plan.
I asked the chairman before we left for Thanksgiving to stay in touch.
Let's talk about what we have because history will shine a bright light on us starting this morning.
Crickets.
Until I asked for a witness the other day, and let's just say that didn't go well.
There's no whistleblower.
And by the way, it was proved today that he's not or she's not afforded the protection of identity.
It's not in the statute.
It's just something that was discussed by Adam Schiff.
We also don't have Adam Schiff who wrote the report.
He said yesterday in a press conference, I'm not going to.
I'll send staff to do that.
He's not going to, but you know, to me, if he was wanting to, he'd come begging to us.
But you know, here's the problem.
It sums it up very simply like this.
Just 19 minutes afternoon on Inauguration Day 2017, the Washington Post ran the headline, the campaign to impeach the president has begun.
Mark Zad, who would later become the attorney for the infamous whistleblower, tweeted in January 2017, the coup has started.
The impeachment will follow ultimately.
And in May of this year, Al Green says if we don't impeach the president, he'll get re-efflected.
If you want to know what's happening, here we go.
Why did everything that I say up to this point about no fact witnesses nothing for the Judiciary Committee, which spent two and a half weeks before this hearing was even held under Clinton?
Two and a half weeks.
We didn't even find your names out until less than 48 hours ago.
I don't know what we're playing hide the ball on.
It's pretty easy what you're going to say.
But we can't even get that straight.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I have a motion under clause two, Rule 11.
The gentleman.
The gentleman was recognized for the purpose of an opening statement, not for the purpose of making a motion.
I yield back and now ask for recognition for a motion under clause two, rule 11.
The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause two of Rule 11, I move to require the attendance and testimony of Chairman Schiff before this committee and transmit this letter accordingly.
For what purposes the gentlelady seek recognition?
I move to table the motion.
Motion to table is made and not debatable.
All in favor of the motion to table say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
No.
The motion to table is agreed to.
Accorded vote.
The clerk accorded vote is requested.
The clerk will quote the roll.
Parliamentary inquire, Mr. Chairman.
The clerk will quell the roll.
Parliamentary inquire, Mr. Chairman.
You're not recognized for parliamentary increase this time.
There's a vote in the process.
Just a reminder, you need no voice that you don't want Chairman Schiff coming, correct?
The clerk will quote the role.
This impeachment would rival the Johnson impeachment as the shortest in history, depending on how one counts the relevant days.
Now, there are three distinctions when you look at these, or the three commonalities when you look at these past cases.
All involved established crimes.
This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate, and in my view, not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime.
Second is the abbreviated period of this investigation, which is problematic and puzzling.
This is a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president.
That was the last one was Jonathan Turley, the only sane person, non-hyper-partisan person in this hearing today.
Anyway, our two Sean Hannity show, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Yeah, the shortest in history.
Let's race through this.
Forget about it.
And we'll say the president is obstructing because the president, using executive privilege, has gone to the courts for remedy, which is, by the way, the way the system is supposed to work, because when there is a conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch, that would be the role of the judicial branch of government to handle such disputes.
Not only the fastest in history, but the only one with no compelling evidence.
And Doug Collins, who's been doing an amazing job today, you know, rightly pointing out, excuse me, well, back in the Clinton impeachment days, yeah, it was Clinton's attorney that had the right to pick the date.
It was a two and a half week time lead time for preparation for who the people were.
They're finding out 48 hours in advance.
All right, who's going to be before us?
And it ends up being the nutty Nadler show on top of the shift show.
And there's no fact witnesses again, just a bunch of lawyers offering their opinion.
And the only one that made any sense that's not a hyper-partisan would be the one you just heard from, which is Jonathan Turley.
Another one that I think would have been, I actually said this, did you see the write-up?
I said, let's bring in Mark Levin and Greg Jarrett and Andy McCarthy.
I noticed Alan Dershowitz isn't there.
But anyway, Greg Jarrett is with us.
He is the author of the bestseller Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
All right, let's get your overall view of the events today.
You did write two very good columns on this.
One, the impeachment report on Trump as a political attack with no factual basis, no GOP support.
And you didn't have a title on the second one I read that went into the 110-page report debunking by the Republican minority, debunking the majority report in the House Intel Committee.
That would be the cowardly congenital liar shifts committee.
Well, I think what we saw today, Sean, is that Jerry Nadler stacked the deck against President Trump, selecting three liberal law professors who have either prejudged Trump in many of their writings or expressed animus toward him.
And only one professor from the Republican side, but I agree, who's the only one who was sane and eloquent and really captivated, I think, the viewers and the audience.
You know, Jonathan Turley is possessed of uncommon eloquence.
And when he said impeachment must be based on proof, not presumptions, I don't see proof of a quid pro quo.
He was really putting a dagger in the heart of Schiff's 300-page nonsense that he issued last night, which you're right.
criticize quite a bit in detail in my latest column.
But the point that Turley was making, if you rush this impeachment through, he said, you will leave half of the American public behind.
And that is not what the framers wanted.
He said they were manufacturing a case prematurely, and you can't do it this way.
It's wrong.
You're doing it based on rage, not reason.
And I think that is something that will resonate with most Americans.
You know, not what some of these other people like Noah Feldman, Pamela Carlin, and Michael Gerhard had to say.
They wore their disdain and hatred of Trump on their sleeves.
As you watch all of this, I'm thinking, all right, now I'm really into politics.
I follow this day and night, night and day.
What I don't like about it is the danger that this now poses to our republic.
And Andy McCarthy even suggested at one point, well, yeah, well, if that's the standard, every president has and will abuse power and can be impeached.
But I don't see that in any way because when you get to the factual side of what they're saying here, and you notice they're trying to now go back to Russia.
Let's add Russia to the mix.
Let's add Stormy to the mix.
Whatever they want to add to the mix, we might as well just throw it all against the wall now and see if it sticks.
But when you get to the substance, and I thought, as Turley said, there's no evidence the president committed any crime here.
And there's only one fact witness so far that has spoken.
And that would be Ambassador Sondlin.
And Ambassador Sondlin was the only one that talked to the president.
In other words, he wasn't a hearsay witness, and he was not necessarily, although he was at times an opinion witness.
And he did say, I'm offering my conjecture.
I thought, I guessed, I don't know.
But when you got to the substance of what he knew about what had actually happened, I asked the president what he wanted for the release of the funds.
I want nothing.
I don't want a quid pro quo.
I want him to do the right thing.
And then Jim Jordan following it up with the great cross-examination with, okay, Ambassador, when did the Ukrainians make the announcement?
What announcement?
The announcement that, in fact, they were going to do everything Trump wants to get the money.
That never happened.
Never happened.
Never made an announcement.
Did they get the money?
Yes, they got the money.
But they made no announcement.
They did nothing.
So how do you get to, you know, this, how do you get to where they are?
You make it up.
And that's exactly what Adam Schiff has done.
He did it first with a faux whistleblower is not a whistleblower under the law, according to the determination of the Department of Justice.
And then, you know, he contorted the facts.
I thought it was striking yesterday when, you know, he said the impeachment inquiry uncovered overwhelming and uncontested evidence against the president.
It's not overwhelming.
If it were, then Republicans in Congress and Americans at large would be so persuaded, and they are not.
The evidence was conspicuously underwhelming.
And he also said, oh, it's uncontested evidence.
That's demonstrably false.
The Republican report itself consumes 110 pages contesting the alleged evidence, not to mention the hours of cross-examination contesting the knowledge and credibility of witnesses who are peddling and trafficking in nothing more than speculation, rumor, innuendo, all of it based on multiple hearsay.
My favorite witness was George Kent, who said, well, I believe there's a quid pro quo because I heard it from Taylor, who heard it from Morrison, who heard it from Sondlin.
But when Sondlin testified, he said, oh, I just presumed it.
I guessed it.
This isn't evidence.
You don't remove a president based on a guess.
This is garbage.
And in a court of law, it would never be allowed.
Let's go and move on.
Our colleague and friend, John Solomon, has the 10 most important revelations to expect from the FISA abuse report expected Monday from the Inspector General.
He goes on to say the scope of the failure and misconduct, identifying almost a dozen mistakes, acts of misconduct ranging from really serious offenses like altering government documents and failing to provide the court's evidence and information as required under the FISA process.
That would be a crime for any of us.
Number two, exculpatory evidence that would be withheld, derogatory information about informant Christopher Steele.
Yeah, they said they're unaware of it.
That turns out to be a lie because, in fact, we were warned by Great Britain, among others.
The news leaks as evidence, the circular reporting we talked so much about, the verification under the Woods procedures that the FBI had been required to certify to the FISA court.
All information submitted in a warrant was verified.
This is now unverifiable.
The Steele dossier being used when, again, none of it was verified.
What investigators learned from Steele, the bias, the intent, the incompetence, the criminal referrals, disciplinary actions, et cetera, et cetera.
But he doesn't have the power to, as we know, he's made referrals against Comey and McCabe for lying.
Nothing happened.
But the real power would be in the hands then of John Durham, wouldn't it?
Absolutely.
And in fact, in my book, Witch Hunt, chapter three, I lay out, it's called Lying and Spying.
I lay out all of the lies that were perpetrated on the FISA court judges.
Vital evidence was concealed.
Exculpatory evidence was withheld.
And they deliberately lied to them.
The biggest lie was that this was verified information when, in fact, none of it was verified information.
But the early reporting about the FISA report that I think is encouraging is that the Attorney General William Barr disputes Horowitz's notion that the investigation that was launched against Trump in July of 2016 was justified.
Barr thinks that's nonsense, according to the reporting.
And he would know because he is informed by the evidence that's been developed by U.S. Attorney John Durham, who has far greater authority to subpoena witnesses, present evidence to a grand jury, solicit documents beyond the Department of Justice.
And so, you know, this is simply going to be the first step, the IG report coming out next Monday.
And then, of course, Horowitz's testimony on Wednesday.
But the most important aspect of this is John Durham's forthcoming review.
Well, because he unlike a grand jury, and he has the power to indict.
And then, of course, you'd see people arrested, hopefully, and held accountable for these actions.
All right, stay right there.
Greg Jarrett, 800-941-Sean.
You want to be a part of the program?
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, as we continue, Greg Jarrett.
I've watched today and it's sad what's happening, but I don't see anything except political damage and wreckage for the Democrats and what they are putting the country through yet again and what this is all they've done for three years.
I agree wholeheartedly.
And here we are today debating what legal scholars have debated for 200 years.
What the framers intended when they devised the impeachment clause in the Constitution.
What's the precise meaning of that phrase treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors?
Is it strictly criminal conduct or an expansive interpretation that's unconstrained by statutory definitions?
And you saw Turley arguing with or disagreeing with three other law professors.
But one thing's for sure, the framers were imprecise.
Their meaning was undefined.
As a result, you know, it has been a source of constant confusion and consternation for 200 years.
And it will be so for the next 200 years.
That's very optimistic.
We get more of this crap.
All right, Greg Jarrett, thank you.
A lot of more tonight with him on Hannity.
Carter Page, we got the upcoming Pfizer report as we just mentioned on Monday and Bill O'Reilly's take on the witch hunt Ukrainian coup hearings by Nutty Nadler today, that and much more straight ahead as we continue.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcast.
The Russian government engaged in a sweeping and systematic campaign of interference in our elections.
In the words of special counsel Robert Mueller, quote, the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, close quote.
The president welcomed that interference.
We saw this in real time when President Trump asked Russia to hack political opponent.
The very next day, a Russian military intelligence unit attempted to hack that political opponent.
When his own Justice Department tried to uncover the extent to which a foreign government had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records, and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses.
Then as now, this administration's level of obstruction is without precedent.
This committee has voted to impeach two presidents for obstructing justice.
We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation.
To the extent that President Trump's conduct fits these categories, there is precedent for recommending impeachment here.
But never before in the history of the Republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a foreign government.
Never before has a president engaged in a course of conduct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers.
The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men.
They fought a war.
They witnessed terrible violence.
They overthrew a king.
But as they met to frame our Constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all, foreign interference in our elections.
They had just deposed a tyrant.
They were deeply worried that we would lose our newfound liberty, not through a war.
If a foreign army were to invade, we would see that coming, but through corruption from within.
And in the early years of the Republic, they asked us, each of us, to be vigilant to that threat.
All right.
That was, I'm almost laughing at that Nadler's comments from earlier today because, oh, you mean the Russian dossier?
I'm just sitting here thinking, oh, you mean the quid pro quo with Joe?
It's like it is breathtaking hypocrisy.
I've never seen anything this insane in my life, but this is what your modern Democratic party is now evolved into, sadly.
Anyway, joining us, somebody really directly impacted by all this and will be impacted by the release of the Pfizer report finally on Monday by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and that would be Carter Page and the nutty Nadler show.
Anyway, first, your thoughts on all of this.
And in a really roundabout way, and I want to make one thing clear, Carter.
We've said how many times on this program that Russia is a hostile regime.
Putin is a hostile actor.
We have said repeatedly, I have zero doubt the Russians tried to interfere in the elections of 2016 and that all of that occurred.
And I also think that at the end of the day, it might have been Russia disinformation from the get-go.
Well, that was actually in the New York Times talking about Hillary Clinton's dossier.
Nobody talks about that Russian interference or the Ukrainian court or Politico 1-11-2017 that said, yeah, Ukraine interfered on our elections also.
Separate and apart from Russia.
Republicans are pushing a conspiracy theory that Russia didn't do it, but Ukraine did.
No, I'm saying that Russia did it.
And looks like Ukraine did it too, if the politico is right and the Ukrainian court is right.
Anyway, I want to get you to weigh in generally first, and then we'll get to, we'll dig down into some specifics.
How are you?
I'm doing great, Sean.
Good afternoon.
What you said is exactly right in terms of that foreign interference in our election.
I mean, that is precisely what the Barack Hussein Obama administration did.
And you've been calling it from the very beginning.
You said this is going to be a boomerang.
And unfortunately, for a lot of these people on the Democrat side who have been pushing this and these three Democrat witnesses that are pushing the fake story, it's all going to be a major boomerang coming very soon.
Explain.
How do you see that?
Well, I'll give you one example.
So this one of the professors there is this guy, Noah Feldman, right?
And he actually wrote an article for Bloomberg's media outlet saying back in March of 2017.
And the title of the article was Trump's Wiretap Tweets Raise the Risk of Impeachment.
Wireta.
Key word, I would think, being wiretap.
Absolutely.
And, you know, President Trump was absolutely right.
And I think that is, that gets to the boomerang point, which you've, which you've been saying for so long, Sean.
And so that I think, you know, as you were alluding to in terms of next week, it would be interesting to hear what Professor Feldman has to say about it after we start getting some evidence then.
I know everyone got hung up on this issue of Barr and apparently Michael Horowitz disagreeing on the origins of the Russian hoax and the origins of the witch hunt and Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
I think it's somewhat irrelevant because that was not his mandate, which was FISA abuse.
And it was John Durham's mandate to get into the origins of the Russia witch hunt.
And an inspector general can't convene a grand jury.
You know, previously he has referred Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe for further investigation because he can't make a criminal referral, really.
He just can say, yeah, they lacked candor and they lied, and he did repeatedly.
What do you think we are going to find Monday?
Did they ever finally get in touch with you?
Since we last spoke, they had not.
No, and it's pretty clear that the Justice Department is stonewalling this.
So, I mean, it's the same problem we're seeing in the House with this big show trial happening today.
It's just very deep, very problematic procedural irregularities.
You know, they're just pushing one-sided story.
It's actually even worse because at least in this hearing today, you have one person sort of speaking the truth in terms of this not being an impeachable situation right now, even though Professor Turley voted for the Democrats, right?
Unfortunately, it's even worse than that in terms of this initial investigation.
And we're not, we haven't, and long answer to your question, but I've had zero input whatsoever.
I got a copy of your letter that you have sent to the Department of Justice regarding the Washington Post story about the disagreement or alleged disagreement with some of the conclusions of the Office of Inspector General regarding the origins of the Russia investigation.
You've talked about significant legal procedural irregularities throughout the OIG's preliminary investigation.
Why don't you just, in your own words, explain your point?
Well, Sean, I want a fair process.
And unfortunately, you know, I have respect for Attorney General Barr.
I think there's a lot of moving parts.
Unfortunately, my rights have been completely violated once again.
And, you know, the worst part about that is the fact that I'm just, they came after me as a way of going after President Trump.
So, you know, they're using my name as part of an incomplete story.
And I just want, you know, to do everything possible to start rectifying that problem.
It hasn't been fixed as yet.
And, you know, there's a lot of details about that, but in the big picture, it's just having a full story.
But a judge did revive the possibility of your lawsuit, correct?
Well, the lawsuit stays there.
There's this procedure.
One procedure is asking the court to do what's called a temporary restraining order to prevent them from this further illegal activity in violation of the Privacy Act.
I haven't totally ruled that out yet, but out of respect for the timeline and Chairman Graham, it's unfortunate, but I'm not necessarily going to do that yet.
But I'd like to keep some pressure for some possibility of having a little bit of equal justice, even though we've seen almost zero of it.
What do you expect to learn from the Horowitz report?
He can't convene a grand jury.
He can make referrals for criminal investigations, which he's done and it's gone nowhere with Comey and McCabe on numerous occasions.
What do you expect to be established after this long investigation?
And beyond that, what John Durham is going to do?
Well, it's the same thing that we've been saying all along, Sean, and your excellent reporting and reporting over your ensemble, right?
There is a lot of criminal leaks that are happening, and this is just another perfect example of this.
So the New York Times and Washington Post have already given some sneak previews in terms of some of the wrongdoing.
And there's definitely significant wrongdoing.
Again, I don't believe that it comes anywhere near to giving the full story.
And that's a great concern.
And there is going to be a lot more to do over the months to come.
But I think it's a, you know, as Chairman Graham has said on your show on prior occasions, you know, it's going to be, quote, ugly and damning.
So I think the initial reports, the latest criminal leaks from some of the people that were at the center of this wrongdoing and their accomplices seem to indicate that.
So I guess we'll have to wait and see.
As usual, we're the last to know because we follow the law and we sort of do things by the book as opposed to why is the media obsessed with this conservative conspiracy theory that Russia wasn't involved.
Nobody's saying Russia wasn't involved.
Not that I know of.
I mean, I've been saying Russia's a hostile regime and Putin's a hostile actor on the world stage forever.
But that does not in any way negate what we've learned from a Ukrainian court from Politico's investigative report that I have cited again and again and a DNC subcontractor or contractor going into the Ukrainian embassy and working with them for the very purpose of election interference and digging up dirt on Trump and associates, which the Politico on January 11, 2017 said was effective and it worked.
Well, I think the main problem, Sean, is you've been so right all along.
And all these Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists from the New York Times and Washington Post did not have the full story.
And you got it right.
So they come and attack you.
They come and attack then Chairman Nunes with the work that the House Intelligence Committee did.
They attack Chairman Graham for the initial start that they did with the Grassley-Graham memo, Chairman Grassley as well, back in early 2018.
So, you know, I think the, again, it's that same term you've been using.
I've joined your show and your ensemble when you talk, you know, you have the boomerang special.
And I think, you know, the boomerang is quickly getting closer.
It's been an amazingly long and difficult process.
It's like unpeeling every layer of the onion, and it's been painfully slow, but we're now getting there.
More with Carter Page on the other side, Bill O'Reilly at the top of the hour.
The storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump.
I do not wish this moment on the country.
It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today, but we have each taken an oath to protect the Constitution, and the facts before us are clear.
President Trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference in our elections.
He directly and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections.
He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen.
He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded.
He was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal political gain.
It does not matter that President Trump got caught and ultimately released the funds that Ukraine so desperately needed.
It matters that he enlisted a foreign government to intervene in our elections in the first place.
No, he didn't.
You know, you get to the point in all of this where none of what he's saying is true.
The only one that did that was Joe.
Quinn and Pro and Quo and Joe.
It's unbelievable, breathtaking hypocrisy by Nadler, just like where was he in 1998 on impeachment.
Carter Page, just your final thoughts on this, and what are your plans for Monday when this IG report comes out?
Well, I think, you know, your last announcement in terms of the Second Amendment rights, et cetera, I think, you know, we really have a crisis in our justice system right now, Sean.
And it goes to, you know, exactly what Chairman Nadler said.
There has been a compromise of our security.
And with these challenges, literally my rights and the rights of the other Trump supporters in the 2016 election were literally lower than the rights of terrorists, if you look at kind of case precedent.
So in terms of Monday, we're going to be doing a serious scrub.
I have a big legal team, and there's going to be a lot of follow-ups.
So, you know, as you say, stay tuned, and it'll be great to discuss further next week, Sean.
All right, Carter Page, we'll talk to you next week when this Pfizer report comes out.
Michael Horowitz due to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That is Lindsey Graham's committee.
When we come back, Bill O'Reilly, news roundup, information overload, we will take apart the highly hyper-partisan madness of today, the nasty Nadler, nutty Nadler show that took place in basically an extension of the shift show.
That's all happening nine Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Quick break.
We'll get to your calls and Bill O'Reilly next hour, straight ahead on the Sean Hannity show.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity show.
That's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court.
Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues an order.
And unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction.
But I can't emphasize this enough, and I'll say it just one more time.
If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.
It's your abuse of power.
You are doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing.
We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches.
And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.
I just want to note one thing which may explain part of our difference.
The statutes today on bravery are written broadly, just like they were back then.
That was my point.
The meaning of those words are subject to interpretation.
They're written broadly because they don't want them to be too narrow.
That was the case in the 18th century as they are today.
But the idea that bad practices could be the definition of bribery, really?
I mean, is that what you get from the Constitutional Convention?
That bad practices, is that why Mason wanted to put in maladministration?
Because bad practices is not broad enough?
This is where I disagree.
Now, the other thing that I just wanted to note is, and it's with my, and I have so much respect for Noah, and I'm going to just disagree on this point.
I feel it is a rather circular argument to say, well, the Constitution is law.
Upon that, we are in agreement.
But the Constitution refers to a crime.
To say, well, you can't trump the Constitution because it defines the crime.
It doesn't define the crime.
It references the crime.
Now, the crime, the examples were given during the Constitutional Convention, and those do not comport with bad practices.
They comport with real bribery.
But to say that the Supreme Court's decision on what constitutes bribery is somehow irrelevant is rather odd.
What the Constitution contains is a reference to a crime, and then we have to decide if that crime has been committed.
All right.
That was, well, the only person, frankly, that was tolerable in all of this boring partisan hack exercise today is Jonathan Turley, the professor, here to give us his no-spin take on all of it, Bill O'Reilly, his, what, number one best-selling book, still doing great, The United States of Trump, how the president really sees America.
You can get all things O'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
The other three are just hyper-partisans.
And I won't go through all the details again.
Jonathan, I think, is intellectually honest.
It was a great exercise if people want to take a class on impeachment today.
A lot of knowledge in that room, especially from Turley.
But beyond that, there's no case for impeachment.
None whatsoever, Bill.
There's no facts.
There's no evidence.
Nothing.
No standard has been met.
And to get there, you also have to forget the real quid pro quo with Joe and bifurcate your brain, your common sense, and live on the edge of hypocrisy that is breathtaking.
Well, that's a lot, Hannity.
You hit me with a lot right up front here.
I'm a simple man.
By the way, you always say that.
I'm a simple man.
Bill, you're anything but simple.
Come on.
You're not a simple man.
You are not a simple man.
I eat burgers.
I have a dog.
I'm simple.
Okay.
So I come at this from a whole different standpoint, which I think your audience will be interested to hear.
On billoilly.com, my analysis is that if President Trump were removed from office by the Senate after the Articles of Impeachment are advanced there by the House, then every president in the future will be removed because every president in the past has committed quote-unquote abuses of power.
And then I run down the list.
So let's start with George Washington.
So George Washington's in office, and the founding fathers said, Hey, George, you're our first president, but we don't want you to use troops to enforce the law on American soil because we fear if a president does that, there'll be a military takeover.
What does George Washington do?
Puts the whiskey rebellion, Hannity.
I know you know about that.
I know all about the whiskey rebellion.
Yes, I do.
Down with federal troops, which he leads.
Abuse of power.
Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, suspends habeas corpus.
That means that union troops are able to break into homes in the North and occupied South, drag you out, put you in a prison of war camp without any charges, without any anything.
Easy abuse of power, right?
You want to go modern?
How about Vietnam?
JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to a war that Congress never certified, which is included in the Constitution.
Congress has to vote on war.
How about Barack Obama?
Barack Obama went on television and said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor because he wanted Obamacare to pass, which it did.
Is that not an abuse of power?
I don't know whether he lied on purpose, but he certainly lied and misled the nation.
How about George W. Bush?
He goes into Iraq, no congressional vote, all right, overthrows the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
So my point, and I think it's a good one, is that every single president of the United States could have been charged with abuse of power and removed if that is the standard now.
For a simple man, that is a very coherent, smart observation, and I couldn't agree more with you.
You know, one of the things that Turley was getting to in that clip we just came in with, though, is very basic.
You would be abusing power because their claim of abuse of power, for example, is that, well, Donald Trump is invoking executive privilege and has gone to the courts.
Well, that's where, when there is a conflict between the legislative and executive branches, that is what the third branch of government is actually for.
And Jonathan Turley said, yeah, there'd be abuse of power, but it would be from you.
It all comes down, and again, simple man syndrome.
It all comes down to this.
I am not, by the way, slow down.
I am not in any way buying into the simple man rap you've come up with.
You got to hang with me more then because you'll come to the conclusion that simple is probably too much of a status for me.
But you love history.
And I will say this, and you're going to hate me for doing this, but I know that you have accumulated quite a collection of historical documents.
I know what I'm talking about.
This is your passion.
You like this.
And I also know what I'm talking about, about this farce, and that's what it is.
The Democratic Party and the Trump haters want him out.
They have contrived a situation where they are trying to sell to the American people, who are not buying, by the way, that's the good news, that Donald Trump's sole intention was to get dirt on Joe Biden in order to defeat him for the presidency in 2020.
That's what it comes down to.
How simple is that?
That's what they're selling.
Okay.
Now, the fanatics who hate Trump are buying, and some in the Democratic Party are buying, but most Americans are not.
So it's not going to go anywhere.
Trump's not going to be removed by the Senate.
And Donald Trump believes, and I know this to be true because he said it to me, that this whole impeachment will work to his benefit in the campaign next year and may even lead to reelection, which is the best revenge on Schiff and Nadler, is it not?
That will be in 335 days.
And you're right, it's not going well for the Democrats, which is why they're also trying to rush it.
I mean, they've now put this on a clock.
Jonathan Turley laid it out really well in his opening remarks.
You know, why are you racing here?
This will be the quickest, swiftest with the least amount of substance of any impeachment ever in history here because there really isn't any underlying facts.
If you go back to the shift show that took place earlier, and now we're, you know, we've got Jerry Nadler's out there doing his thing.
But when you look objectively at all of this, hearsay witnesses aren't, that's not admissible under the federal rules of evidence, nor are people's opinions relevant in any way.
Everybody has an opinion, Bill.
But the fact is, the only one is Sondlin.
He's the only one that has any relevant testimony that would be relevant in a real case with real admissible evidence.
What did Sandlin say?
I asked the president, well, what do you want to release the funds?
I want nothing.
I don't want a quid pro quo.
So I think at that point, and then Jim Jordan's questioning, remember of Sondlin.
Well, when did they make the announcement?
He goes, what announcement?
The announcement that they're doing all the things the president is demanding.
Well, they never made an announcement.
And they got the money anyway?
Yes.
So no quid pro or quo, Bill.
You know, I got a kick out of the lawyer, a law professor, who comes on and says, oh, well, this is an abuse of power because it put Ukraine in danger.
This is Pamela Carlin, who worked for Barack Obama in 2014 and 15 in the civil division of the Justice Department, by the way, not reported.
So she's a partisan.
Oh, this puts U.S. foreign policy, this is a perversion of it because Ukraine needs the money that was held up to protect itself against Russia.
Well, her boss, previous boss, Barack Obama, as everybody knows, denied Ukraine aid for eight years.
So where was Pamela then?
I mean, you see, once you get by the dog and pony show, which nobody watched, by the way, today, then you see the corruption.
And it's not far under the ground.
So Nadler figured out, I can get three people in there that are going to rip up Trump, and then I'll get Turley, you know, because we got to have one.
So at this point, you know, I'm saying everybody, don't worry about this.
Gonna play itself out, probably gonna work against the evildoers.
And I do think they're evildoers because they're hurting the country.
They're hurting America.
They're creating anarchy.
No president could, as I pointed out, govern.
Abuse of power, you can throw that at anyone.
And so we're not going to have a president now because everybody's going to be impeached.
Come on.
It's ridiculous.
You see, I think that if they had the goods, it would be there.
I can't get over it.
Melinda, as you know, who, you know, our executive producer here, can't, all right, you got to stop with Joe because I say, all right, well, you're not getting the billion.
And I say, unless you fire the prosecutor that I know is investigating my zero experience son Hunter and paying him millions, and you've got six hours to do it.
You fire the guy, you get the billion.
You don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
Bill, how do they justify turning that off and saying, oh, that's there's nothing bad there?
They don't have to justify it because the media is on their side.
So you don't, they don't have to do PR because the media covers the media hates Trump more than they do, if that's possible, but that's true.
So they don't have to justify it.
But here's something interesting.
If it does go to a Senate trial, they're going to subpoena Hunter Biden.
And that is going to blow up his father.
And they may subpoena Joe Biden.
Although Joe Biden could claim executive privilege as VP, and it would tie it up in a courts.
But Hunter Biden can't.
He can't.
You got to come in.
And so.
See, I actually don't think it'll happen that way.
You talk to them more than I do.
It's not a matter of talking, but.
All right.
Hang on one second, Bill O'Reilly.
But on the evidence presented so far, is it your view that there is no credible evidence that any crime was committed by President Trump?
Yes, I've gone through all of the crimes mentioned.
They do not meet any reasonable interpretation of those crimes, and I'm relying on express statements from the federal courts.
I understand that the language in the statutes are often broad.
That's not the controlling language.
It's the language of the interpretation of federal courts.
And I think that all of those decisions stand mightily in the way of these theories.
And if you can't make out those crimes, then don't call it that crime.
If it doesn't matter, then what's the point?
Call it treason.
Call it endangered species violations if none of this matters.
All right.
That was more of Jonathan Turley from earlier.
No, they haven't met any standard.
BillO'Reilly.com for all things O'Reilly, United States of Trump.
Look, I think this ends here because where do they get the facts beyond the transcript, Bill?
What else is there to possibly get?
No, I agree with you, but I do think they're going to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate.
And before the break, we were talking about what the Senate could do.
And you say you don't think that they're going to subpoena Hunter Biden.
Let me tell you why, real quick, because they'll have the trial and they're going to want to get this over with quickly.
Okay.
But I think Hunter is absolutely going to be investigated along with his father.
But they could embarrass the Bidens to an amazing extent.
And Arthur Biden would have to answer to the subpoena.
So, anyway, I think after the first of the year, this will be history and not a good legacy of America.
But the hatred we have in this country, political hatred, is now second only to the Civil War.
It really is sadly, you know, look, Bill, I've been in talk radio 31 years, if you can believe it.
Now, my 24th year at Fox, it's never been this bad.
It has never been.
And look, you know what?
I got to tell you, for whatever reason, Donald Trump lives in the minds of all of these people.
No, he's got the floor, and he might be re-elected if it's Biden, and I still think it will be unless somebody else emerges.
Biden versus Trump, I give it 60-40 Trump.
But the hatred that we're going to endure for the next year is sad.
That's the word.
It's sad because it shouldn't be this way.
You don't like Trump?
Okay, campaign against him, vote against him.
But don't hate everybody who sees it differently.
All right, billo Reilly.com, allthingsO'Reilly, United States of Trump.
Bill, thank you.
Appreciate you being with us as always.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
Your call's coming up next.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So the president, by the way, all of this, the backdrop is the president is with NATO leaders beating up on poor Prime Minister Trudeau and Macrone of France, which is very funny.
And actually, the president made some very strong points.
Where's your 2%?
Where is your contribution to NATO?
Because they don't want to pay their fair share.
And you know what?
The benefit of the bigger beneficiaries of the alliance are all these other countries.
And yeah, it's time they do step up and pay their fair share.
Anyway, so the president, as he was making his way towards Air Force One, gave this mini little press conference.
We got part of it here.
I'm hearing it for the first time as you are.
Let's play it.
And I think it's, you know, it's a disgrace.
You have a loser like the stone-called loser.
It has been all his life, Adam Schiff.
And then you have Nancy Pelosi, who agreed with what he said, which puts her into real jeopardy, agreed on a certain show, Stephanopoulos.
And frankly, it's a bad thing for the country.
I'm over here with NATO.
We're meeting with, in this case, Italy, but we're meeting with great countries, very important countries.
We're doing a good job.
They scheduled it.
Same thing happened a number of months ago when they put the United Nations, the UNGA, they put the United Nations situation.
They had a hearing with somebody on the same day.
And now they do it with NATO.
These people, you almost question whether or not they love our country.
And that's a very, very serious thing.
Do they, in fact, love our country?
So they schedule that during the United Nations.
I'll never forget.
I'm walking into the United Nations and I start hearing all of the things that they were talking about exactly at that time.
Literally, I'm walking through the front door and you folks start screaming out to me about whatever.
You know what you were screaming.
And now I do NATO.
This was scheduled for a year.
And the same thing happens.
They schedule a hearing.
It's a hoax.
It's a total hoax.
But just think of this.
Constitutional lawyers, they get three and we get one.
What kind of a deal is that?
Now, you don't need a constitutional lawyer because there was nothing done wrong.
Zero done wrong.
And I say it, and I'll say it again.
Read the transcript and then listen to what the president of Ukraine said.
He said there was no pressure whatsoever.
Listen to what the foreign minister of Ukraine, highly respected man, both of them, very respected.
Listen to what the foreign minister said.
And he said there was no pressure whatsoever.
That's the only one that counts.
But then listen to all of their witnesses and not one of them said anything that was meaningful other than positive for me.
Like the one said, there was no quid pro quo.
That's what he said.
And he said that I actually told him that there will be no quid pro quo.
I said that.
And I said other things that were even stronger than that.
It's a disgrace that they are doing this.
And they're doing it because they think they can't win in 2020.
They're doing it because you take a look at their candidates and their candidates are not doing too well.
And they figure this is their only shot.
And it's a disgrace because this process was not supposed to be used that way.
All right.
That's the president now heading home from the NATO summit that took place.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Laurel is in Georgia.
Laurel, hi, how are you?
And welcome to the program.
Hi, Sean.
Good to talk to you.
Good to talk to you.
Where in Georgia are you?
I live in Columbus now, but I was in Atlanta when you were on the radio there.
So I've been listening to you for a long time.
Oh, my God.
Have I changed much?
Have I changed?
Not a bit.
That's funny.
Oh, exactly.
I'm trying to get better and better every day.
Well, anyway, I'm glad you called.
And what's on your mind today?
Well, I just, I wanted to say my governor is still better than your governor, but I'm very disappointed in him.
So am I. My husband and I were very reluctant Trump voters, but we just considered the alternative too terrible to contemplate and pull the trigger.
And it did not take long for him to earn our trust.
He has our full support now.
We're about ready to walk over broken glass to vote for him again.
So when he came out and endorsed Kemp in the primary, we were very ambivalent, like whoever the Republican nominee, it was just better than Stacey Abrams.
That's fine, whatever.
Well, we legitimately, specifically voted for Kemp in the primary as a gesture of support for Trump.
It wasn't enthusiasm for Kemp.
And I know we weren't the only voters in Georgia.
Trump didn't just get him over the finish line.
Trump got him the nomination.
And I think what he's done has been so incredibly disloyal with this appointment of Ms. Loeffler, who I'm sure is capable and intelligent, but I don't think she knows what's about to hit her.
And if there's a Kavanaugh situation in the future, does she have the spine to handle that?
Because we know Doug Collins does.
Doug Collins, I mean, it couldn't be a worse day for Governor Kemp in this sense, is that the rock star in these hearings today was Doug Collins, the minority leader on this committee.
And I will tell you he was the, you know, you didn't, as I was saying, you don't need a long explanation convincing us of how great Doug Collins is because everybody in Georgia knows.
We don't have to, well, yeah, just because Doug Collins associated with groups that have different views on abortion and she donated to Romney 750 grand.
And let's see, she supported John McCain.
She never supported Trump, I guess, until this happened.
Let me tell you what was going on behind the scenes.
This is what my, and I have deep roots in the wonderful state of Georgia.
As you know, I love my time there.
And it's like a second home to me.
And all the friends that I have there said the same thing.
Let me tell you what's really happening.
You got a bunch of never Trumper establishment Republicans.
They got to the governor and they made this happen.
And the arguments were about, well, she can be a self-funder when she has to run in the primary and that's good.
And she's going to offer a lot of money and donations probably to other people.
That's good.
And then there's issues with Nathan Deal and Kemp that I don't really know a whole lot about.
That's a factor.
The only factor, and this is important, Laurel, that should have mattered to Governor Kemp before he made this political disaster of a decision today.
Because this is the day Doug Collins shined more brightly than any other day in his congressional career.
But he's been doing great things for the last number of years.
He's the guy that single-handedly got the release of the transcripts that everybody'd been wanting to read.
And it was a power.
These were powerful moments when he did it.
And he's a proven commodity.
Correct.
We're not taking a risk with him.
Correct.
There's no evidence except no experience and the fact that she was a big Romney supporter.
And I don't know the person.
I have nothing against her at all.
Me neither.
And, you know, maybe she'll prove us all wrong.
That would be great.
But if she confirms what I'm afraid of, well, the decision-making.
But here's the thing.
The decision-making process was flawed.
By the way, and the governor, the governor's first consideration shouldn't have been Donald Trump.
It shouldn't have been anything about money and self-funding.
It shouldn't have been about his relationship or non-relationship with Nathan Deal.
Only one consideration.
The voters, the Georgia voters that put him in office, well, Republicans in Georgia are conservative.
And those conservatives, a lot of them that I've been talking to over the last week or so, are livid and apoplectic.
And they've been telling him.
I looked over his Facebook page.
Well, I didn't because I don't have an ability to ever get on Facebook, but Linda printed out pages for me yesterday.
She's getting hammered, absolutely hammered because of this decision.
So he should have listened to, he's supposed to be a public servant, Laurel.
I know.
And I was so, the other thing, I think he's made a real tactical error here by declining the opportunity to come on your show.
And I think he's made that calculation that a lot of politicians do, that they really think we have the attention span of Natche and that we're just going to.
Let me tell you something.
He ducked, he dodged.
And I even said to him, oh, you can't find five minutes today.
Can you find five minutes tomorrow?
Or are you going to duck and dodge me both days?
I wrote that to him.
I texted that to him.
We were already following this story, and I was so glad to hear you speak about it because I thought, okay, great.
Just give him a platform.
Let him justify this decision to the voters.
And because he ran in hid, that told me all I need to know.
I said five minutes.
The people want to be heard.
I said all of that to him.
I said I had already emailed him.
By the way, did you see what his staff did to Matt Gates?
I'm like, really?
You're going to tear up Matt Gates?
This is how you're going to treat a prominent, strong conservative in the country.
Well, he's not from Georgia.
I think I saw the word interloper or something.
We're like, what?
I'm just very, I'm hoping he gets primaried.
I mean, I'll work out for me and I'll eat my word.
I don't think so.
Listen, and if it, it doesn't matter.
Doug Collins would win that primary.
What he now has effectively done is created a mess, an unnecessary mess that he could have avoided had he listened to the people and his constituency that put him in office in the first place.
You know, I saw Eric Erickson wrote that, well, he's the most conservative Republic, most conservative Republican governor ever.
I'm like, not on this.
No, he hasn't.
Because there are legitimate questions across the board.
She is a question mark with no experience.
And we had a proven conservative, strong leader ready to serve.
Anyway, I'll stay in Georgia.
Thank you, Laurel.
Steve in Georgia.
Where are you, Steve?
Town called Kathleen.
It's just south of Warner Robbins, just below Macon.
It's about two hours south of Atlanta.
We have a beautiful air base here and a beautiful air museum, if anyone ever wants to come by and take a look at it.
It's just stunning, you know, the history out there and the technology at hand.
But no, I'm down in farm country.
This is heavy.
You know, the tractors are bigger than the car dealerships.
Oh, that's funny.
It is.
I should send you a picture.
I was going to have my John Deere lawnmower being repaired.
And I got a picture taken next to this huge thing.
You know, the wheels are about seven.
What kind of farming goes on there?
Mostly cotton.
It's so cool.
When the cotton comes in, it looks like snow on the ground.
And being from the north originally, that really always just, I'm all inspired by it.
And then soybeans and, you know, some other staples.
But and then pecans, pecans are big here and, you know, still got some peaches and things like that.
So it's, it's, it's.
Listen, I think it's awesome.
I will tell you this, that I just have a great admiration for farmers.
There was a guy that said, I just turned off my tractor to call you.
He said the other week, I said, oh, the thought of being in a field.
I said, can you see anybody?
And he goes, nope, can't see a soul.
I'm like, oh, I wish I was with you.
I wish I was out there.
You know, as you're in the heat of battle every day here, I'm like, I think I want to spend a couple of weeks in a tractor and see if I become a normal human being in contact with God again.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, it's great.
We had Pence down here during the election, you know, and it was Farmers for Trump and Pence.
And, you know, he's got a huge amount of support here.
And I just, I missed something this morning.
I got tied up, but with Schiff's 300 sheets of his report, did he specify whether that was single ply or two ply toilet tissue that he wrote that on?
You know, does it even matter?
Because we know this is three years of this.
Yeah.
That is hilarious.
Where are the adults in the room?
Where are the adults in the room?
I mean, these Democrats need a good spanking and sent to bed without their dinner.
I mean, there's nothing here.
It's insane.
And if the truth be known, they talk about this Russian operative thing.
Hillary is the Russian operative.
Hillary bought or was given the dossier, to my understanding.
It all goes back to Hillary, and I think McCain had some hand in this.
But, you know, Hillary is the Russian operative or the Russian agent.
I mean, people lost their freaking minds up there.
Well, I will tell you, it is, yeah, they've lost their mind.
The only good hope is this.
I think, and then our last caller just said this also from Georgia, that Laurel, she said, you know, I'll crawl over broken glass.
Everywhere I went, I was off for five glorious, wonderful days over Thanksgiving.
And there's something about being away from the grind of four hours a day, which I love to do.
Don't misinterpret that.
But you just get a little bit of distance and you get a little bit of clarity and you get a little bit of objectivity and a little bit of a feel wherever I went.
It didn't matter where I went.
And this is, you know, I was in Indiana.
I was in New York.
I was all over the place.
Every single person I meet, every single person I spoke to said the same thing.
And they're saying it with a passion.
They are saying it with a deep anger about what these people are doing to this country.
And they are saying it with a commitment that they are not going to let this stand.
That gives me the hope because in 335 days, I know I'll keep counting it down.
We get to fix all of this mess and we get to shock the world.
Imagine, you know, the conspiracy Area 51 Roswell, Rachel Maddow, MS, the DNC channel.
Donald Trump has just been re-elected, the 45th president of the United States.
All right, Blockbuster Hannity tonight, the stars of the day, Jim Jordan, Doug Collins will both check in with us.
Kevin McCarthy and Scalise, the leadership as well.
Newt Gingrich weighs in on the law.
We got Greg Jarrett and Alan Dershowitz tonight and much, much more.
Louie Gomer.
That's 9 Eastern Hannity Fox News.
News you won't get from the mob and the media.
We'll see you tonight at 9 back here tomorrow.
As always, thanks for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
