Congressman Jim Jordan, member of the House Judiciary Committee, and former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, is at his end with the selective witness calling and hyperbole from the left. Today he gives us his take on the FISA report and the impeachment hearings. 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 Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday normally on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Delaware, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
And write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
By the way, impeachment is dying.
I mean, there is more, there are more barometers to this.
There is, you know, now we're seeing it in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Trump up by six against all Democratic opponents, including sleepy, creepy, crazy quid pro quo Joe 3033.
So that's all good news.
I can tell you, just looking at TV ratings, numbers, it's just dying.
It is dying on a vine.
It is a it's become a shift show.
It's become a disaster.
People are tuning it out because they know there's no there.
And to watch the Democrats literally right before your eyes, just focus group away where they started.
First, it was going to be the quid pro quo.
Then it was going to be bribery.
That's what we're going to call it bribery.
That's that's a harsher term.
Then they have all the problems with you're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor that I know is investigating my son that's getting paid millions with zero experience.
You got six hours, son of a bee, they did it.
That it just blew everything blows up in their face.
All of it has.
You know, I thought yesterday that yesterday's a tough day to be on the air.
Because you get this, you get these nearly 500 pages, and you're like, all right, how do I absorb this?
Now I happen to have a great team, radio TV.
We all joined together.
Everyone was assigned 25 pages.
I'm reading like a maniac myself, and we look for the key highlights of it.
And there's so many new nuggets that I'm finding as I go through this now with a little bit more care and time and detail behind it.
But it is, you know, it took forever to get this Pfizer report out.
And everything that we said, this is very, very important.
You know, and by the way, this is not patting ourselves on the back.
This is about, this is what my job is.
This is what we do.
Yes, we're members of the press.
What is your what is your title?
I'm a talk show host, TV and radio.
What is a talk show host do?
We do breaking news.
We can produce thousands of hours of straight news about, well, maybe war or natural disaster or whatever it happens to be.
Or just interviewing a newsmaker straight up.
Then of course, we do our investigative reports, vetting Obama.
Two and a half years, we've been digging into the the deep state that has that is now exposed the way it has been.
Well the mob and the media, you know, they were they were running in the in the wrong direction.
Um and we got it right.
They got everything wrong on Mueller, everything wrong on Trump Russia.
They're getting everything wrong on Trump Ukraine, too.
But now you watch it all unfold before you rise.
So, all right, well, forget the quid and the pro and the quote because that's really Joe, not Trump, and bribery.
No, that would be Joe and Hunter too.
If you look at the statutes, they're applicable.
And and now we'll just stick with a very broad nebulous.
Uh, okay.
Um, hang on one second.
Okay.
So, but you know, very nebulous.
Okay, well, call it abuse of power.
Abuse of power is not a crime.
Well, what does that mean?
Abuse of power, how?
Where?
What?
Specifics.
They can't define it.
And the next thing is, well, you obstructed justice.
Well, how did the president obstruct justice?
Why?
Because he invoked executive privilege like Obama and like Clinton and like every other Democratic president.
When there's a conflict between branches of government, the executive branch, the legislative branch, well, they have the opportunity to seek remedy and resolution through the judicial branch, which is what the executive branch did in this case.
But because they're in such a rush and they want this done before Christmas, the the death, well, we don't have time for that.
So what do we end up with?
We end up with a shift show, and then we end up with a nutty Nadler continuation of a shift show.
And we've got, okay, all these opinion hearsay witnesses, you know, these Ivory Tower professors, federal rules of evidence, none of this is admissible in a trial.
And I'm sure when the chief justice should this get to a trial in the U.S. Senate, which in all likelihood they're so nuts, it probably will.
The only witness so far that could really be called is Ambassador Sondland.
And by the way, not about his conjecture, not about his opinions, not about his two plus twos.
He's gonna be called in as the only fact witness who actually talked to the president and asked the president, well, what do you want for the release of funds?
Nothing.
No quid pro quo.
Or Jim Jordan asking Ambassador Sondland, well, when did they make the announcement?
Uh what announcement, Congressman.
The announcement that they were doing everything that they had to do to get the aid.
Well, they never made an announcement.
Today never made an announcement.
Did they ever do anything?
No, they never did anything either.
But they got the money anyway.
Yeah, they did.
Or what about the five high-level meetings after the July 25th phone call with even the vice president of the United States and one of them?
First of all, in that call, aid was never mentioned.
Not one time, not a single time was aid ever mentioned in the call with Trump.
You know, can you do us a favor?
Yeah, this country's been reeling over so-called election interference, not so-called.
Devin Nunes called it.
He called it back in 2014 that the Russians would interfere.
They're a hostile regime.
Putin is a hostile actor.
And yes, they absolutely positively did try and interfere in our elections.
But according to a court, by the way, will somebody inform Director Ray and Humpty Dumpty, the dope that he is.
They never read over at fake news CNN.
They must be the dumbest people.
All they do is fixate and hate Fox.
They're some of the laziest, dumbest people.
How do they even have jobs, these people?
But anyway, we do have evidence that Ukraine likely interfered in the 2016 election.
That's separate and apart.
I just said, we've said Russia is a hostile regime.
Putin, a hostile actor.
Yes, they tried to interfere in the 2016 elections.
Absolutely.
But so too is the likelihood Ukraine did separate and apart from what the Russians did.
How do we know?
Because the Ukrainian court told us so.
We also know because Ken Vogel, now with the prestigious propaganda newspaper, the New York Times.
Oh, I got a great letter from the New York Times recently asking me if I would help them get the president to talk to them.
I swear I got that.
Did I send you that email, Linda's?
Baby James prints it out for me.
Yeah, there you have some person at the New York Times asking for my help and assistance to get them an interview with his hometown newspaper.
I'm like, are you out of your mind?
I I had James, I said right back.
Is this a joke?
You have to be kidding me.
But anyway, that's that's that's media today.
So you have all of this, so we're now down to obstruction of justice because the president sought remedy and the use of executive privilege in the courts, which is when there's a conflict between the legislative and executive branch, whether that's where you're supposed to go, and then some nebulous abuse of power.
This is so corrupt.
Let him go forward with this.
Because now we see the polls are kicking in.
Number one, I'm reading TV ratings.
Nobody's watching this.
Nobody cares.
And even the most liberal shows are dying as they try to push this on the American people.
Nobody cares.
Not even a little bit.
And if you look at fake news CNN, they're really dying over this because as of right now, they're like at the three-year low in terms of their ratings.
That's that's not an easy thing to do in TV news.
Uh, but they're there, that's how they're they're doing it.
Then you've got three polls that have Trump up by six in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
That's pretty important.
Then you look at the numbers because of the president doing great work for the economy, and you see that there are six separate polls that show African American support for the president is skyrocketing.
You've got of the seven polls, the lowest is at 16%.
Well, that's twice what the president got in 08, but he has set record after record after record of African American low unemployment.
And the president has created more jobs than than even they created in the eight years of Biden Obama and the African American community, same with the Hispanic community and Spanish Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment.
Can't forget that either.
But what we have in this case is we were right.
Everything, remember the Muller, everything they had told you was false.
They were sitting there, three separate investigations, FBI investigation, even Lisa Page said, no, we found nothing.
Struck page struck says no, they're there.
What do we have?
Nine months, nothing.
House Intel committee, nothing.
The bipartisan Senate committee, nothing.
Everything they said would happen with the Mueller report, nothing.
But everything we told you about, yes, premeditated, because they were all warned, fraud perpetrated repeatedly on the FISA court, and almost all of the application we now know was Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for dirty Russian dossier.
That's what we learned from the inspector general yesterday.
You know, outright lies, nothing but corruption and abuse of power, political bias, omitting one omission after another of everything that is exculpatory.
It's it's all been confirmed now.
17 identified significant failures in accuracies and omissions.
Where's Mr. Paige Super Patriot Jim Comey now?
Is he actually thinks he's exonerated?
Oh, I'd pay close attention to what Durham and Barr are saying.
Because uh, no, this is far from over.
Remember, the inspector general can't convene a grand jury, as the statements of the attorney general today are my numbing.
I've got all of them.
We'll play them for you.
You have one single source in this, Christopher Steele.
He himself said, I have no idea if any of this is true.
And he used, and he says his one source, one.
That's it.
It's only used was one was an egotist and you know, somebody that didn't exactly tell the truth.
And that guy actually was interviewed, and he said, No, I didn't think any of this was ever gonna go anywhere.
Wasn't designed to do that.
And everything we told you about Clinton's unverifiable dirty Russian dossier being the basis of the FISA applications is true.
How did they?
Well, at the top of the Pfizer warrant, it says verified.
And what you have is a coordinated effort by corrupt deep state actors.
By the way, and I will say this, not rank and file FBI, the upper echelon in the FBI led under the corrupt Jim Comey.
That's this was his FBI with the 17 identified significant failures inaccuracies and omissions.
That would be his signature on three of the four FISA applications using Hillary's unverifiable dirty Russian dossier.
And that that is under his watch.
That is his legacy.
We've reported to the you for years it's been dead on accurate.
And the inspector general, according to the attorney general, now made it clear that the FBI launched this intrusive investigation of a presidential campaign On the thinnest of suspicions that were insufficient to justify the steps taken.
And in the rush to obtain and maintain, maintain a key word here.
The FISA surveillance on the Trump campaign associates, FBI officials knowingly misled the FISA court.
They knowingly and purposefully omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings.
They knowingly suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.
Back to the Attorney General.
The malfeasance, misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General's report reflects a clear abuse of the Pfizer process.
And by the way, then you got U.S. Attorney John Dorham.
And his comments are even more damning here.
Because remember, Horowitz doesn't have the power to do what Doram does.
He is now in the middle of an ongoing criminal probe.
We learned today, we'll know probably in late spring or early summer.
And in a very rare public statement, he said, while he has respect for Horowitz, et cetera, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts only of the Justice Department.
That's like they Horowitz only had a bubble he could work in.
And our investigation has included developing information from other persons, entities both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. And based on the evidence collected to date, while our investigation is ongoing.
We have advised the inspector general we don't agree with some of the report's conclusions.
And Barr addresses this today.
We'll get into that in the course of the program.
As a matter of fact, when we come back, I'm going to start playing Barr's comments.
They are devastating.
They are absolutely breathtaking.
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.
So I'm not going to play it now.
I'm just going to give you a little bit of a heads up on what happened today, because the Attorney General Barr gave an interview with MBC's Pete Williams, and then he spoke at a Wall Street Journal event and even expanded on these remarks on how flimsy the basis was to open up an investigation into the Trump campaign.
How claims of collusion against the Trump campaign were his words baseless.
The Attorney General explaining that it's inexplicable that Obama and Brennan.
Now, this is true.
I said this yesterday, that Brennan talked to the Russians and said, hey, heads up, there's there's interference going on.
That he did this in August and September 2016.
Obama called the Russians in September 2016.
They talked to the Russians, but they never briefed the Trump campaign.
That I that is mind-blowing to me.
That the Inspector General Horowitz's scope is narrow.
He did not decide about improper motive.
He just didn't find any proof on it.
Ooh, big difference.
I said that yesterday.
How Comey refused to be asked about classified matters because he wouldn't re-up his classification.
That's big news.
How the FBI withheld information from courts relying on this sham unverifiable dossier.
And how the case fell apart, yet they continued their investigation.
That is abuse of power corruption.
And how the Trump campaign was clearly spied on.
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.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
So the attorney general Bill Barr has expanded out on some of his comments from yesterday, calling the FBI investigation a travesty with many abuses.
Now, all he says the real meat actually deals with the conduct of the investigation, which he thinks became apparent that it quote, it was his words a travesty with many abuses, and the fact that from day one it generated exculpatory information, which we learned in the Horowitz report yesterday that was withheld.
None of the information they got substantiated any collusion whatsoever.
And he writes, you know, where I disagree, he's talking about Horowitz, and Horowitz knows I disagree with them.
We can agree without tearing each other's hearts out.
It's a big deal to use law enforcement and intel resources to investigate a campaign, especially on an opposing party.
Now, who's been telling you all of this?
This is what we have been telling you.
Weaponizing the powerful tools of intelligence and turning them on the American people, or turning them against an opposition party, especially after you allowed the other party to pretty much get a get out of jail free card because that was your preferred candidate.
And he says the department, the principles are a rule of reason.
What is the basis for looking into something?
What are the reasonable steps to take?
The alternatives available, what you're trying to accomplish, where I disagree is this is all very flimsy.
And it all starts with Papadopoulos at a comedy makes at a bar.
George Pop, that's all that's where the counterintel investigation begins because of one thing that a 28-year-old low-level person, and no offense to George Papadopoulos, is a nice guy, and his wife is lovely.
We like them.
But a suggestion of a suggestion and some vague illusion.
Now, they have to forget that he said no at no time.
Which they did conveniently.
Did the Trump campaign ever engage in any collusion?
But then, you know, blowing this up or drawing the conclusion that that vague comment relating to the DNC dump is a big stretch.
He says, from my experience is that you go to the campaign here.
I don't think you, you know, there would no legitimate, you can't say there were no legitimate people in the campaign to go to.
Could have gone to Chris Christie.
He points out you could have gone to Jeff Sessions.
One FBI agent said we only do that if there's no possibility the person is witting.
He says that's just not true.
He says it doesn't hold water because on August the 4th, they contacted the head of the Russians.
And that would be their intel services.
This is the call.
Apparently, Brennan made two calls to the Russians, but they may made zero calls to the Trump campaign.
And the real meat actually, the conduct of the investigation.
Now, let's go to the NBC interview that the Attorney General Bill Barr gives with Pete Williams.
Starts out how flimsy this was to open up this investigation into the Trump campaign.
Listen to this.
In one area, I do disagree uh with the IG, and that was whether there was sufficient predication to open a full-blown uh uh counterintelligence investigation, specifically using the techniques that they did uh to collect intelligence about the Trump campaign.
In most campaigns, there are signs of illegal foreign money coming in, and we don't automatically assume uh that the campaigns are nefarious and traitors and acting in league with foreign powers.
There has to be some basis before we use these very potent powers in our core First Amendment activity.
And here, uh I felt this was very flimsy.
Basically, I think the department has a rule of reason, which is at the end of the day, uh, is what you're relying on sufficiently powerful to justify the techniques you're using.
And uh the question there is how strong is the evidence?
How sensitive is the activity you're looking at?
There was none.
It was a a flippant remark by George Pompadopoulos in a bar.
And to get there, they also had to discount the other things that Pompadopoulos said.
Now, the the attorney general is very clear about something, because the mob in the media has been lying to you again.
And they're saying, well, you know, uh he says there's no improper motive.
Well, the I the Attorney General points out the problem is, and and Durham points this out, is that the inspector general has to work within a bubble.
And the bubble that he's working in is the DOJ and FBI.
Remember, he's just allowed to inspect.
He's already made referrals against Comey, McCabe, Strut and Page.
But in other words, he can't go out of that purview, but the but U.S. attorney Durham can and is and has.
And he explains how, in fact, what the mob is saying is not true.
He just based on what he knew from within his bubble, he's saying, listen.
So the inspector general says he found no evidence to indicate that the FBI's decision to start this investigation was based on uh political bias.
Do you agree?
Well, uh what do you actually I think you have to understand what the IG's methodology is, and I think it's the appropriate methodology for an inspector general.
Uh he starts with limited information.
He can only talk to people who are essentially there as employees, and he's limited to the information generally uh in the FBI.
But his approach is to say if I get a explanation from the people I'm investigating that is not unreasonable on its face, then I will accept it as long as there's not contradictory testimonial or documentary evidence.
In other words, it's a very deferential standard.
And all he said is people gave me an explanation, and I didn't find anything to contradict it.
So I don't have a basis for saying that there was improper motive.
But he hasn't decided the issue of improper motive.
Have you?
No.
I think we have to wait until the investigation, the full investigation is done, and that's the fundamental distinction between what Durham is doing and what the IG is doing.
Now that then gives a deeper meaning to what Durham said yesterday.
Well, that while he has great respect for the work of the Inspector General, his investigations, he points out, is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.
He's he's describing the Horowitz bubble.
And he points out our investigation as included developing information from other per persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. In other words, he's not confined to just the DOJ and the FBI.
Now that's crucial.
And based on the evidence that he's collected to date that they were telling the inspector general, no, we Don't agree with that.
We know stuff you don't know.
And and but nor should he have known, even according to the attorney general.
Now, Barr also points out claims of collusion against the Trump campaign were absolutely baseless.
listen when you step back here and say what was this all based on uh it's not sufficient Remember, there was and and never has been any evidence of collusion.
And yet this campaign and the president's administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless.
Baseless, and the the predicate for the FISA applications was an unverifiable Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian dossier, and they basically committed premeditated fraud on a court.
Then Barr goes on to say how inexplicable it is that Obama and Brennan, they didn't even talk to the Trump campaign.
They only talked to the Russians.
Twice Brennan, once Obama.
Listen.
And they jumped right into a full-scale uh investigation before they even went and talked to the foreign officials about exactly what was said.
They opened an investigation of the campaign and they used very intrusive techniques.
They didn't do uh, I think uh what would normally be done under those circumstances, uh, which is to go to the campaign.
Uh the uh and and there certainly were people in campaign that could be trusted, including a member of the judiciary, Senate Judiciary Committee and the governor of of uh New Jersey, former U.S. attorney.
There were people to talk to.
And what I find particularly uh inexplicable is that they talked to the Russians, but not to the presidential campaign.
On August 4th, Brennan braced the head of Russian intelligence.
He calls the head of Russian intelligence and says, We know what you're up to, you better stop it.
He did it again later in August, and then President Obama talked to uh President Putin in in September and said, We know what you're up to, you better cut it out.
So they they go and confront the Russians, who clearly are the bad guys, and they won't go and talk to the campaigns and say, you know, what is this about?
Wow.
Why didn't they talk to their fellow Americans?
Then we didn't know this.
Barr points out Comey refused to re-up his classification conveniently.
Listen.
Durham is not limited to the FBI.
He can talk to other agencies.
Uh he can compel people to testify.
One of the problems in the IG's investigation, I think he would agree, is that Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore couldn't be questioned about classified matters.
So uh someone like uh someone like uh Durham can compel testimony, he can talk to a whole range of people, private parties, foreign governments, and so forth.
And I think uh uh that is the point at which a decision has to be made uh about motivations.
Uh and I think we c uh right now it would be premature to make any judgment one way or the other.
By the way, a quintum PAC poll just broke for the first time since the inquiry, yeah, the majority of Americans over 51 percent oppose it.
Now, let's go.
This is very important, and that is the FBI withholding information from the courts and relying on the unverifiable dirty Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier.
Why not open this investigative investigation?
What's the harm?
You've said intrusive means.
So what what is your concern about the fact that they did this?
Well, I think the big picture is this.
From day one, remember, they say, okay, we're not going to go to talk to the campaign.
We're going to put people in there, wire them up and have these conversations with people involved in the campaign, because that way we'll get the truth.
From the very first day of this investigation, which was July 31st, 2016, all the way to its end in September 2017, there was not one incriminatory bit of evidence to come in.
It was all exculpatory.
The people that they were taping denied any uh involvement with Russia, denied the very specific facts that the FBI was was uh relying on.
So what happens?
The FBI Ignores it, presses ahead, withholds that information from the court, withholds critical exculpatory information from the court while it gets a uh electronic surveillance warrant.
It also withholds from the court, uh clear-cut evidence that the uh dossier that they ultimately relied on to get the Pfizer warrant was a complete sham.
They withheld the exculpatory information.
Then he goes on to explain, even as the FBI case fell apart, they continued to investigate Trump, and then Barr goes on to say this that the Trump campaign was clearly spied on.
Pay attention.
They they they hid information about the lack of reliability, even when they went the first time for the warrant.
But uh but in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says, I never told, I never told uh Steel this stuff.
And and and this was all speculation.
No, and I I have zero uh information to support this stuff.
At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what did they do?
They kept on investigating the president and the uh uh well into his administration after the case collapsed.
But here to me is the damning thing.
They not only didn't tell the court that what they had been relying on was was completely uh uh uh you know rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster the steel report by saying, Well, we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful, but they don't inform the court that what they're truthful about is that the dossier is is false.
So that's hard to explain.
And I uh the core statement, in my opinion, by uh the IG is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained.
And I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith.
Based on what you know so far, is it still do you still stand by your statement that the campaign was spied upon?
Oh, it's clearly spied upon.
I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is.
I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying.
I think going through people's emails, which they did as a result of the Pfizer warrant.
They went through everything, you know, from from Paige's life.
Uh he wasn't in the campaign at the point we're not being on the survey.
Yes, but his emails were go back.
I mean, the main reason they were going for the Pfizer warrant initially was to go back historically and seize all his emails and texts and all that stuff from back months and even years.
So they were covering the period that he was in the campaign, and that's exactly the reason they went for the Pfizer to get that stuff.
That's why it was premeditated fraud in the court.
Last comments, he says the nation was turned on its head.
By this PISA, a lot of people will hear what you're saying here and think, well, that's just Bill Barr defending Trump.
Your concern about the FBI's investigation is what?
Civil Libertarian.
Uh I think our our nation was turned on its head for three years.
I think uh based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely flammed fanned uh and hyped by an irresponsible press.
Uh and I think that there were gross abuses uh of uh FISA uh and inexplicable behavior that isn't tolerable in the uh uh FBI.
And uh the Attorney General's primary responsibility is to protect uh against the abuse of the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus and make sure that it doesn't play an improper role in our in our political life.
That's my responsibility, and I'm gonna carry it out.
Premeditated fraud on a FISA court, irresponsible press, full vindication.
We were right.
The mob was dead wrong.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markovitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally.
A podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional fast.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeart Radio 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.
Based on what you know so far, is it still do you still stand by your statement that the campaign was spied upon?
Oh, it's clearly spied upon.
I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is.
I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying.
I think going through people's emails, which they did as a result of the Pfizer Warren.
They went through everything, you know, from Paige's life.
Uh, he wasn't in the campaign at the point where no being on the surveillance.
Yes, but his emails were go back.
I mean, the main reason they were going for the Pfizer warrant initially was to go back historically and seize all his emails and texts and all that stuff from back months and even years.
So they were covering the period that he was in the campaign, and that's exactly the reason they went for the Pfizer to get that stuff.
I think a lot of people will hear what you're saying here and think, well, that's just Bill Barr defending Trump.
Your concern about the FBI's investigation is what?
Civil Libertarian.
I think our nation was turned on its head for three years.
I think uh based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned uh and hyped by an irresponsible press.
Uh and I think that there were gross abuses uh of uh Pfizer uh and inexplicable behavior that is intolerable in the uh FBI.
And uh the attorney general's primary responsibility is to protect uh against the abuse of the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus and make sure that it doesn't play an improper role in our in our political life.
That's my responsibility, and I'm gonna carry it out.
All right, that was the attorney general in what was a comprehensive well, two separate well, one interview and other comments made to the Wall Street Journal.
Um the flimsy basis of which to open up this investigation into Trump, how the claims of collusion against the the Trump campaign were baseless, how inexplicable it is that both Obama and Brennan, Brennan twice in August and September 2016, Obama once in September 2016.
Oh, they went to the Russians to talk to them, but they never talked to the Trump campaign.
Wow.
Um, explaining how the the difference between the Durham investigation and the Inspector General investigation, where the inspector general's scope is narrow.
His purview is narrow.
He's he's working in the bubble that is known as the DOJ and the FBI and can't go beyond that, which explains Durham's comments yesterday.
No, we've gone way beyond that, even into other countries.
That was an important that was something important that needed to be explained.
Um we know that the the then the attorney general comey refused to be asked about classified manner uh matters because he refused to re-up his security clearance.
How convenient.
He went into specific detail how the FBI withheld information.
In other words, exculpatory information from the courts and relied on the Clinton bought and paid for unverifiable Russian dossier, later proven to be full of lies.
And they knew it, but they used it and they continued to use it.
And Colme signed four of them.
No wonder he's not interested in an interview with me.
Um the FBI case fell apart, and they continue to investigate the president.
And the Trump campaign absolutely was spied on.
And Durham is looking at before, during, and after the 2016 election.
That's how comprehensive this is going to be.
How totally appropriate it is for Durham to make comments on the Pfizer report, how this nation was turned on its head for three years by FISA abuse by a corrupt mob in the media, and addressing uh other matters as well.
But what we know is we've got now full confirmation.
It wasn't just, you know, the Grassley Graham memo, the bulk of information.
It was 99% of it.
Three other separate minor items were used, and that's it in terms of the application for the Pfizer warrants to spy on an opposition party candidate.
Talking at length how the powerful tools of intelligence were abused and turned on a presidential candidate, a transition team and president.
How all of it was predicated on getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page because that backdoored them into the Trump campaign, transition team, and even deep into his presidency, and how corrupt it all is.
In other words, everything we've been saying, everything.
We got nothing wrong in this.
We've been right the whole time.
It's just taken forever to get here.
And now, unfortunately, now the important part and the important work where you will have some teeth.
The inspector general does not have the ability to convene a grand jury, charge it, make charges against individuals.
But I believe that that is where Durham is going to end up.
Anyway, we probably wouldn't be here at all, but for a very few group of patriots in Washington.
Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, John Ratcliffe, Matt Gates will join us later.
I can't even name everybody.
And of course, uh ensemble team that we've created on radio and TV.
Congressman Jim Jordan is here with us now.
How are you, sir?
Sean, I'm doing great.
Good to be with you.
And you're you're exactly right.
You were you were right.
No, no, no.
We were right.
And by the way, you and Meadows hit a lot from me.
And all I would get out of you is I'd ask you the last question after I tried my hardest to get you to tell me.
Well, am I at least over the target?
You were always over the target.
How many times did I how many times did I ask you that question?
Yeah, you asked me that several.
But but the the one thing we were wrong on, it was worse than we thought.
Because they didn't just spy on a couple people.
They were spying on four people.
They opened this investigation up and they were they were going after four people right away.
And don't you just love Bill Barr?
The fact that he is the fact that he will tell the press in such a straightforward fashion.
Yes, they spied on people.
That's what you call it when they surveil people, and they did it to four Americans associated with the presidential campaign.
Probably hadn't been done in American history.
And it did put our country through, as he said, I think he I think he used the term in that interview you just played, turned our country on its head for three years.
That's exactly what happened, and it happened because Jim Comey and Andy McCabe and the FBI did this.
And as soon as they learned there was nothing there, they should have stopped it, but they didn't.
They kept renewing that Pfizer, and they kept going after this all the way for three years, July 2016 to July of 2019.
And then as soon as that failed, they went straight to this Ukraine effort.
But but you've been right this entire time.
The only thing we were wrong about is it was worse than we thought.
You know, I never thought this could happen in America because I kept calling this the biggest abuse of power, corruption, scandal in history.
And it is that and it is more.
You know what I'm trying to understand and wrap my my brain around is why.
Why would you know, because I have such respect for law enforcement, and I can't tell you how many people in the FBI and law enforcement thank me because by the way, the people that are most ticked off over this that I have discovered are FBI guys.
All of them.
They're apoplectic because of the damage it has done to what is the greatest premier uh uh police investigative organization in the entire world, law enforcement entity in the entire world.
No, you're so right.
And I'm I'm sure you had the same experience idea.
You talk to law enforcement and they will come up to you and they love that they love the fact that we're exposing this.
More importantly, they love this president.
This guy who is this guy who's come to this town and shaking this place up and is doing what he said, they so appreciate the president, and they know the president of the United States appreciates them, not only them, but our our military and our veterans and all that we've talked about.
But you're exactly right.
They are so fed up with what took place at the as what Bill Barr said, the upper echelon of the FBI, McCabe, Comey, Page, Strzok, Baker, these top people, that's what they're upset about.
And you're right, they appreciate the fact that the president's fighting for them.
Are they really that delusional in actually thinking this was good for them?
Because if I was a lawyer for any one of these people, and remember, they've all been referred by Horowitz, but Horowitz doesn't have the ability to follow up on indictments and charges or convene a grand jury, but Durham does, and Barr does, and Barr's comments are very clear that this was an abuse of power.
All of this was based on all of it.
The Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dirty, unverifiable Russian dossier.
What an irony in all of this.
It was the whole thing, Congressman.
It was it.
Yeah, and they they didn't tell the court that when they learned that uh this was paid for by the Clinton campaign.
They didn't tell the court that Christopher Steele had told the Justice Department, Bruce Or that he was desperate to stop Trump.
They had that information, didn't convey that to the court, kept getting this thing renewed so they could continue to spy.
Remember, they were not finding anything.
In fact, all they were getting is exculpatory information, not wow, how they shouldn't have been doing this investigation from the get-go, but they kept just looking and looking and looking, hoping, because they were so determined to get this president.
Understand this, Sean.
On August 17th, Joe Pienka, my understanding is he went to he went to give the quasi-defensive briefing to the Trump campaign.
Really wasn't a defensive briefing.
He was trying to set him up.
He was trying to figure out if there was something they could get on the Trump campaign when he goes in to talk to him.
Meanwhile, Brennan tells the Russians, we know you're trying to interfere with our election.
So they're willing to tell the Russians they know what's up, but they won't give a real defensive briefing to the Trump campaign.
Instead, when they go in to talk to the Trump campaign, they're trying to set him up and get him to catch him in some action so they can further investigate.
That's how bad this was.
All right.
So now we're getting close.
How deep into the Obama administration does this go, considering as Andy McCarthy says you can't have a counterintelligence investigation without a president signing off.
Yeah, I mean, we don't know.
I mean, but again, this is what Mr. Durham is looking into.
He's taking the broader approach, not just the FBI, not just the DOJ, but he's looking at the entire intelligence community and how this all got started and how it continued to operate, and who were the that there's a reason they traveled to some of these foreign countries.
Oh, you mean like hang on, let me guess.
I'm just guessing, but uh because I'm not really smart, I'm just the talk show host.
Italy, Great Britain probably spent a lot of time talking to Australians, but I'm just guessing.
I don't know.
Yes, what do I know?
I'm not that smart.
Because those are the places MIFS had hung out, the one guy who liked to the FBI who was never charged, the guy who supposedly gave Papadopoulos this information that he then passed on that became the basis for launching this thing in July 31st.
By the way, that's amazing.
One comment of a 28-year-old low-level guy, and I'm not dismissing Papadopoulos.
This poor kid's life was turned upside down over nothing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Do you believe at the end of this that you will see charges against these people?
You look, it says at the top of a Pfizer warrant verified.
The dossier was unverifiable.
Steele didn't stand by his own dossier, we knew.
His one subsource said this was like bar talk, a joke.
So there was no other sourcing.
They had to know that that's what they were presenting to the Pfizer court.
They had to know that they were altering and purposely keeping out exculpatory information, right?
Right.
And so that that means it's premeditated fraud on a court.
Now, what if I did that, Jim Jordan?
You're a lawmaker.
Yeah, you'd be in trouble.
Uh no, you're right.
It it goes to intent.
And if they can establish uh establish intent, then somebody's in trouble.
And it sure seems like at least when they were doing the renewals.
Remember, this FISA application, this FISA warrant got renewed Three times.
So three times they had a chance to go to the court and say, you know what?
We were wrong that first time.
Here's some information we learned.
You need to take this into account.
We may not be able to continue this.
We haven't had any, we haven't really found anything.
That's what you're supposed to do.
And it sure looks like that didn't get done.
And so therefore, to your point, the individuals were for who are responsible for not sharing that information with the court, they should in fact be in trouble.
And I believe that's what Mr. Durham is looking into, as well as just the whole predication for how this thing began in the summer of 2016.
I want to come back and ask you about this Ukrainian impeachment uh coup attempt when we get back and where you see this going.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right.
As we roll along, Jim Jordan is with us, House Freedom Caucus member and champion who worked so hard.
And if it wasn't for him and Meadows and Nunes, and I can't name everybody else.
Uh, we would be in trouble.
All right, so the now they go off.
Now we're learning everything about how corrupt this Russia witch hunt is.
And yet we got the House racing towards the impeachment coup attempt on Ukraine with zero.
We have one fact witness.
Everyone else here say witness, everyone else, opinion witness.
Four facts never change, Jim Jordan.
Yep, no, you're right.
Uh the we've got the transcript, no quit pro quo.
We got the two guys on the call.
President Trump, President Zelensky said no pressure, no linkage of an investigation for the security assistance dollars.
We got the fact that Ukraine didn't know that aid was even on pause at the time of the call, and most importantly, they never did anything to get the the aid released.
They never they never announced that you're going to do an investigation, never promised to do an investigation, never did an interview.
President Zelski never once did and took any official action, any action whatsoever to get the money released, but they don't care because as Nancy Pelosi said three and a half weeks ago, um, she thinks President Trump is an imposter, and they're gonna do whatever it is.
Do you think they have the votes in the House?
Well, it's interesting.
There was just a story out today that says they now have some of these Democrats want to talk about censure instead of impeachment.
So I've always assumed they would get the votes, but they they understand that there is no facts that are on the their side, the facts on the president's side, and that this is a bad move.
Yeah, now by the way, now they got rid of quid pro quo and bribery, and now they're at abuse of power and uh obstruction because the president sought remedy in the courts.
Yeah, yeah.
So I I assume they will have the votes.
That's why they're moving forward.
But look, if if we get more the remember, two democrats voted with all the Republicans, not to even start this crazy uh uh you know, crazy thing they're going through.
So if we get more than two Democrats to vote with us on articles, that's a win for us because we know in the Senate there's no way they're gonna they're gonna move forward with any type of conviction of the present because as we said, the facts are on the president's side.
All right, Jim Jordan, we couldn't be here without you.
There were too little of us digging for the truth.
We got there.
Thank you for all you've done for the country.
When we come back, well, I know a lot of you have questions, comments, 800-941 Sean later on, Matt Gates, straight ahead.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdic 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 Dell, a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
In one area, I do disagree uh with the IG, and that was whether there was sufficient predication to open a full-blown uh uh counterintelligence investigation, specifically using the techniques that they did uh to collect intelligence about the Trump campaign.
In most campaigns, there are signs of illegal foreign money coming in, and we don't automatically assume uh that the campaigns are nefarious and traitors and acting in league with foreign powers.
There has to be some basis before we use these very potent powers in our core First Amendment activity.
And here, uh I felt this was very flimsy.
Basically, I think the department has a rule of reason, which is at the end of the day, uh is what you're relying on sufficiently powerful to justify the techniques you're using.
And uh the question there is how strong is the evidence, how sensitive is the activity you're looking at.
All right, uh 25 now till the top of the hour.
That was the attorney general.
I won't reiterate what I've been saying.
Well, full coverage of his remarks today, which are that they are wow, extraordinarily powerful on every single level.
Um, and I gotta tell you, this this is now a full-fledged, full-on investigation that I think is not gonna end well for any of the people we would imagine is not gonna end well for.
Uh all right, we have uh Matt Gates at the top of the hour.
We're gonna get to your calls and comments now.
Questions you might have, because I know a lot of you have questions.
Uh, we'll start with Andrew in Texas.
Andrew, hi, how are you?
And welcome to the Sean Hannity show.
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean, I wanted to thank you and Greg Jarrett and your other associates who have done such a great job in exposing all the corruption and all the treasonous acts of of so many people within our government.
Well, thank you.
By the way, we didn't get one thing wrong.
There wasn't one iota that we reported that was wrong.
Nothing.
Unlike the the mob in the media getting everything wrong is related to Muller, but go ahead.
I can't believe it's taken so long for the government to catch up with you and your associates.
I'm not disagreeing, but go ahead.
I'm uh the one thing I have not heard addressed in any way is of all the information that was collected through the uh surveillance on Trump Tower and the Trump campaign.
Where did that information go?
So all those conversations that were recorded.
Since we know there was so much corruption, we know that that information must have been transported somewhere.
Did it go to the DNC?
Did it go to Hillary?
Did it go to Obama?
We don't know the extent of we don't know the extent to the surveillance and what exactly was obtained.
What we do know is in the case of Carter Page.
Now, again, that's one step, two step.
If you get a Pfizer application, a warrant against Carter Page, and he's a campaign associate of Trump, then you get to go through all of his past emails and current emails as they're unfolding and other means of communication, and you get to monitor all of it.
There's no we know they weren't playing by the rules, so what about the other information that they were grabbing?
It's a great question that we don't have an answer to, which is okay, what were they what do they actually get?
We do know that in the case of Carter Page, to keep the warrant fraud going, that they literally, you know, you had the CIA say, no, no, no, he works for us, basically.
That's what they said.
That was just the Door to get in.
That was the door to get in.
What they actually there's been no information or release of information as to what it is that they actually obtained through the year-long surveillance of Carter Page or vis a vis one step, two step into all things Trump campaign transition and presidency.
We don't know the answer to it.
You're asking a great question.
And it, you know, frankly, we that needs to be delved into delve in.
We need to delve into that as quickly as we can.
Um at some point, Carter Page in one of our interviews said that he he kind of had picked up.
He was being surveilled.
He knew it.
He understood it.
How deep it went into all things Trump Trump campaign, we don't know fully.
But we know there were multiple ways that they were now spying.
Uh we it we again, Jim Jordan said they were spying.
We knew about two, we didn't know about four.
Uh, and in fact, this was all predicated on how to surround Trump and get into all things Trump world.
And obviously they did.
Um, but good question.
You know, and what where's the record of it all?
That's a great question.
We that we haven't even touched the surface of that part yet.
I want to thank all of you for everything that you've done for our country.
No, thank you.
And and your question is critical.
And at some point, we better get the answer to that too.
Uh, Brad is in Florida.
Brad, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Thanks for joining us.
Hey, Sean.
First off, I want to tell you and your family Merry Christmas.
Um, Merry Christmas.
You can say Merry Christmas on the show.
It's allowed.
Oh, thank God.
Hollow.
Not a public school.
Uh first of all, I the thing I want my statement, I should say, is about Nancy.
Is this Nancy Pelosi's latest stunt?
We have to impeach President Trump first in order to find out what we can impeach him for.
It's fascinating how they backed off.
Remember, it was originally about a quid pro quo.
Well, there was no quid or pro or quo like Joe.
That didn't exist.
Then they said, because remember, you had the two, the four facts that Jim Jordan always talks about never changed.
Nobody, they never felt any pressure.
Zelensky as early as late as not this past weekend, the weekend before was saying, I don't know.
Guys, we never felt any pressure.
There were five separate meetings that occurred, high-level meetings with Zelensky after the July 25th phone call.
Now, at no time in that those meetings was the issue of them doing something to get aid ever mentioned.
Aid was never mentioned on the phone call.
So you can't have a quid pro in a quo if they did nothing to get what eventually became the aid delivered to them.
There's only one fact witness.
I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.
I want them to do the right thing.
Everybody else is a hearsayer, an opinion witness.
And so, you know, the answer to your your question is um now they're stuck with okay, we can't get them on bribery, that's gonna fall apart.
Uh quid pro quo's falling apart.
So we'll just say uh obstruction of justice.
What's the obstruction?
Well, they they don't want to wait, they want to rush the impeachment because when there's a conflict between the executive and legislative branch, well, that then becomes the role of the judicial branch to render an opinion on these conflicts that occur.
In this particular case, executive privilege, it's not obstruction.
You know, the idea of abuse of power, there is what does that mean?
It's a nebulous term.
Nobody abused any power.
What this is, they have cheapened and lowered the bar so low.
This is there won't be a president in the future that you can't impeach based on this ridiculous standard.
It's not what our founders and framers had in mind.
I could tell you that.
Well, the other thing I was gonna ask is is this the DNC's way of getting Joe Biden out?
Because then they'll bring once it goes to the Senate, they'll Senate will bring Joe Biden in, and then it'll expose Joe Biden for what he is because they can't hack the DNC for a second time.
That'd be a little too obvious.
It is a remarkable happening right before our eyes that you can't even ask the question about Joe.
We got him on tape, bragging.
You're not getting the billion unless you're part of the prosecutor.
We know the prosecutor was investigating his son, but more importantly, he knew the prosecutor was investigating his son.
His son, zero experience hunter, is getting millions of millions of dollars.
By the way, now Biden is has decided that he's gonna blame his staff for not warning him about the potential conflict of interest regarding his son Hunter.
So if you fire him, you get the billion.
You don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
You got six hours.
Son of a B, they fired him.
Uh, do I think Joe has Legal culpability?
Absolutely.
He's in he could be in big trouble if the law is equally applied.
Right.
Well, thank you for all you do for the country.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Brad.
Glad you're out there.
Let's go to Iowa.
We'll say hi to Dean.
Similar question.
Hey Dean, how are you?
I hope that answered your question.
Yeah, I was gonna say that kind of coattails on to my question.
Um, thank you so much for taking my call.
I want to let you know how much I appreciate what you're doing and we're praying for you.
And thank you.
I can take all the prayers you got.
I'm one of those those Christians that actually needs all the forgiveness, Christian.
Yeah, we all do for sure.
Um I I kind of have a two-part comment, and I just wanted to see what you had to say about it.
Um, one is you know, they're all this talk, the Democrats are saying that President Trump abused his power by going after Biden.
Well, if you follow that argument out all the way, I would say that you know, what if Biden or some other candidate was accused of something really serious, such as murder or something else like that?
Are does that mean that the president cannot be involved in any way in talking about that or investigating it or not?
Well, remember the president's arrival.
The president swears an oath to our constitution.
You know, he promises to faithfully execute the laws.
Um to me, looking into election interference and and lecturing the new president of Ukraine, uh, hey, you seem to be hanging out with all the bad guys your predecessor was hanging out with.
So it shows president was well aware of all the corruption within Ukraine.
He's in charge of the monies that go to these countries in the end, and he he he wants to make sure that our tax dollars aren't wasted because of corrupt countries.
He had every right to do that.
And more importantly, uh, we had spent three years, you know, he's but remember, he didn't say you need to do me a favor.
He said you need to do us a favor.
And us can be us in Ukraine and us beating the United States.
Hey, you know, what involvement did you have in the 2016 election?
You know, you got this idiot over at fake news CNN saying, well, Hannity was debunked over the Ukrainian and and you know, look, FBI Director Ray is to me, I have I have no confidence in this guy.
He seems useless to me at this point.
But anyway, so oh, there's no evidence of Ukrainian election interference.
Number one, that's not separate and apart.
I agree Russia interfered.
Devin Nunes told us they would interfere.
Putin is a hostile actor on the world stage.
I'd like to know what Obama, you know, you know, what flexibility he gave him after the 2012 election.
Putting that aside, Russia is a hostile regime.
Nunes predicted it would happen in 2016.
But separate and apart from that, we have a Ukrainian court decision that states they did interfere in the 2016 election to help Hillary.
And then politico, well, an exhaustive investigative report about how Ukraine did in fact interfere in the 2016 election to help Hillary.
So for these idiots that don't read over at fake news CNN, the hate Trump network every second of every day.
Uh, you know, and director Ray not knowing that or wanting to look into that to me, is dereliction of duty on his part.
We need to know these countries that are doing this to our country.
And I thought Democrats cared about it, but apparently not.
Yeah.
Um yeah, I agree.
Along those same lines, then I was thinking, um, if you use their argument that President Trump cannot be involved in anything like this because it's a political rival, then shouldn't that also mean that any democratic representative or con or senator or governor or mayor or anything else cannot be allowed to be involved in this impeachment process and should not be allowed to vote on the impeachment because if they're running for president,
Trump is a political rival and they cannot be involved in anything if you use their argument against them.
Listen, the only guy that would would be guilty of bribery, quid pro quos and anything else is Joe.
And we've gone through all the statutes, and boy, it fits to a T. But we're getting to the bottom of it.
That's the good news here.
Um, don't forget we have Matt Gates at the top of the hour.
He's been a rock star for the Republicans.
Back to our phones, then we'll check in with uh Congressman Matt Gates.
He's emerged as a real star within the Republican ranks.
Uh, as we say hi to Alan is in the important swing state of Ohio.
Alan, hi, how are You and welcome to the program.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
Um I have what I think are two important points.
Uh, one, I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
Uh I I just didn't I couldn't vote for him.
I didn't vote for Hillary either, but I couldn't vote for Donald Trump.
I started paying detailed attention to all of this on the day that the Mueller report was released, because it seemed super important.
And I've kind of been engaged in this ever since.
And there is no way that I am not voting for Donald Trump in 2020.
Um it's just not going to happen.
Um, the kind of the cut, like kind of you know, feeding into that, like kind of the lie is that the Democrats' legal entire impeachment narrative is based on this stupid legal theory that declaring your candidacy or declaring your intent to seek the Democrat Party's nomination for president of the United States,
grants you pol this magical immunity from all investigation.
So if you were to go down and rob a bank, walk out with a hostage and a bag of money, go hole yourself up in a warehouse, and then as the cops are surrounding you, you get on the phone with the negotiator, and you say, I declare my candidacy for president of the United States.
Everyone's supposed to go home and no harm, no foul.
And all you have to do is declare your candidacy every four years, and you're immune for the rest of your life.
They've never been able to get in and actually explain how that is supposed to work.
There's never been corruption like this ever.
It's never been this bad.
It's never been this disjointed, this hypocritical, this breathtakingly, you know, flagrant abuse of of power and corruption to destroy one person.
Uh, I've never seen it.
What they're doing is hurting the country at a very, very high level.
This is not a game.
This is dangerous.
These are in that in that way, they're they're trying to undo an election and and undo a duly elected president and get rid of him because they never liked him, and they don't even believe they can beat him.
Well, we'll decide in 329 days, won't we?
All right, quick break.
When we come back, we'll have a lot more calls in the next hour and news roundup information overload, Matt Gates.
He was a rock star yesterday.
More coming up.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
Nothing in the dossier is proven false, but in fact, the dossier said that there was a Russian consulate in Miami when there isn't.
The dossier said that Michael Pro Cohen had a meeting in Prague when he didn't.
The dossier said that Michael Cohen's wife was Russian.
She's in fact Ukrainian.
And so as we sit here today, where you've, I guess, got a tweet mentioning a P-Tape, presenting yourself not as a partisan, hired by the Democrats to pursue the president.
Do you regret this tweet?
Sir, I would be happy to put my this investigation up with any of the nonpartisan investigations.
I just want to know if you regret the tweet, Mr. Gordon.
Do you regret it?
I hope you read the evidence and I think you can judge.
You either regret it or you don't regret it, Mr. Norton.
I guess you don't want to answer the question.
You know what, Mr. Chairman?
Earlier in this hearing, you said in your opening statement that there is nothing more urgent than impeachment right now.
This is the most urgent thing we could possibly do.
Well, you know what?
If you're a senior right now and you can't afford your prescription drugs, that's more urgent than this.
If you're a manufacturer wanting to dominate the Western hemisphere with the passage of the USMCA, that is more urgent.
If you're a farmer who wants to open markets so that your family can survive and thrive, that is a lot more urgent than this partisan process.
If you're a desperate family member watching someone succumb to addiction, solving the opioid problem, probably more urgent than this partisan impeachment.
If you're a member of the next generation dealing with the challenges of extinction and climate change, a budget that's out of control, driving up the credit card of young people in this country and what they'll have to pay back as a consequence of our poor decisions, likely more urgent.
But House Democrats have failed at all of these things.
Matter of fact, I'd say the only thing under the Christmas tree for most Americans would be a lump of coal, but I think they're against coal too.
The only thing under the Christmas tree for Americans would be impeachment.
All right, glad you're with us 800 941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program news roundup information overload, we'll get to your calls in mere moments.
Uh that was breakout star congressman, Freedom Caucus member, Matt Gates of Florida, the panhandle, Pensacola.
That was uh him not only addressing Nadler, but the Democratic Council at this impeachment Ukrainian coup attempt.
One of the more interesting things that has been unfolding is the trepidation that is now obvious with the Democrats in Congress as they've gone from four articles of impeachment down to two.
Even CBS's major Garrett says they're walking away from bribery and extortion allegations in full public view.
So we have a nebulous abuse of power and obstruction of justice when there is a conflict between the executive branch of government and the legislative branch of government.
Well, there is the right of this in this case, the executive branch to seek remedy.
The arbiter of such conflicts would be the judicial branch, which is what the White House has done as it relates to executive privilege.
Why is executive privilege important?
Because you have to be able to have honest conversations with the president without fear that anything that you say is going to be subject to some type of whim of political hacks like the compromised and corrupt congenital liar Adam Schiff.
Anyway, joining us now is Congressman Gates of Florida.
How are you, sir?
Thanks so much, Sean.
It's good to be with you.
And we've just received a notice that Democrats are going to mark up these articles of impeachment at 7 o'clock PM tomorrow.
And so we'll have to uh really prepare for for that experience.
And you're right, if you watch how the Democrats' claims have changed, uh initially they were talking about a quid pro quo.
Then they couldn't prove it, and so then they started talking about bribery.
Now they can't prove bribery, and so now they're trying to go to abuse of power.
They continue to move the goalposts because they have outpicked their coverage on the evidence, and I think we have proven that very effectively in the Intelligence Committee and in the Judiciary Committee.
I think it was a total complete victory.
Now, in the course of these these hearings, both the Shift Show and the nutty Nadler extension of the Shift Show, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there was only one fact witness that ever testified.
Every other witness was either a hearsay witness or an opinion witness.
And if we use the federal rules of evidence, none of which would be admissible in any trial or any court of law, and I have to assume the chief justice would abide by those federal rules of evidence.
That would mean that only one person so far that has spoken, either behind closed doors or in these public hearings, would have the ability to actually be called as a witness, and that would be Ambassador Sondland.
Now, he did offer conjecture.
He did offer hearsay.
He did offer two plus two guesses and opinions.
But when it came down to the facts as he knew them, he did ask an open-ended question of Donald Trump.
What do you want in exchange for the re release of the funds for Ukraine?
I want nothing.
No quid pro quo.
I want them to do the right thing.
Is that am I correct on that point?
You are, Sean.
You can essentially break down Democrat witnesses into three categories.
It's either hearsay, total conjecture and speculation, or it is a sincere substantive policy disagreement.
I think people like uh George Kent, for example, people uh like Ambassador Yovanovich thought that the only rightful thing to do was what they wanted from a policy perspective, and because the president didn't share their view, they believe he abused.
Well, the last I checked, Congressman, the person that is the president and commander in chief, that would be Donald J. Trump, who was elected, duly elected by the people of this country, and an ambassador is supposed to serve uh the president and his policies.
Am I mistaken on that point?
You're not mistaken, but what you've just shared is an ideology that is not the controlling ideology of the swamp in Washington, D.C. You see, a lot of these bureaucrats and permanent members of the diplomatic corps, they believe that no matter who the president is, it's their ideology, it's their view of the world that should dominate because they're the real experts.
They're the real people who know everything.
Well, Donald Trump ran on a campaign to Change the way we do business in the world to restore American greatness.
And frankly, there are a lot of people in Washington, D.C., even in his own government, who resent him for that type of change.
It's not impeachable.
And I think we made the point effectively that if this is the new standard for impeachment, that you don't like how someone talks, how they do business, how they um conduct foreign policy, then you could just impeach them.
Well, by that standard, we most certainly should have impeached Barack Obama for telling the Russians he'd have more flexibility after the election.
By that standard, you would certainly impeach Joe Biden if he were to make a statement that if someone investigating his son weren't fired, that they wouldn't be getting aid.
Well, I mean, obviously, in the case of Biden, I think that's probably a big factor in why they moved away from bribery in quid pro quo because it only applied to Joe.
Um now the question is do you believe that the Democrats, when do you expect the vote will take place in committee, which would be the Judiciary Committee?
And when do you expect the vote would take place before the full Congress uh as it relates to these articles of impeachment?
I believe by the end of the week, the House Judiciary Committee will report out the two articles of impeachment that again show a real retreat from the facts for Democrats, and uh I think by the end of next week, you'll have the House of Representatives impeach the president of the United States.
I called this, Sean.
I called it back in January.
As soon as these people took power, they were going to impeach Trump, didn't care the reason, the country, the basis, the charge.
They just want to do it to delegitimize our movement.
We are part of the most powerful political movement in modern American history, and it is exciting, and the country is doing well.
When you look at these economic numbers, I mean, the Trump economy is on fire.
Investment from all over the world is coming here so that we have more jobs, so that we have more opportunity for people, and because they can't have a substantive debate with the president, because they have known presidential candidate who could possibly beat Trump.
They're trying to do this to depress us and demoralize us.
But as part of the MAGA coalition, I would just say to the country, you know, we are going to continue to fight.
You're going to see folks like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, myself continue to fight in committee and on the floor.
And we are going to make the Democrats pay for what they are doing.
Well, impeachment fatigue is is kicking in.
And I think the biggest barometers numbers that I see every day, which are cable numbers, and it's becoming a disaster.
Uh you've got fake news CNN, if you can believe it, the numbers are at a three-year low.
You have to work hard to chase away the few viewers that you do have.
And even Area 51 Roswell Rachel Matto's conspiracy channel is is losing audience daily.
We we won by well over a million plus last night.
Polls now are also showing, and I think this is even more in indicative.
You've got uh firehouse strategies with the optimists.
Well, the president had had close races in in battleground states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but not now.
Right now, Trump is up by an average of six percentage points in all three of those matchups, all hypothetical matchups, including quid pro quo Joe.
And it's even going to be better.
When we pass the USMCA, it will be a major legislative victory for President Trump.
It will juice this economy yet again with optimism and buying power and expanded markets, and you're just gonna see the American economy continue to take off.
The Democrats, the mainstream media, they tried to tell us months ago that we were going into a recession.
It's the ye the yield curve had been inverted, and so the American economy would crumble.
Well, you know what?
We have powered forward thanks to the great American worker and great American companies, and with Donald Trump continuing to serve as our president and getting the US MCA passed, we are going to see yet another American economic renaissance.
Have you had an opportunity to see the comments of the Attorney General Bill Barr yet today?
Bill Barr saying the attorney general.
Yep.
Go ahead.
Nope.
The attorney general is absolutely right.
The inspector general can dig up facts, but it is not for the inspector general to make a legal determination on whether or not there is criminally chargeable conduct.
And the inspector general is only seeing one part of the case.
Mr. Durham has, I think, done a lot more investigative work into the criminal origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Well, that was not the man.
I mean, there would as the attorney general pointed out today, And I pointed out yesterday.
The Inspector General is limited in his scope, in as much as we only has the ability to look within the confines, a very very small bubble, even, if you will, of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
He can't go outside of that, nor can he convene a grand jury, nor can charges come out of it.
He just didn't make conclusions, but he certainly didn't conclude or exonerate anybody.
He said, Well, there's no smoking gun, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't even exist.
No, absolutely right.
And I think that we're starting to see the pieces come together with the work that uh Mr. Durham is doing to find out how our government persuaded other governments to do things that wouldn't be legal for our own government to do.
And I believe they did it for political purposes because they did not want to see Donald Trump as the president.
We have long been saying that the Russia hoax is not just a misunderstanding.
It is a criminal enterprise intended to delegitimize the voters.
How many Democrats do you see defecting beyond the two that didn't even support the inquiry?
I think we're looking at somewhere between two to five that won't be voting for impeachment.
Um, but there will be no Republicans that vote for impeachment.
Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said that impeachment would be horrible for the country unless it was bipartisan.
My prediction is that the only bipartisan vote will be a bipartisan vote against impeachment, a rebuke of Nancy Pelosi's conduct against her own standard.
It seems uh with Nutty Nadler in the committee, if he's not nodding off, pretty amazing that he falls asleep during his own committee hearing.
I don't think I've seen that before.
What is the feeling?
Because it looks tense on from the outside looking in.
It is tense and it should be.
Uh, you know, I am sick and tired of these people trying to uh rig the rules and then insist on decorum against the Republicans.
They literally had Democrat donors asking other Democrat donors what they thought about evidence that neither one of them had personal knowledge of.
And we're all just supposed to sit there and watch while they're overturning an election.
And so I did interrupt with my perspective and my defense of the president.
And if they continue to try to railroad the American voter, I think that the country can count on the group of us that be out there fighting, like Jim Jordan and John Radcliffe and Debbie Lesco and Andy Biggs, uh, we're going to be making our case forcefully.
Well, there certainly has been a moment for you, I think a breakout moment.
All right, so walk us through a timeline here.
Um, I guess Congress is in session supposedly every day next week.
Uh, yeah, when you have been told that uh we are to be here in Washington and to expect votes.
Obviously, our government is running out of money because instead of budgeting and going through the appropriations process, Democrats have been obsessed with impeachment and investigations.
So when does the impeachment vote, do you think, likely get out of committee, get to the full house, sent to the Senate?
It will take the rest of the week to get it out of committee.
My suspicion is the impeachment will be out of the house uh the following week, possibly as early as uh as Tuesday or Wednesday, but but possibly bleeding into Thursday.
Uh, and then I suspect the Senate not to take it up uh immediately.
I expect that they'll come back after the holiday break, and uh, you know, then we it remains to be seen how Mitch McConnell will treat this.
Frankly, I'm of the view that it's so ridiculous and baseless that it could probably be dealt with on a motion for summary judgment.
I don't think they should do that.
I think they should actually let these guys present their case.
Let them present their case.
And I'll tell you why, because everyone's gonna say, see, it's just a drink.
No, it's awful for the country, but let people see how awful it is.
Let them see there's nothing here, because there's nothing.
They have zero, they have zip.
And then when they're done, then every Republican can in good conscience say, okay, we heard you out, goodbye.
It's over.
And we'll wait for the next 10 times they try to impeach him because in 329 days, I guess now.
Uh, guess what?
We the people have the final say, Matt Gates, but I got a roll.
Uh, so much for having me, Sean.
Thank you.
800 nine-four.
One Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
All right.
I know a lot of you have a lot of questions.
All right.
This is what we do every day for a living.
We're in the weeds every single day.
So we'll take your calls, comments, questions, next half hour.
We have an unbelievable Hannity, nine Eastern tonight.
The attorney general's comments are are breathtaking.
What he said today on multiple occasions.
Quick break, right back, we'll continue straight ahead.
So the inspector general says he found no evidence to indicate that the FBI's decision to start this investigation was based on uh political bias.
Do you agree?
Well, uh what he actually I think you have to understand what the IG's methodology is, and I think it's the appropriate methodology for an inspector general.
Uh he starts with limited information.
He can only talk to people who are essentially there as employees, and he's limited to the information generally uh in the FBI.
But his approach is to say if I get a explanation from the people I'm investigating that is not unreasonable on its face, then I will accept it as long as there's not contradictory testimonial or documentary evidence.
In other words, it's a very deferential standard.
And all he said is people gave me an explanation, and I didn't find anything to contradict it.
So I don't have a basis for saying that there was improper motive.
But he hasn't decided the issue of improper motive.
Have you?
No.
I think we have to wait until the investigation, the full investigation is done.
And that's the fundamental distinction between what Durham is doing and what the IG is doing.
It's what I said yesterday, there is a huge distinction as it relates to the ability of the inspector general.
His purview, he's basically in basically what Barr is saying there is what I said.
He's in a bubble.
He doesn't have the ability to dig as deep and go as far and as wide as we now watch John Durham doing.
But there's enough there that is devastating to the Democrats.
All right, 800, 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Uh all right, let's get to Julia is in Maryland.
Julia, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, I'm doing well.
Thank you for having me.
And thank you for uh supporting our president Sean.
Um I my comment is about um a lot of the uh Fox News attorneys uh like Greg Jarrett and Alan Dershowitz, who always say you always need a uh statute to find a crime to define the crime.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been listening to them.
And when the Democrats during this impeachment handle, I guess, are constantly, even today, Jerry Nadler said no one, not even the president, is above the law.
Since I've been listening to these great attorneys for a while now, my thought is give me the statute.
What law uh are you talking about?
Actually, even somebody in the press asked, what law?
And he said, the Constitution.
Jerry Nadler today said the Constitution.
That is not a statute.
So they're kind of Well, nor is abuse of power a statute.
And and their argument over obstruction is absurd, but go ahead.
Right.
So they're they're kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth.
They're saying, well, we can do whatever we want because we're the, you know, we're the members of Congress, and we don't have to follow the law.
We can just, you know, impeachment is a is what we say it is, but at the same time, they're saying no one is above the law.
So they're kind of trying to have it both ways without defining any statute that they're um pretty much um convicting this president over.
Um, and I really, you know, to me, it's been very clear from the beginning that I don't think that they hate Donald Trump.
I think that they fear Donald Trump because he is so the only person that can take away their power, and they're fighting so hard for their power, which brings them money, which brings them um affirmation.
I mean, these people that have been there for decades, um, he's trying to erase all the racket that they've been building up over these years.
I mean, all these members of Congress, uh former bartender is now making 175,000 a year.
Uh tell me how that happened.
You know, so it's a really good job for really incompetent people, and they want to keep it going.
And he's the only person that can take their power away.
He's exposing all of it.
And I think from the beginning, he's been very dangerous to them.
And so, you know, this is what they've learned to hate him.
Listen, this is what draining the swamp looks like, because they really are swamp creatures.
And swamp creatures, you know, as the water gets siphoned off and the draining begins, then the ones the the swamp creatures are deep in the mud, you know, they don't like that their Water supply and and their spigot, even if you will, is being shut off,
and they come out with you know great dirt and anger and fury to protect your right themselves, their cushy jobs, their great lives, and you know, all at our expense, but what they've done here is abuse their power.
They're not serving the American people at this point, are they?
No, and you know, honestly, Sean, I'm really the one um area that I do feel bad for is Ukraine and the Ukrainian president.
I'm originally from the Soviet Union.
I came here as a Jewish refugee from Ukraine, and I have been here for 40 years.
I went back in August for the first time in 40 years, and that country just elected a president they were so proud of that could fight corruption, and it was uh such a happy and hopeful plate for the first time in many decades.
And they look to America to say, look, we can be just like America, and we're showing them.
I mean, it's an embarrassment.
I feel really bad for this fledgling democracy that is trying to model themselves on America, and this is what we're showing them.
I mean, I don't know where else they have to go.
Look, I I'll be honest.
I I don't know where I stand on Ukraine.
Uh it seems to me at this point almost everything I see out of Ukraine, and I never talked to anybody in Ukraine.
I never have in my life.
Um, did my my staff, you know, reach out at some point to try and get the prosecutor fired but that was interviewed by Washington Post and ABC and John Solomon.
I think they did at some point, but I I didn't want to get on the phone with any of them.
I see a lot of corruption.
The president in that call of July 25th was very, very adamant saying you surrounding yourself with some of the bad these bad people that were there with Proshenko, your predecessor.
Now, the only other thing I I know about Zelensky is what I hear him saying that he never felt any pressure.
There was never a quid pro quo praising the president for his support of Ukraine when really uh our Western European allies ought to be doing a lot more.
And so I give him a lot of credit for all of that and wanting to clean up the swamp there.
Um, but I you know, I hope he's cleaning up Ukraine.
Um I don't think we'll ever clean up the hostile regime of Russia under Putin.
I think he's a hostile actor.
Yeah, they did interfere.
And I also believe Proshenko's government, I I I think probably the court decision in Politico in January of 2017 had it right that Alexander Cherlupa, DNC contractor, operative, paid, you know, was trying to get dirt on Trump and his associates for the purpose of helping Hillary in the election.
I mean, that's what their story's about.
But you know, time will tell.
I think we need an investigation into that.
I thought they ever I thought Democrats didn't like foreign election interference.
You know, one of the reasons Hillary's server with top secret classified information on it mattered because when it's hacked by foreign entities, they can wreak havoc in this country.
And by the way, they all have intelligence agencies like we do trying to do that all the time.
Anyway, I'll give you the last word.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so I absolutely agree.
But you know, for all these fledgling democracies, and I talked to the people, you know, I don't know um the politics there because I haven't been there in 40 years, and it was Brezhnev when I moved, but um it's it the people were so hopeful, and uh the people that elected him are super hopeful.
And from what I understand, he fired all the old guard and hired his own, all his own people, um, young, hopeful people who have no ties to government.
Listen, I'm sure, listen, there are good people everywhere, but I just the history has been one of a deep, deep corruption.
And, you know, unfortunately, we end up paying a lot of money for these countries, and they you know, they end up end up squandering it.
You know, the whole Boris Maholding issue is one example.
I mean, you know, the whole the whole thing involving that company was corrupt.
Why look, why would they pay zero experienced hunter millions?
I don't know.
You think because they wanted influence?
Oh, yeah, probably, probably.
Because they did go to the Obama State Department later and they're, oh, we've got to stop these investigations.
But by the way, did you know Hunter was on our board and everything?
Hunter Biden is on our board.
So that's what they were paying for.
And Joe knew it.
And Joe to plead ignorance and say, no credible person has ever Said, okay, yes, we have, and yes, we're right, and the American people are smart.
That's you know, again, the boomerang effect.
I've never seen anything like it, where everything that they accuse Donald Trump of, they themselves are guilty of.
Julia, thank you.
Appreciate it.
Uh, Chad Ohio next Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Chad?
How are you?
Hi, Sean.
How are you?
I'm good, sir.
What's going on?
Thanks for having me on your show.
I just want to talk about, and I'm not sure if anybody's really talked about, you know, uh Plosi and they keep talking that the aid, when the aid was released, they opened the investigation and the holdup of the aid, and then Trump released the eight.
And that's what they keep hanging their hat on.
But what makes no sense is the aid was released on what September 11th.
They launched the investigation on what September 9th.
Even if they launched the investigation on the 9th, and President Trump found out about and said, hey, let's get ahead of this guys and release the aid.
Nothing in Washington happens that fast.
It was well, there's more to it than that, though, because remember, they have the phone call on July 25th.
The president in that call expresses concern about who Zalinski is hanging out with.
There was never any aid discussed on the call.
They didn't know that aid had been withheld earlier in at any point in this.
There were five separate meetings, high-level meetings after that phone call, including even with the vice president.
At n at none of the meetings was aid ever dismissed discussed.
Ever disappeared any of them.
Ever.
Not one time.
And that's on the record.
When the president was asked one time about it, he says, I want nothing.
Then the aid was released, and what did they do for it?
Nothing.
They still got it.
So you can't ever quitter or pro or a quo like Joe.
You can't say it's bribery because uh they did nothing and they never thought or felt any pressure.
And the the next level of all of this goes to, you know, the the clear double standard that the Democrats and the mob in the media have.
They're so corrupt.
This is the most corrupt they've ever.
You know how much I'll tell you how I feel about the media now.
I have no respect for pretty much everybody.
I don't have respect for any of them.
You know, I'm I just they are abusively biased and now abusively corrupt.
They are nothing but an extension of everything radical, extreme democratic socialist.
They really are obsessed every second minute hour of every 24-hour day hating this president and and actively trying to undo an election.
They're what they're doing is not just politics, even.
Now, maybe I'm a little more used to it because I live in a world where I'm on the attack side of it and being attacked, but I'll be honest, I'm so numb from it all.
I just don't even, I don't even, I don't care even a little bit because I don't respect them.
You know, if you ask why I've never been to a White House correspondence dinner, I can give you the easy answer.
I don't like them.
And they don't like me.
Do you think they like that we're number one again this year in all of cable news by far?
Uh then they're not liking that.
All these Sunday shows, uh, they don't they don't even touch anywhere near the ratings we get on a slow news night.
Um similarly, all these late night shows.
They're they're all dying.
And it's it's fascinating, but there is, I think what separates us is we seek truth, and we're providing news and information that you can't get elsewhere.
And not only that, we've been vindicated.
Because there's not one thing that we've reported that is that was wrong on this.
Not a single even minor fact did we get wrong on this.
And we worked really hard to get the truth.
We don't, I don't want to be like them.
They all lied about Trump Russia.
We didn't lie about Hillary and the and the dirty dossier and our bought and paid for Russian dirty dossier being the not only if it was almost the majority, it was almost all of the FISA application, all four of them.
And it was never verified and unverifiable.
Wow, pretty big fact that they missed.
Such corruption, abuse of power, and there's a lot more to go.
And and the Attorney General Barr made clear today that we're way over the target.
We've been right the whole time.
And by the way, I don't say this with any, there's not an egotism in this.
It's just we that's my job to get it right.
I shouldn't get a pat on the back because I do my job in the right way.
But they do their job so poorly.
There's such a obvious distinction.
Uh, Chad, thank you.
All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
All right, we are loaded up tonight.
Full complete analysis, and we will we will play the Attorney General Barr's incredible comments that he made uh in an interview with uh Pete Williams and another one with the Wall Street Journal.
Wow.
As powerful statements have ever been made about the abuse of power, corruption, spying on the president, abuse of the powerful tools of intelligence, pretty much everything we've been telling you that was going on, all now confirmed.
And where the Durham investigation goes, we'll look forward into that.
We'll look at the election and we'll look at the meltdown of the left in the country.
We've got Meadows, we got Ratcliffe, we got Kevin McCarthy, Matt Whitaker, Kim Strassel, also Jason Chaffetz, uh Louis Gomert, Carl Rove, Geraldo, Dam Bongino.
Loaded up tonight.
The news you won't get from the mob, all happening, nine Eastern Fox News set you DBR.
We'll see you tonight at nine.
We'll be back here tomorrow.
As always, thank you for being with us.
We'll be right back.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Kathryn 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 a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
