John McLaughlin, Pollster and Strategist and Syndicated Columnist, Attorney and Pollster, Matt Towery are here to discuss the polls, the left wing madness and the effect the impeachment efforts have had on the voters. Matt Towery has just completed a poll exclusively for the show to take the temperature of voters in the Georgia region. Both the media and our elected representatives seem to have forgotten their positions on impeachment in the 1990’s when it concerned the Democrats.The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, as we predicted, these polls are headed south and they're headed south quickly.
This is not working out well for the do-nothing radical extreme socialist Democrats in the swamp.
You know, have they done a thing?
Ask yourself a question.
What have they done to help the American people, the people they represent for three years?
What have they done short of every second minute hour of 24 hour week, 24 hour a day, every seven day week, every month and every year?
All they wanted to do, they have obsessively, compulsively focused on hating Trump for the purpose of impeaching him, which they said, we're going to impeach the MFer.
If you remember the night that what's her name was elected, Congresswoman Talib.
And they have done nothing.
You know, I'm just sitting back and I'm watching.
Now I'm reading, I'm getting, doing a deep dive into these polls today.
And again, I'm a Trump polling skeptic.
I'm not convinced Trump in any way polls like any establishment politician.
John McLaughlin, I think, was part of his polling way back in the day that shows how old he is.
But he never polled particularly well either.
But he'd always win and win by a big margin.
And I don't think Trump is ever going to poll well ever or accurately.
We saw that leading up to the election.
There were like what?
We had Rasmussen, McLaughlin, and Matt Towery.
Three pollsters.
Towery's claiming that at the time he was retired.
He's not.
So there comes a point.
You got to add what this election in 2020 is going to come down to a very simple but basic, fundamental politics 101.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Well, I'd argue by every measure we are.
The best employment situation in the country since 1969.
Every demographic group in the country is doing dramatically better.
The president has a list of accomplishments.
I don't even know where to start.
And as I go through some of this, ask yourself, what have the Democrats done?
What have they accomplished in the last three years with Donald Trump as president?
I'd argue nothing except constantly hating him.
And, you know, and look at how they divide the country.
We'll play it in more detail later.
You know, you got the compromised, corrupt, congenital liar Schiff.
And I keep saying the shift show.
And he's a bullshiffer, if you will.
He's full of shif.
There's a lot of shif out there.
Shift matters.
It's all sorts of stuff in the world.
So, but in his own district, he's doing a town hall.
All of their rage and hate towards Trump.
Now, the president has had to absorb these attacks.
It's pretty remarkable how much he takes on every day.
I know people in my industry, radio and TV, they can't even take a little love tap of criticism.
They can't handle it.
They bubble and fizz and melt down.
I told you this before.
I mean, whatever switch I was supposed to have that cares about what people say or think about me, it's gone.
It doesn't exist in me anymore.
I have to live with myself.
I know when I'm right.
I know when I'm wrong.
And I follow the guides of conscience that Thomas Paine once wrote of in 1776, common sense.
You listen to your own conscience, what's right in your own heart.
And by the way, he also said there'd be no need for any other lawgiver if we listened basically to God in our hearts, but we're human.
That not being the case, fallen beings, et cetera, we don't get there.
But just this is the rancor they have brought to the country.
They have brought no policies.
They have made no improvements.
They have resisted and obstructed everything the president's tried to do.
They have investigated to death this president.
They have tried to stymie and stifle and stop every single thing he's tried to do.
And he's been able to do it anyway.
And what have they brought to the country?
Not a single accomplishment that I can think of, unless you consider it an accomplishment to impeach a president over nothing.
With, you know, even one of the articles of impeachment just blown out of the water last week when the Supreme Court took on the case of whether or not when there's a conflict with the executive and legislative branch and one of the branches seeks remedy in the courts, yeah, they're going to decide on executive privilege and the White House is going to win.
But this is just, it was fascinating that it happened in Schiff's district, the congenital liars district, because this is what he has brought to the country.
Him and the rest of his party that follow him and are as extreme as him.
This is what they have brought the country, I would argue, this is their big accomplishment the last three years.
And one of the reasons why this is so important, that it was so bipartisan and so overwhelming, is that this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The facts of history are the facts of history.
They will not be denied.
You're a liar denied.
You're a liar.
Shut up.
Shut up.
You so.
Liar.
You're a liar.
I'm grateful.
You should be going.
You're a lawyer.
You're guilty of impeaching.
Liar.
You're a lawyer.
Don't impeach.
Don't impeach.
Lawyer.
You should be in jail.
You're dead.
You are a disgrace to the House of Representatives.
You will be going to jail for treason.
You are going to jail for treason.
Lawyer.
All right, because it's probably giving you a headache, like it's giving me a headache.
I'll stop, but we'll play more later.
That's what they have given the country.
Now, when they were in power, Biden, Obama, I've given those numbers out a million times.
13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
Worst recovery since the 40s.
We had the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years.
What has Trump given us as a result of real accomplishments?
Oh, we've got the best employment situation since 1969 and every demographic in the country is benefiting at record levels.
Now, he made a promise.
He wants constitutionalists, originalists on the Supreme Court, check.
He made a promise, the biggest tax cuts in history, check.
He made a promise ending burdensome bureaucracy.
We've gotten rid of more bureaucracy than we likely have in the last hundred years.
Check.
Energy independence.
For the first time in 75 years, we are a net exporter of energy.
What are the results of this?
Stock market high after high after high.
Wages hit post-recession high.
We have near record low.
Well, actually, record low unemployment, best since 69.
We have a record number of Americans employed.
Millions of new jobs created, including in industries.
Obama said those jobs never coming back.
They came back once you got rid of the burdensome regulation and high taxation.
And, you know, the president has put us on a trajectory where even now, all of those that were predicting a recession is coming, is coming, is coming.
And I hope it comes, Bill Maher saying, that even they're recognizing, you know what?
No, turn the ship around.
Doesn't look like there's any recession in the near future.
You know, here's a guy that, you know, said he wants freer and fairer trade deals.
Well, you're going to make them mad.
Well, they might have gotten mad, but they still gave us a better deal because he demanded it and he negotiated it.
And NATO's paying their fair share.
And yeah, he doesn't want long, protracted wars, but he did beat the caliphate in Syria.
He didn't just draw a red line in the sand.
And he beat Baghdadi and company.
They're dead.
And yeah, they didn't want to give him the money for the border wall, but he found a way to do it.
I told you he's going to find another way.
He's gone to plan B.
And now the money is now allocated.
The wall is being built and it's underway as we speak.
We have millions off of food stamps, seven to be exact, seven million new jobs created.
You add to all of this, you know, what the president has been able to do for veterans and helping the VA, the U.S. MCA trade deal, getting rid of the mandate in Obamacare, individual mandate.
All of these things result really putting time, money, and energy behind ending the opioid epidemic in the country.
I mean, women's unemployment is a 65-year low.
How many records have we had for African Americans and Hispanic Americans?
Thank God.
We're helping people now develop opportunities for themselves and their families for a long, happier, more successful life.
What have the Democrats done?
Can you answer that?
And the answer is no, because this is all they've done.
Now, Mitch McConnell, I know the mob and the meeting, they can't stand it because he's just speaking the truth.
He has now hinted that on the Senate floor today that Senate's going to dismiss these pending ridiculous articles of impeachment.
It will be anticlimactic, just like, you know, tomorrow when they take the final vote, impeached, you know, fake news, CNN, and MSDNC state-run fake news television, both of them.
They'll be giddy.
They'll be happy.
They will think they accomplished something.
They've accomplished nothing because he's not going anywhere.
And your $94 trillion new green deal where everything's free and we have no oil or gas or coal and no internal combustion engine and eventually no planes or cows, that's not going to go over because it's a mathematical law.
The numbers you're throwing out is impossible.
Just like the same thing with Medicare for all.
Anyway, McConnell dismissed the suggestion out of hand by Schumer because he said, well, the House impeaches.
They vote for impeachment and we have the trial here.
And the time for witnesses as it relates to articles of impeachment has come and gone.
And the very position that Chucky Schumer had when he was a senator in New York, and it was the Clinton impeachment.
And then McConnell rightly accused Schumer of going straight to the news media.
I think he actually leaked it to the news media first.
We don't create impeachments over here.
We judge them.
Okay, it's not the time now to argue over, we've already had auditions, then we had public hearings, then we had the from on high Ivory Tower professors.
And as a little anecdotal information, the RNC now has gotten 600,000 new donors since the start of the impeachment.
They have a lot more money in their coffers than do the Democrats.
I see Maxime Waters has now brought forward a new Trump-Putin conspiracy theory appearing on fake news seeing.
I've done some research.
I know about his alignment with Putin.
I know about Manafort and what his relationship was and the fact that he had been sent there by Putin, in essence, to head up the president's campaign because I believe, even though I don't have the facts to prove it.
Okay, let me read that again.
Even though I don't have the facts to prove it, I believe.
It's sort of like that.
This is a crime.
What's Nadler's phrase?
The crime is ongoing.
The crime is a crime in progress.
Crime in progress.
Well, if the crime is in progress, stop it.
Because we don't see it.
We're looking at the president.
Doesn't seem to be committing a crime.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Ham, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
So think of the logic of it.
So now ask yourself, all right, so the president has done in three years that which Biden-Obama couldn't do in eight.
You know, they add 13 million Americans to food stamps.
Trump policies get 7 million off of food stamps.
We have the best employment situation since 1969.
They have the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
You go through the list.
So you see the differences.
Even in the midst of this madness, the president, yeah, he engages.
He fights.
He sent out a letter to Nancy Pelosi today.
I'll tell you what's in it because he's right.
But in the meantime, every other part of his agenda he's out there working on.
And they just continue their impeachment psychosis.
And I'm telling you, it is, if the president is able to maintain, if I'm right, that he's not losing any of the people that supported him in 2016, I don't think he will.
This thing in Michigan, this focus group I told you about yesterday is big because people that voted in 2018, that voted for Obama, then Trump, they're all supporting Trump in 2020.
And they're sick and tired of what the Democrats are doing.
So you got to let them, you got to let it play out and let them hurt themselves.
But the polls now show that it is a free fall for the Democrats.
It just took a little longer than I thought it would.
And then we're going to have to come back in the new year.
Then they're actually going to run the trial.
It's not going to last long in the Senate.
Then their candidates, when you start digging deep into what their views are and what they're planning to do to the country, doesn't take, you don't need an abacus.
You don't need a calculator to add up $94 trillion in the new Green Deal in 10 years.
It will destroy this country.
And it is not even mathematically possible.
The $52 trillion in 10 years for Medicare for all with no private option, the math is not there.
You can't, you don't even take in the money to pay for that in 10 years.
Never mind all the other functions of government that matter.
So it's all one big psychotic.
Maybe this makes them feel relevant and good, but they're not serving the people.
And if the president holds his people and those that have benefited the most for his policies that didn't vote for him come over to his side, landslide.
And you see eight new polls with African Americans supporting Trump.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Now, the conduct is not conducted to perspect the American people.
The clock in the calendar, no, no masters, except themselves.
You see, our committee held its first hearing on December 4th, literally the day after Schiff publicly released his report.
In the first minutes of the hearing, Mr. Sensenbrenner furnished the chairman with our demand for a minority day of hearings.
The chairman also set a deadline of December 6th for Republicans and the president to request additional witnesses.
But it wasn't until Saturday, the day after the deadline, that Chairman Schiff transmitted 8,000 pages of material to the Judiciary Committee.
And we still haven't gotten everything, not that it matters to the majority.
For institutionalists, this should bother you.
You can still go ahead and vote for your yes tomorrow and vote for yesterday and do that, but it should matter for this institution that while I was in Georgia, I received a call from my staff saying they just released 8,000 documents, some drives, some of which were going to be kept in a secure holding.
And when I asked the chairman about these documents, what are they going to be used?
He said, well, we're not going to read them either.
We're not going to have a chance to go through them.
We're just going to go ahead with what we're doing.
That was from my chairman, who I respect greatly.
We've done a lot of things together, but it has been very difficult.
When in a hearing of this magnitude, how can anyone, Republican or Democrat, actually go back and look at their constituents in the face and say, we looked at all the evidence.
I looked at everything and I came to this conclusion.
No, we cherry-picked the evidence and we only used what we wanted to do because that material, which by the way, is still not all been released.
There's the Inspector General IG report that is still transplanted.
It has not been released.
Now, whether it's good or bad is irrelevant.
But when you're talking about impeaching a president, shouldn't the underlying evidence sent to Judiciary Committee actually matter?
Again, it doesn't take constitutional experts coming in and telling us about it.
It takes common sense to know that you don't impeach somebody without at least making all the evidence proper.
But you know, that's what happens when you're to the tyranny of a clock and a calendar.
When you're the tyranny of a clock and a calendar, nothing else matters.
We've seen evidence that the president decided to withhold from Ukraine important official acts, the White House visit, military aid, in order to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and the 2016 elections.
Why does that constitute an impeachable offense?
So, well, Mr. Raskin, on August 8th, Chairman Nadler stated with respect to the Judiciary Committee's hearing regarding the Mueller report that, quote, this is a formal impeachment proceedings, but the House, unquote, but the House did not actually authorize impeachment proceedings until the adoption of H.R.E.S. 660 on October 31st.
So I believe it's important to clarify for the record when formal impeachment proceedings actually started.
Is Chairman Nadler correct when he said they started on August 8th or did they begin when the House authorized them on October 31st?
Forgive me, Ms. Go, I was not actually prepared to answer that question.
All right.
That was, you know, the sights and sounds of the madness that is known as impeachment.
The president now has weighed in two in a letter to the speaker in name only, Nancy Pelosi, and said this impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democratic lawmakers, which I agree with.
They've abused their power.
What they've done here is this is a purely political, this is a political power play and what has been a never-ending ongoing saga to try and undo an election, the will of the people.
Smelly Walmart choppers like me and you clinging to our God, our Constitution, our Bibles, religion, irredeemable, deplorables, what they really think of us, we the people.
He further goes on, this is unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
And the articles of impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.
The president goes on by proceeding with your invalid impeachment.
You're violating your oaths of office.
you're breaking your allegiance to the Constitution and you're declaring open war on American democracy.
They've actually done this.
They have now tried everything they can do to undo the election.
Now, we do have an election coming up again.
This one's in 322 days, but they can't wait.
He goes on by saying that you dare invoke the founding fathers in pursuit of this election nullification scheme, yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our founders pledged their very lives to build.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, legal principle is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's constitutional order.
Our founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
He goes on, this is nothing more than an illegal partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail in the voting booth.
You are the ones that are interfering in America's elections.
You're the ones subverting America's democracy.
You're the ones obstructing justice.
You're the ones bringing pain and suffering to our republic for your own selfish, personal, political, and partisan gain.
He says, everyone you included, now, they spent three years doing this, knows what's really happening.
Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016 in an Electoral College landslide, 306-227.
And you and your party have never recovered from that defeat.
You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump derangement syndrome.
And sadly, you'll never get over it.
You're unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great election of 2016.
So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes.
You view democracy as your enemy.
As you very well know, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president.
It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020.
And the president goes on, there is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens.
And he goes on and says, it is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American people.
Your first claim, abuse of power, is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination, which we have discussed at length here.
He goes on, every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
Rightly, that's what he's doing.
Hang on, this just broke.
Good thing I have so many good people in this audience that are feeding me stuff.
I got like this influx of information overload because I got, oh, three TVs, five computers in front of me, 4 million papers.
They're all disorganized, and I try to find them as we go along here.
Apparently, the FISA court is now weighed in, I guess, on the Inspector General report.
I've been dying to hear from them for the longest period of time.
It must be long because it's taken a long time loading as it's been texted over to me.
But I'm dying to know what's in this thing.
And hopefully I'll be able to pull it up here.
Let me see if Linda's phone brings it up faster than my phone.
All right.
I'm sending it to you, Linda.
All right, Boston.
If it goes through.
Let's see.
Oh, got it.
I don't need yours.
All right.
Here we go.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Ooh.
This is interesting.
Accuracy concerns regarding FBI matters submitted to the FISA court.
It says this order responds to reports that personnel of the FBI, I'm reading this as I see it, provided false information to the National Security Division of the Department of Justice and withheld material information from the National Security Division,
which was detrimental to the FBI's case in connection with four FISA applications to the FISA Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC for short, for authority to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen named Carter W. Page.
When FBI personnel misled the National Security Division, NSD, moving forward in the ways described above, they equally misled the FISA court.
Boom.
Listen to this.
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Services Act, codified, amended, et cetera, et cetera.
It gives you the exact area.
Governs the FISA court approving a proposed electronic surveillance.
When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISA court judge must determine, among other things, whether it provides what is probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Now, those terms are defined by FISA.
Then again, gives you the location of the statute.
Finding of probable cause to believe that a U.S. citizen, other United States person, as defined in Section 1803, one, is an agent of a foreign power cannot be solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment.
This is stinging.
I'm telling you right now.
And then it says, it goes on to there.
However, the FISA court, the government reported a FISA court.
Now they're putting footnotes in there.
Let me continue.
An electronic surveillance application must be made by a federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation.
When it is the FBI that seeks to conduct the surveillance, the federal officer who makes the application is an FBI agent who swears to the facts in the application.
The FISA court judge makes the required probable cause determination, quote, on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant and cites certain areas of the law.
The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the determinations required by the section.
Those statutory provisions reflect the reality that in the first instance, it is the applicant agency that possesses information relevant to the probable cause determination as well as the means to potentially acquire additional information.
Notwithstanding that the FISA court assesses probable cause based on information provided by the applicant, Congress intended that the pre-surveillance judicial warrant under FISA.
Now, this is getting very, very interesting to me.
Hang on a second.
I'm pulling it up on a hard piece here.
Okay.
Notwithstanding the FISA court probable cause-based determination, et cetera, et cetera, the FISA court's assessment of probable cause can serve those purposes effectively only if the application agency fully and accurately provides information in its possession that is material to whether possible or probable cause exists.
Accordingly, the government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISA court ex parte proceedings.
That is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications.
The FISA court expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor and the proceedings at all times.
Candor is fundamental to this court's effective operation.
With that background, the court turns to how the government handled the four applications it submitted to conduct electronic surveillance on Mr. Page.
The FISA court entertained those applications in October of 2016, January, April, and June of 2017.
On December 9th, 2019, the government filed with the FISA court public and classified versions of the OIG report.
By the way, that would be this week.
The OIG report describes in detail the preparation of the four applications for electronic surveillance against Mr. Page.
It documents troubling instances in which the FBI personnel provided information to the NSD which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.
It also describes several instances in which the FBI personnel withheld NSD information in their possession, which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
In addition, while the fourth electronic surveillance application for Mr. Page was being prepared, well, an attorney in the FBI's office of general counsel engaged in conduct that apparently was intended to mislead the FBI agent, who ultimately swore to the facts in that application about whether Mr. Page had been a source of another government agency.
That's when they altered the CIA's description of the work of Carter Page.
The information about the OGC's attorney's conduct in the OIG report is consistent with classified submissions made to the FISA court by the government October 25th, 2019, November 27, 2019, because of the conduct of the OCG attorney gave rise to serious concerns about the accuracy, completeness of the information provided to the FISA court in any matter in which the attorney was involved, the OGC attorney.
The court ordered the department on December 5th, 2019 to, among other things, provide certain information addressing these concerns.
All right.
There's only about four more paragraphs left, but I don't have time here.
But the good news is I'll finish it on the other side.
This is what we've been waiting for.
The court's saying you lied to us and you have a heightened responsibility when seeking these warrants in particular.
Tick Tok, Jim Comey, and others.
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.
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.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent renewals?
I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI.
I think the notion that Pfizer was abused here is nonsense.
The thought that the FISA abuse is Pfizer abuse is nonsense.
Well, that's not what the Inspector General found.
It's clearly not what the Attorney General thinks.
It is not what Prosecutor Durham believes, obviously.
And this just literally broke moments ago.
We have put it up on Hannity.com.
I've been reading it.
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court accuracy concerns.
Now, I had four paragraphs I haven't read, and then we'll go get John Solomon's view on this.
It goes on to say the FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications as portrayed in the Office of Inspector General report was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above.
They kept saying, you have a much greater bar and responsibility here.
The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel, Jim Comey, turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession.
So let me go through the frequency with which representations made by the FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported, meaning false, or contradicted by information that they had in their possession.
Oh, exculpatory information.
And with which they withheld information detrimental to their case.
Oh, yeah, we don't want you to see the real stuff.
Then you're not going to give us what we want.
It goes on to say, because this is, I think, devastating, detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.
The FISA court expects the government to provide complete, accurate information in every filing with the court.
Without it, the FISA court cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis.
Therefore, the court orders that the government shall no later than January 10th, 2020, inform the court in a sworn written submission of what is done, what it has done,
and plans to do to ensure that the statements of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.
In the event that the FBI at the time of that submission is not yet able to perform any of the planned steps described in the submission, it shall include A, a proposed timetable for implementing such measures and B, an explanation of why, in the government's view, the information in FBI applications submitted in the interim should be regarded as reliable.
Wow.
It is further ordered, pursuant to FISA court rule of procedure 62A, that the government shall, no later than December 20th, 2019, complete a declassification review of the above-referenced order of December 5, 2019, in anticipation of the FISA courts publishing that order.
Wow.
In view of the information released to the public in the OIG report, the court expects that such review will entail minimal, if any, redactions.
That is one pissed off court.
Now, what did I say?
How many times have I said it?
You never lie to a judge.
I'd never lie to Judge Judy.
You're less than candid, but Judge Judy, she scares me.
I actually met her.
She's tough as nails.
Don't mess with her.
John Solomon, who we have on for other reasons as well, we're reading this in pretty much real time here.
Your reaction.
Well, listen, honestly, it's awful late and kind of little for the court to react now because for two years there was overwhelming evidence in the court of public opinion, thanks to your show and my reporting and all the other great people who worked on this, Greg Jarrett.
But it is nonetheless a stinging, stinging rebuke of the FBI.
And every one of those officials who went out there in the last two, three years and denied there was anything wrong.
Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Andy McCabe, James Baker, and my favorite Adam Schiff.
All of those people knew that there were a serious problem and they stuck their head in the sand and hoped it would go away.
And only now, because of the Horowitz report and the court order, do we know for sure that the FBI engaged in such sweeping misconduct that the court wonders whether any of the feces it's been getting are accurate?
I mean, that's what the ruling says today.
We doubt all the accuracy of the people.
Well, it's a crime to commit a premeditated fraud on a court.
Now, which we, again, another piece of the puzzle that we've been stating over and over again that the mob and the media never covered.
But I will say this.
I'm wondering, see, I think the court's been following this closely.
I think they've known now for a while they've been lied to or suspected very much that they've been lied to and a fraud was perpetrated on the court.
Now I think the court, because of the Inspector General's report, now has the means to come in and demand this be rectified.
It sure does.
And, you know, they talk about this December 5th filing that's under seal right now.
I suspect, as I've been saying on your show for the last week or so, that Attorney General Barr or the Justice Department has gone in and withdrawn or taken some very drastic action to tell the court how bad these FISAs were, beyond what the IG did.
And when we get to see that court order declassified, we're going to get even more a sense of just how much willful misconduct occurred here.
And, you know, this is a serious time for the court.
You've got Lindsey Graham talking about I might not allow the court to be renewed because I don't think it did its job here.
You've got a very important national security function with FISAs.
If they're done right, they protect our country.
If they're done wrong, they trample on liberties.
And I think the next three or four months are going to be critical for the country and its leaders to get this fixed and right so that we don't lose a valuable national security tool.
When you have Devin Nunes and Lindsey Graham saying that we might have to get rid of the FISA court, that's not good for our safety and security as Americans.
That then compromises us in a very ugly, dangerous world and the likes of Comey signing it when it was unverifiable and he had numerous warnings.
All right, I want to change gears here.
I read your report today.
Latvia government, and you sent me over, I guess what were the original documents about this, says it flagged suspicious Hunter Biden payments in 2016.
First, I want you to explain something.
I don't, you hear Joe bragging about you're not getting the billion.
He's leveraging a billion tax dollars.
Then we got zero experience.
Hunter, you're not getting the billion.
You fire the prosecutor.
Joe New was investigating a sign.
All right.
To me, that was slam dunk end of case.
Right.
Everything that I see involving this country seems corrupt.
Why is that?
Well, you know, there are these former Soviet republics where corruption has run amok in what we call the oligarch system, where a few people got rich and they kind of are the puppet masters for the country.
And one of those puppet masters in Ukraine was a guy named Zelchevsky, the owner of Burisma, who hired Hunter Biden, assumably to keep these sort of investigations away from him so he wouldn't be detected for the sort of misconduct that has now been alleged.
But here is what we now know, the most important development in today's story.
Joe Biden has been telling us for the last few months.
His story keeps changing, right?
First, he never talked to Hunter.
Then Hunter said, yeah, I talked to my dad about it, and I didn't really know they were under investigation.
Then we showed he did know he was under investigation.
But the thing they've been hanging their hat on the last few weeks is at the time I fired the prosecutor, no big deal because the case against my son's company was dormant.
That is bunk.
There was enormous activity going on in December, January, and February of 2016, right as the election was starting.
And this is the new one.
The new one is the Latvian government, a Soviet Republic neighbor of Ukraine said, hey, we see these transactions to Hunter Biden.
They don't look right.
We think you should investigate them.
They might be money laundering or evidence of money laundering.
And they send that to the Ukrainian government one month before Joe Biden intervenes and fires the prosecutor overseeing this case.
Joe Biden's story that nothing was going on in the case is demonstrably disproven by this document and several other things that you and I have talked about in your show the last few weeks.
Now, Hunter claims that he never got a penny from China, but his lawyer did say something to the effect, if I'm not mistaken, that, oh, he just hasn't cashed in his shares.
Isn't that true?
Yeah, I mean, that's equity shares.
That's right.
There is some ambiguity about what happened in China.
There's very little ambiguity about what happened in Ukraine.
So how much money are we talking about here?
Again, this is your reporting.
You're talking, I guess, to these sources.
How do you know?
Do any of them have an agenda?
Well, everyone has an agenda, right?
And in Ukraine, I say that.
I've said that in all my columns.
Listen, it's tough to navigate this, right?
But what we know is the Latvian government says on the record, the Ukrainian government's released the document.
There is no doubt a concern was raised in February 2016 about the money being paid to Hunter Biden.
That's contrary to anything Joe Biden has been saying.
There were no red flags.
There was nothing to be worried about.
That's not true.
Now, we need a real investigation to get to the bottom of this.
And here's what we do know.
In March of this year, three years after this Latvian memo was sent, the Ukrainian prosecutors reopened the case in Ukraine.
And they did so because they got access to new financial records.
And they have said publicly at a news conference just a month ago that they are looking at money laundering, the very allegation that was in this Latvian document.
And they've expanded it to look at also things like the theft of state or government funds.
There's a very active investigation in Ukraine.
We should wait and see how the new president and new prosecutor deal with that.
But I do suspect we're going to get some clarity in the next four to six months from Ukraine about what they think really went on with Hunter Biden, Burisma, and the owner, Mr. Zelchevsky.
What is all this stuff?
I have not been following it at all, except that I see that Rudy has been traveling the world and, I guess, digging up information about the Bidens, I guess, or is it just or the corruption in general or election interference as described by the Ukrainian court and by Politico on January 11th of 2017?
Right.
So listen, I don't know as much.
I haven't tracked Rudy's movements as closely the last few months.
Apparently, if he makes a telephone call to you, John Solomon, that's public information now.
Yes, they should probably.
Now, God forbid that John Solomon, actually, as an investigator reporter, has contacts.
Yeah, that's the silly part about it.
And there were many other reporters in those call logs.
They just chose not to release them.
I think Rudy Giuliani has been for more than a year looking at the issues in Ukraine as they affect President Trump's defense and things like the Mueller report and now the impeachment trial.
And he's trying to get the best evidence for his client to make a case of his innocence.
And one of those cases is there might have been really legitimate concerns in Ukraine about Hunter Biden that would warrant a president saying, could you get to the bottom of it?
That would be a natural legal defense for Rudy Giuliani to help the president build in this impeachment proceeding.
And we should wait and see what he releases.
There's some talk he's going to go before Senator Graham's committee and release his evidence.
There's all the things I put into the public.
And remember, all my things are documented.
You can click and see the documents and read the information yourself.
There are a lot of questions, none of them answered, but a lot of important questions.
And the most important is, did Joe Biden engage in appearance of a conflict of interest when he fired a prosecutor he knew was investigating his son's company?
I think we're getting a clearer answer every day on that.
And there ought to be some accountability brought to that issue.
All right, John Solomon, thank you.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
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.
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, though we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Glad you're with us.
Merry Christmas.
You can say it again.
It's like, oh, it's safe to say it.
The war on Christmas.
Remember, they'd get so mad, the liberals, that we'd say there's a war on Christmas in Vox.
I mean, you can't even put up a nativity scene without people just melting alcohol sultan and water.
It's like Mike Huckabee puts out a tweet the other night.
He's on my show and he goes, yeah, I'm going on Hannity because the president really deserves a third term because they stole his first year and they lose it.
Anyway, in Ohio, we have Todd standing by.
Todd, how are you?
I'm great, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
Listen, I'm not only going to tell you Merry Christmas, but I'm also going to tell you, God bless you.
We're here in the Buckeye State, and I want to tell you, you got the backing of the Buckeye State 110%.
Everything you need.
I love the Buckeye State.
We need Ohio every single election.
It's such an important state.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
You're welcome.
I just really wanted to keep it short and sweet and just to tell you, thank you.
Everything that you're saying, you know, I've been following you for years.
I've got my sisters, my mom, my brothers.
We're all following you.
So I really appreciate what you do.
I can't do it without you.
And, you know, I'll say this.
I'm going to say it a lot in the next year.
We're all spokes at a wheel.
The only way the president gets re-elected, the only way you'll ever hear the words, CNN fake news can now project that Donald J. Trump has been re-elected the 45th president of the United States and them lose their mind and we shock the world again.
It's an all-hands-on-deck moment.
This impeachment will long be forgotten by some, but not by me.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue straight ahead.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
The founding fathers must be turning in their graves that a president of the United States is vulnerable to impeachment for this.
Is perjury in a case like this serious enough to warrant impeaching the president?
If the Republicans want to go ahead and do this, I think they disgrace themselves in a more profound way than President Clinton has by abusing the machinery of impeachment.
Is it worth overturning the will of the people in order to impeach him?
If the only thing you can prove is that he lied.
Is there, is there not some concern of the public perception that this is, in fact, a kind of effort at a quote coup?
Ophelia Arellano says it reminds her of a coup in her native Guatemala.
We like him here.
He's doing that woodchoo.
The Republican Party who dislike him and what he stands for, having been unable to beat him at the polls, have found another way to get him out of office.
America wants Christmas carols uninterrupted by political scandal.
They have robbed from you, make no mistake about it.
They have used a procedural device to steal from you your right to be democratically represented.
Quote, you don't overturn the results of an American election on a whim, unquote.
If he takes the risk of going to trial and he's convicted, that could be seen as an impeachable offense.
If Trump were caught on a video camera snorting cocaine in the White House, maybe with one of his children, there was at least a chance he'd be impeached.
If he's not a legitimately elected president in your mind, there are tools that Congress has.
I don't see how that wouldn't be an impeachable offense.
That tweet fits the Republican definition of an impeachable offense.
I will fight every day until he is impeached in Peach 45.
Grounds for impeachment.
It's an impeachable offense.
Perhaps impeachable offense.
Is impeachment the appropriate remedy?
Something for Congress-like impeachment.
All of that may be impeachable.
That's an impeachable offense.
Is that an impeachable offense?
Is that an impeachable offense to you?
He's much more vulnerable to impeachment.
A potential ingredient of impeachment.
Where do you see an impeachable offense?
It is grounds for impeachment.
For impeachment.
Potentially criminal or even impeachable.
Grounds for impeachment, or does that not go far enough in your view?
Grounds for impeachment.
This tweet alone may be an impeachable offense.
Let's talk about impeachment.
is on the table which impeachable offense bullies don't win And I said, baby, they don't.
Because we're going to go in there.
We're going to impeach them.
Do you see an impeachable set of offenses?
It's an impeachable offense.
If that's not impeachable, I don't know what is.
The president shall be removed from office on impeachment.
Is it impeachable?
100% is impeachable.
Very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Grounds for impeachment.
Tipping point.
Talk of impeachment reaches a fever pitch on Capitol Hill.
That's three long years.
Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
And now Schumer's like, everything that I said in 98 about the Clinton impeachment, never mind.
But we should do it the way the Republicans wanted to do it back then, which Republicans did not.
How many tens of thousands of transcripts do we now have between the audition shift show hearings and the phony shift show hearsay BS shift show that they went on publicly?
All these people testify, all the hearsay people, all the opinion people, not one fact witness out of the bunch of them, then the Ivory Tower people.
Now they know there's no evidence.
So now they say, well, maybe let's redo the investigation in the Senate.
You guys messed it up.
We'll do it here.
No, because that would be the role of the House.
They impeached the president and they give you specific reasons.
They will present their case to the Senate.
And because there is no fact witnesses that they're going to be able to call except one exculpatory fact witness, it's going nowhere.
All it is is a fait accompli at this point.
They've made up their minds.
They hate Trump.
We've heard it all through the end of 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
And these polls now reflect the American people are getting it all.
They're understanding all of it.
And they're sick of it.
And I can't blame them.
I'm sick of it too.
And is it going to impact the president?
Actually, it will.
It's helping the president.
They will help re-elect the president.
This is one of the greatest things they could do in terms of a contribution to the Trump campaign and his re-elect effort.
Anyway, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So we have the latest John Solomon piece that is out there.
I am beginning to wonder about all these things.
I went through this whole litany of issues and I tweeted them out the other day because there is a big lie being told in the media mob circles about what conservatives think about Russian election interference.
And they've got a conspiracy theory about, no, it really wasn't Russia.
It was really Ukraine.
And they don't even believe Russia tried to interfere in the elections.
Okay, that's what they say.
Now, let's go back and take a trip down memory lane because I think this is very, very, very critical and important.
When you look, it was Devin Nunes.
Devin Nunes.
Remember in 2014, he warned everybody, yeah, they're going to try and impeach.
Remember, it was Devin Nunes.
Devin Nunes is the one that said, oh, yeah, the Russians will interfere.
Of course, the Russians interfered.
Hostile regime, hostile actor Vladimir Putin.
I wouldn't be making deals and having more flexibility and talking to him privately.
God only knows what he did there.
But we're now watching and witnessing something that is, there's nothing that they offer we the people at this point.
And I'll tell you, I don't care what they say.
They don't want to investigate real Russia, a real dirty Russian dossier used to impact the 2016 race.
They don't want to look at the obstruction of justice with the secret server and the bleach pit and the hammers and the deletions.
They don't want to look at possible Ukrainian interference, election interference, even though Ukrainian court said so.
And then we have Politico saying so in great detail.
They just, they have one set of standards that they have set up for Donald Trump and an entirely different set of standards for everybody else.
Breathtaking hypocrisy.
I've never seen it like this or this bad.
By the way, so the shift show went back to his district and apparently they didn't go over pretty well there.
Listen to this.
President.
And one of the reasons why this is so important that it was so bipartisan and so overwhelming is that this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The facts of history are the facts of history.
They will not be denied.
You're a liar denote.
A liar.
Shut up.
Shut up.
You're so.
Liar.
You're a liar.
I'm grateful.
You're a lawyer.
Stop!
Stop me in jail.
You're guilty of criminal.
You're a lawyer.
Don't impeach.
Don't impeach.
Lawyer.
You should be in jail.
You are a disgrace to the House of Representatives.
You will be going to jail for treason.
You will be going to jail for treason.
Don't tell me to get out.
Just get down.
Everything's fine for property.
I've been calling it a shift show.
And, you know, it's nothing but bullshit from shift.
And that is his town hall.
Great job dividing the country.
All right, let's get to our phones.
Let's say hi to Christopher in New Joise.
Christopher, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hi, my name is Dr. Christopher Benetti.
I'm actually a political scientist and I'm a liberal Democrat.
Are you a professor?
Yes, I'm an adjunct professor at a community college.
Good for you.
A liberal professor.
I'm shocked.
Go ahead.
Actually, you'd be surprised how few real liberals are in college.
They're all progressives now.
It's a completely different ball, completely different ball.
I kind of look at liberalism, progressivism.
It's sort of the party's gone hard left.
But anyway, what's on your mind today?
Right, right.
Well, I mean, I have to tell you all this stuff, but so I'm a liberal Democrat.
I'm an academic and I oppose impeachment.
I'm against impeachment.
And as you might imagine, this is a problem for me.
And the reason I'm against impeachment is I'm a political theorist and I study history.
And the Roman Republic on which our Constitution is based basically fell apart because of almost exactly the same situation we have now.
And I feel like our institutions are more valuable than impeachment.
And I also think that the evidence for impeachment is weak.
And I'm not a Trump supporter.
I would never in a million years vote for Trump.
I'm a Democrat.
But I do feel like if we impeach him, even if he doesn't get removed, which he won't get removed, but I think the Republic won't recover from it because.
All right, stay there.
I want to find out.
I'm going to put you on hold.
We'll talk to you on the other side.
And why, as a liberal professor of political science, why you are against impeachment?
It's pretty interesting to all of us.
All right, as we continue with Christopher New Jersey.
Christopher, all right.
So you're against impeachment, but you never vote for Trump.
Obviously, your fellow liberal leftist Democrats are doing this.
So why would you reward them?
What have they done for the American people the last three years except hate Donald Trump?
Well, I mean, I think it comes down to my values are Democratic values.
And while I disagree with the party elites on a few things, for example, Chairman Tom Perez is basically trying to purge the party of pro-lifers.
I happen to be pro-life, even though I'm liberal.
So I'm not a huge fan of that.
But I do feel like at the end of the day, I'm a Democrat in my values.
And even if the party does things I find distasteful, I can't just leave.
I actually disagree with Jeff Van Drew when he left.
I don't think that even when the party does something that's dishonorable, that you should leave.
Can you name one specific accomplishment, one thing they've done for we, the people, in the last three years?
Well, you know, at the state level, I think the Democrats.
No, no, no, no.
We're not talking about the state law.
I'm talking about Congress.
I'm talking about your House of Representatives, the Democrats in Washington.
What have they done for we, the people?
They haven't done that much, but I would argue that the Republicans haven't done that much either.
Well, I would argue Donald Trump gave us the largest tax cut in history.
He kept his promise on originalists and constitutionalists on the court, kept his promise on moving America towards energy independence for the first time in 75 years.
We're a net exporter of energy.
Keystone Pipeline, Dakota pipeline up and running.
Anwar's open.
We now have the president found the way, and he's going to have 400 miles of border wall built by October of next year.
It's on track four, as hundreds now built already.
Then, of course, he said he's going to fight for free and fair trade deals.
He's got them done.
Then he said he didn't want long entanglements abroad, but he beat the caliphate in Syria.
Baghdadi and his closest allies are dead.
I'd say he's done a pretty good job of keeping a lot of his promises.
But see, I don't believe in his values.
I mean, it's just.
That wasn't the question, Professor.
Keep your focus now.
I'm sure you have to say this to some of your students.
You said to me, I don't think the Republicans have done much either.
I just mentioned all of those.
Those are not small items.
That's the big list.
The president's also created 7 million new jobs.
The president's also gotten 7 million people off of food stamps.
Well, okay, we can talk about food stamp politics because I think it comes down to my question.
What have the Democrats done?
I gave you the list of what Donald Trump has done.
It's really hard to do anything when you don't have the presidency.
It's very hard to do anything when you just have one half of Congress.
So you're making excuses for them.
But when they did have power, we had 13 million more Americans on food stamps and 8 million more in poverty.
That was the Obama-Biden legacy.
I would disagree.
There's no disagreeing.
Looking at food stamps, the way I think that food stamps, sometimes you have to increase the role.
Is it better to have people have a job?
We have the best employment situation since 1969.
Is it better to have a job or better for government assistance?
I would say it's better to have a job, but I don't think that...
Donald Trump is now giving us jobs.
And I think it's better.
I think we all as human beings are designed to be workers and to serve others.
Life isn't about serving yourself.
I got a role, though.
Thank you, my friend.
Professor, you get a C-minus today, but keep working on it.
Call us back.
We'll see if you can do better.
Quick break, right back.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
But I do think the aha moment for the country was the action taken by the President Trump appointee, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who said that there was a credible report from a whistleblower of grave concern and that Congress should be aware of that.
And that is the facts of the Ukraine situation have just changed everything.
The polls went from 59 opposed to impeachment, 34 in favor to about even.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today is a tragic day for our country because while our young people are fighting in the Persian Gulf and bringing honor to our country, we are bringing dishonor to it with our hypocrisy here in this chamber.
Today, the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance.
In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously violated.
And why?
Because we are here, we are here today, because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton.
And until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.
This is a crime in progress against the Constitution and against American democracy.
We cannot take the risk that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he is clearly trying to do.
If it has not earned the confidence of the American people, then any action we take, especially if we seek to overturn the result of a free election, will be viewed with great suspicion and could divide a nation for years to come.
We do not need a decade of candidates running for office accusing each other of railroading a democratically elected president out of office or of participating in a thinly veiled coup d'état.
And one of the reasons we all feel so angry about what they are doing is that they are ripping from us.
They are ripping asunder our votes.
They are telling us that our votes don't count.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other.
The American people have heard the allegations against the president and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him.
They elected President Clinton.
They still support him.
We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
This partisan coup d'état will go down in infamy in the history of this nation.
By the way, that is a crime in progress.
Well, then somebody needs to, the president, he's not doing, what is the crime in progress?
Never mind, too, that the second article of obstruction was blown out of the water by the Supreme Court, that clearly by taking on the issue of executive privilege, when there's a conflict between the executive branch, legislative branch, it is the role of the judicial branch to settle disputes when one of the branches seeks remedy, which is now happening.
As we've been telling you, now, I stand, I have not changed my view.
I do not believe that Donald Trump in any way polls like any conventional politician.
It's just the way it is.
But with that said, the Real Clear Politics Average now has impeachment underwater.
That was not the case from the very get-go.
We've got new polling numbers from our friend Matt Towery, U.S. aided aid numbers that we're going to share with you.
But you hear the rank hypocrisy of Schumer and of Nadler and of Pelosi and the compromise corrupt Adam Schiff.
They've had all their hearings.
They brought all their hearsay and opinion witnesses.
The one fact witness is on the table.
Now they want to, because they know it's so weak in the Senate, now they want to, let's try for another impeachment attempt here, if you will, another cool attempt.
Anyway, John McLaughlin, the pollster, is with us, pollster strategist McLaughlin and Associates and also syndicated columnist attorney.
He has now taken on the new role of being the official pollster for all of the Fox owned stations across the country, which is a really big job, many of them in swing states, important states like Florida, Georgia, and elsewhere, separate and apart from the Fox national polls, which I've not been too particularly pleased with their methodology.
Guys, welcome back.
Why is the methodology so flawed by so many of these groups?
Well, I think one of the things that you see, Sean, is that, of course, I've argued against cell phones, although there is a way to make cell phone polling effective.
And also, I think the biggest flaw is that there's an insistence on weighting these polls heavily towards younger voters.
We see an overpolling, oversampling of Democrats.
And of course, there's also the reluctance for individuals to tell people that they support Donald Trump after they see him attacked on virtually every news network and on every talk show other than, of course, yours and Rush's and a few that are at the top of the heap, I might add.
But also on late night comedy and the like, they realize that they are pariahs if they tell people that they support Donald Trump.
There are ways to get them to do it.
We have new polling numbers, which we'll talk about in a minute in one state that we're doing.
And by the way, those are separate from the Fox affiliate polls.
I'm doing my own polls this year because I got it right in 2016, and I'm going to make sure I get it right.
And we're only going to air them on your show.
By the way, it's been you, John McLaughlin, and Scott Rasmussen that have been right.
Zogby wasn't.
The three of us.
Yeah.
The three of us.
Zogby has been right.
But look, look at the exit polls.
All right.
So let's go through what we see.
We now have six polls, even a CNN poll showing that opposition is now outpacing support for impeachment.
This is a big turnaround.
Why are we seeing it at this late hour?
John McLaughlin.
Well, because they have no facts.
First of all, those polls that you mentioned, I agree with Matt.
They're biased in their samples.
They're biased in their questions.
They randomly dial phone numbers.
They don't use voter lists.
They're samples of adults or registered voters, not likely voters, because likely voter polls determine who actually votes.
There's 139 million people who voted, but there were 90 million people eligible that didn't vote.
So they pollute the polls.
And the Republicans, on Election Day 2016, there was 37% Democrat, 33% Republican.
All these polls that you just mentioned that you're referring to, even though they're trending our way and show the majority or close to a majority now opposes this impeachment, those polls are all biased with Republicans well under 30%.
Now, what I want to tell you is you've seen, you referred to the real clear politics average.
That curve or that graph, when they started doing these hearings, they went down.
There's no evidence.
America was bored by it.
They can't prove their case that the president did anything wrong.
In spite of all their biased reporting and you with your people on this show and on your TV show, you have people that stick to the facts and present a case.
You've got these other networks and these other shows where they're literally making stuff up about the president.
And the American public's realizing it's a railroad.
The process is unfair.
And back at the end of October, we had a national poll that said 59 to 33.
Americans thought this is a waste of time and going nowhere.
Well, these hearings by the Democrats, by Pelosi, and Schiff have proven it.
And also the Republicans like Doug Collins have exposed it that this is a political impeachment, all about stopping the president from being reelected.
And we had national polls saying that 52 to 36, that this is not a legal proceeding.
It's a political proceeding.
All right, let's go to your new poll that just came out.
We have it up on Hannity.com and also the USA Today poll.
What we see is Donald Trump defeating former Vice President Biden in that poll and Bernie Sanders by five points and Warren by eight points.
And if you look at the hypothetical head-to-head contest, Trump also is ahead of Mayor Pete by 10 points, Mayor Bloomberg by nine points.
That's another turnaround.
And you did the state of Georgia.
Tell us what you found in Georgia, Matt Towery.
Well, what's interesting about Georgia is the University of Georgia, in conjunction with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, did a poll just about a month ago.
And quite frankly, the results, if you've taken the base value, which I wouldn't necessarily, but I don't want to quibble with other polls right now, you've had a complete reversal of fortunes in Georgia.
At that time, you had over 50% saying that the president should be removed from office.
His approval rating was at 42% according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution GGA poll.
Now you see the complete opposite.
The president's approval rating is at 52, disapproval at 42 in Georgia.
And by the way, Georgia is a swing state.
It is on the verge of being a purple state.
It can be critical.
It's also the eighth largest state in the nation.
So it's important for us to look at.
As far as the impeachment goes, all of a sudden in Georgia, 50% oppose impeachment and removal.
And you have just around 30-something percent who say the president should be removed and a very small number who say he should have even been impeached in the first place.
So now these hearings, as John alluded to, and John's poll a month or two out was very predictive of where we are now.
Because what's happened is the more they accelerate, they hit the accelerator on this impeachment inquiry and then all the news around it.
And of course, the hyperbole that's involved in it, the president's numbers just keep going up.
So the very best Christmas present that Donald Trump could have, it's the gift that keeps on giving, is impeachment.
I hate to say it.
No one wants to have that moniker around them.
But right now, his numbers are just exploding.
Not exploding in the sense that most people could see it, but John and I can see it.
And they're moving very rapidly in his favor.
About two months ago, Zogby had picked up the president's support among African Americans at 20%.
And I talked about it.
There are now eight polls that have recently come out.
One has, and all credible polls.
One has the president at a 34.5% approval rating with African Americans, another 34, another 33.
Zogby yesterday had it at, I believe, 27 or 28.
The lowest of the eight polls now is 16, which would be exactly twice what the president had in terms of support from African Americans in 2016, John.
Yep.
How do we interpret that?
Well, remember in 2016, we did net eight points better than Romney, but the exit poll had us losing the African Americans 89 to 8.
And what's going on, though, is the president, as he reaches out and he reminds people that, look, you've got full employment now.
You've got the lowest black unemployment ever in history.
You can find jobs.
Plus the idea that he's taking on the idea that they've been taken for granted and he's standing up for school choice.
He's standing up for things that the average family, whether they're African American or not, needs, as well as criminal justice reform.
These polls are showing that we can get someplace between maybe 15 and 25 or maybe even 30 percent of the African Americans based on their approval ratings of the job the president's doing.
So it's always been a theory that I think, and I saw this in Georgia with Governor Deal when we got double-digits African American votes.
We defeated the Democrat strategy because they wanted to hold us to 5%.
And all of a sudden, when you're getting 10 or 20% from that core Democrat constituency, you're going to win.
You're going to win decisively.
So they're in a panic because the theory is we can get African American votes more easily than we can get white liberals who think they want to vote for Warren and Sanders.
So let's get those votes and let's keep that growing and watch the Democrats panic.
And it's not just African Americans.
I got to take a break.
We'll pick it up on the other side.
More with John McLaughlin, Matt Towery.
These polls are fascinating.
800.
And by the way, they are our pollsters all throughout 2020, the official pollsters of the Sean Hannity show.
Quick break, right back.
800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
We'll continue.
All right, as we continue our pollsters, John McLaughlin and Matt Towery with us.
All right.
So they're going to have this trial, I assume, in January.
Okay.
Does that continue the bleeding?
And how do they manage that now as we're heading into the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary in South Carolina?
And who do you guys see winning on the Democratic side?
John McLaughlin.
On the Democratic side, it's absolute chaos right now.
It's really volatile.
You've seen the Warren surge in that state and Sanders come back up.
And you've seen Budigej have a little moment, too.
But there's really a primary going on between which moderate's going to come out ahead and which socialists, whether Warren or Sanders will come out ahead.
And then you've got the minority vote of African Americans and Hispanics.
So it's really volatile.
In the process, it all hurts Joe Biden because he's the collateral damage in this impeachment scandal because of what he did in Ukraine, not what Donald Trump did.
So what do you think, Matt Towery?
How does it shake out?
Well, it's interesting.
You know, we're beginning to see the emergence of sort of a Biden on one side and the Warren and Bernie Sanders on the other, which, of course, they represent the extreme liberal, quote, socialist side of the party.
So if that continues to emerge, our theory early on, if you remember, we were talking about this in the spring and summer, was that there'd be a consolidation between Sanders and Warren.
Someone would have to step aside, and then you'd end up having a very liberal nominee.
Now, I still have my eyes peeled on Deval Patrick.
I know he's not done anything yet, but I'm suspicious about his emergence because it came from nowhere.
And I believe that if he had the right support, which would come from the Obama group, he could become a very viable candidate and a bit of a worrisome candidate for the president.
But that hasn't developed yet.
So as we stand right now, I think where we are is we're looking at Biden continuing to survive.
I think he'll survive through several primaries.
But when we get further in, we're going to see either Warren or Sanders take control of that left side of the equation.
And then the battle is going to be, can the centrists get a candidate or will it be an extreme George McGovern-type 1972 nominee, which I still believe in the end is what we will see.
All right, guys, our official pollster, Sean Hannity Radio Show 800-941 Sean is our number.
Matt Towery and John McLaughlin, thank you both.
We'll take a quick break.
We have an awesome Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel, and we'll get to your calls on the other side.
And so I was actually doing the finals, but I got to see enough of it.
And certainly I spoke to my people.
It's a witch hunt.
It's a sham.
It's a hoax.
Nothing was done wrong.
Zero was done wrong.
I think it's a horrible thing to be using the tool of impeachment, which is supposed to be used in an emergency.
And it would seem many, many, many years apart.
To be using this for a perfect phone call where the president of that country said there was no pressure whatsoever, didn't even know what we were talking about.
It was perfect.
The relationship is perfect.
I've done much more for them than Obama did for them.
It's a scam.
It's something that shouldn't be allowed.
And it's a very bad thing for our country.
And you're trivializing impeachment.
And I tell you what, someday there'll be a Democrat president and there'll be a Republican House.
And I suspect they're going to remember it.
Because when you do, when you use impeachment for absolutely nothing other than to try and get political gain, I think that the whole impeachment thing, hoax, I guess you could call it, because it is a hoax.
And Nancy Pelosi knows it.
By the way, they duped her yesterday.
She was on an interview.
And she said, we've been working on this for two and a half years.
So she was working on it.
In other words, two years before we ever spoke to Ukraine.
She said, we've been working on impeachment for two and a half years.
And the reporter was shocked when they got this answer because it showed she's a liar.
So it's a very sad thing for our country, but it seems to be very good for me politically.
And again, those people, because I watch some of the dishonest fake media, they're saying, well, the polls have remained the same.
No, the polls have not remained the same.
I think you understand that, John.
The polls have gone through the roof for Trump because people, especially with independent voters, and especially in swing states, I can show you numbers that nobody has ever seen numbers like this before.
So the impeachment is a hoax.
It's a sham.
It started a long time ago, probably before I came down the escalator with the future first lady.
Started a long time ago.
And when you look at the IG report and you look at these horrible FBI people talking about we got to get them out, insurance policies, you know, the insurance policy is just in case she loses, meaning crooked Hillary, who's crooked as a $3 bill.
Just in case Crooked Hillary loses, we've got an insurance policy.
But we've been going through the insurance policy now for three years and it's a disgrace.
All right, that's the president in his own words.
And I don't know where the media is reporting the polls.
They're missing the poll story on purpose.
Even a lot of them, their own polls, they don't want to talk about the key findings in them, even as distorted as they are.
It is tanking.
It is cratering.
There is a real palpable panic now within all Democratic circles.
They can't get this out of the House fast enough.
And in spite of Schumer, you know, putting on a show, it's already been established.
The House does the impeaching.
And then when they're done, they decide if they want to impeach the president.
And then the Senate, their role is to convict or acquit.
Well, even he realizes there's no evidence here.
And it's a laughingstock.
And as they go forward and present their so-called case, it'll again remind people there's no there there, how petty they are, how little to nothing they've done for the American people.
You know, all this flurry of activity, last seconds, acting as though they're doing some work.
Where have they been all year?
What have they done except Russia, Russia, Russia, stormy, impeach, impeach, impeach three years?
Now, with that said, the president just keeps driving forward.
Yes, he deals with this.
Yes, he comments on this.
And then he goes into 100 meetings for the rest of the day.
Or he's doing a new trade deal.
Or he's ending more burdensome bureaucracy.
Or he's figuring out other ways to get more monies for the wall.
Or he's increasing defense spending, which we desperately needed thanks to the Obama military letdown.
And it goes from there.
I mean, I've never seen it.
It's like a tale of two styles.
And I think that all in all, the polls are now accurately reflecting that people have had it.
And I think it only gets worse.
And they so minimize what impeachment means anyway.
I don't think it means a thing.
It means nothing.
I feel absolutely nothing about their stupid impeachment.
Like, that's who they are.
This defines them.
This in the end hurts them.
Because when you were in power, you did nothing except destroy the economy and give mullahs and Iran a ton of money and draw red lines in the sand that you never meant and promise Putin you'll be more flexible after you're re-elected.
And boy, wouldn't I love to pay for that transcript?
Anyone want to sell that transcript?
And supposedly those are records of that, right?
We have records of these phone calls.
Well, why doesn't Obama in the spirit of transparency release the calls with Putin and the mullahs in Iran and the leaders of Iran and elsewhere around the world?
And, you know, I just see it all turning.
This is now taking on a life of its own.
They are now locked into who they are.
Lazy, obsessed, Trump-hating, do-nothing Democrats, the new extreme, radical, Democratic Socialist Party, with very few exceptions.
There'll be a few people that say, uh-uh, you're not getting me to go over the cliff with you.
You want to do, you want to commit political suicide?
You go right ahead.
This is not what I signed up for.
Your political games.
Now, all the others are capitulating and they're getting a little pat on the back.
That's a good, that's a good little congresswoman or congressman, and you did good, and you listened to everything we told you to do.
By the way, it was nice meeting you because you're going to probably be gone after election day.
By November 4th, you're going to regret this decision.
All right, let's get to our phones.
Chad is in Indiana.
Chad, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Sean, great to speak with you.
Want to wish you an early Merry Christmas.
Same to you, my friend.
What's going on?
I love the line that you're taking.
And the thing, my biggest thing on my heart is that the line has been crossed for any of these moderate Dems in these swing states to come back later and say that they were against the sham.
We see them for who they are, who they truly are, liberal party hacks.
The whole sham was nothing but taking our taxpayer money and funding for opposition research.
And I wanted to leave you with a question.
And I so appreciate you.
So my question is this.
In the midst of all of this abuse of power that they were solemnly entrusted with, that we, the people, gave them, who has been fighting for us, the forgotten men and women that get up every day and work and pay our bills and want to see our kids have a better life than we had?
Our wages crumbling and infrastructure crumbling, the opioid epidemic.
We all see what the Democrats' only concern is, the precious progressive liberal agenda.
The only ones fighting for us is Trump and those who have stood by him through this, you, some of the other greats that I don't want to speak on your show because, but I put you in the big three with Rush and Thank me.
God bless us.
Mark Levin.
I'm just guessing.
Mark Levin, Mark Levin.
That's the one I was thinking.
My mind was.
Nobody else is going to say it.
There, I said it.
Mark Levin.
So, so, so in the middle of the day.
In the midst of all this, in the midst of all this, who's fighting for us?
The American people.
I mean, it's like they've completely forgotten it.
They're so incessed.
You know what I love about the president's style?
And I don't know what it is, but it's like the more they hate him, the more I like him.
The more I like that he doesn't take their crap, the more I like that he fights with them.
And the more that I like that he goes about the business of governing the country and keeping his promises.
That's refreshing.
You know, there's a lot of things that factor into elections.
Peace and prosperity, always a big factor.
And every economic measure not only is holding strong, but all the talking of recession has now gone away.
And we've had a major turnaround.
We have all these millions of jobs created, millions of Americans off of food stamps, the best job situation since 1969.
Every demographic in the country, our entire American families benefiting from these good policies.
And you just, you see and you compare and you contrast.
People are now used to his style.
He's not the guy that fights day and night to keep his promises doesn't say, oh, okay, I'm going on Twitter now.
I'm going to turn the fight switch off.
It doesn't work that way.
You are who you are.
And he's sort of such the anti-politician is what you see is what you get.
All these other pretentious, self-righteous, sanctimonious people, they usually present one face in public, but behind closed doors, they're nothing like that.
And that's the opposite.
America knew what.
Look, I'll tell you right now, America needed this disruption.
This disruption has been great.
And I'm telling you what's going to end up happening here.
This is going to be the new norm.
Old establishment Republicanism is dead.
America First is alive and well.
Fighting for the forgotten men and women, alive and well.
Looking, getting out of foreign conflicts, long engagements.
That day is come and gone.
Why do you think the president's going to spend $800 billion on new weaponry?
Because it's the next generation.
We're not going to have to send our sons and daughters banging on doors.
This is transformational.
You know, this idiot that supported TARP Judge Greg, you know, establishment figure, critical of me.
And I'm like, oh, Trump's not a conservative.
I'm like, well, or a Republican.
I'm like, I don't think he is either, actually.
He's a registered Republican.
I'm not a Republican.
I'm a conservative.
Originalists on the court, that's conservative.
The largest tax cuts in history, that's conservative.
Securing the border, that's conservative.
Energy independence, that's conservative.
You know, ending burdensome bureaucracy, that's conservative.
If we're going to win overwhelming force in war and conflict, win it.
He beat the Caliphate.
He beat Baghdadi.
Baghdadi's dead, along with four of his other top lieutenants.
That is a conservative way to fight, in my view.
Eric is in California.
Eric, how are you?
Good.
How are you doing today, Sean?
I'm good.
What's going on?
Oh, I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and thank you again for another great year's hard work.
Thank you.
Well, you make this happen.
And boy, I'm going to rest up after this silly impeachment thing.
And then we're going to come back with all cylinders firing right on time.
And to answer the previous caller's question, you're the one out there fighting for us smelly shoppers.
I hate to tell you, I am one of those smelly shoppers.
So, you know, I don't understand one thing.
Why when I go to a store, you know, my work is in public, but it's the same as everybody else where we all are in the service industry.
You create goods and services for people.
Mine's news and information, hopefully with a dose of entertainment once in a while.
And people, what are you doing here?
I'm like, shopping.
And they're like, well, why do you, you shop?
Yes.
Why?
Because I like to eat or I like, you know, I buy somebody a present or something.
I don't know.
Yes, because the Democrats have someone else do all their shopping for them.
You have.
No, they just shop with our money.
There's the big difference.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Doing impeachment on our money as well.
Exactly.
You have some wonderful guest speakers when you're on vacation.
And I was wondering if you would consider giving Linda a day to do her own show.
You know, she's like, no.
You know, here's the problem.
The fines will be so great.
There's not enough dump time built into this show to allow her to do her show.
Oh, just think of the radio.
I think she'd do great.
She's always welcome to do it if she wants to try it.
She's got a great voice and she can talk the talk just with the best of them.
Well, first of all, first of all, let me first of all tell you that.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Let me do the talking.
I'm talking here.
First of all, exactly.
Anyway, thanks for the request, Eric.
We appreciate you being out there.
Lori, Illinois, next, Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Lori?
Hi there, Sean.
Wanted to say I loved your show with Levin last night.
Watch that.
It was really good.
Oh, thank you.
I wanted to just make one point about Pelosi.
Everybody's discussing if they're going to have the votes or not in the House.
I think it's a mute comment because you know darn well she's going to have those votes.
And we're going to have quid pro quo, but on her side.
She's the one, I'm sure, promising everyone, you know, all the Democrats, promising, blackmailing, bribing, doing whatever it is to make sure she's got those votes.
Listen, I mean, this is what Congress does all the time.
That's true.
There's a lot of that, which is a good point I wish I thought of.
They're always saying, well, you vote for us here.
We'll be able to help out.
What do you need in your district again?
Oh, you have soybeans in your district.
Well, we could probably help the soybean farming industry if you help us with this vote.
Yeah, there's a lot of that that goes on.
Yeah.
So we shouldn't be blaming President Trump for anything that they're doing anyway.
It's all quid pro quo.
You support my spending in my district.
I'll support the spending in your district.
You have a quid and a pro and a quo like Joe.
It's amazing.
Yes, sir.
Definitely.
You have a Merry Christmas, and I'll keep listening and watching.
Well, thank you.
I'm going to rest up after this stupid impeachment, which is keeping me on my vacation week and not making me happy because it's a waste of our time.
It is hurting the country.
Anyway.
All right, Hannity, tonight, nine Eastern.
Wow, from the FISA court, a beatdown based on the FBI abuse of power.
And there is now going to be accountability.
The latest on the impeachment charade, of course.
Greg Jarrett, John Solomon, Matt Gates, Congressman Scalise tonight.
Senator Ron Johnson is going to join us tonight.
He's been really good lately.
Lara Logan, Sean Spicer, and buckle up for Crazy Impeachment Day tomorrow.
And then you'll go home with your family.
And then you'll vote in 322 days.
And then we'll start all over again.
All right.
Have a good night.
We'll see you tonight at nine back here tomorrow.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
