For this Best of Hannity episode we have Jay Sekulow, Gregg Jarrett, David Schoen, Jonathan Gilliam, Danielle Mclaughlin, Sidney Powell, Peter Schweizer and John Solomon all focused on just how awful the Mueller report really was. If you've forgotten, there was no collusion on behalf of President Trump and it took millions of dollars to prove what we already knew.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.
Finally, the special counsel investigated a number of links or contacts between the Trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.
After reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russian-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.
So that's the bottom line.
After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants, and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts.
All right, that was the Attorney General in his press conference with Rod Rosenstein there as well earlier today.
And from the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I earlier read the statement from the president's attorneys, Jay Seculo and Rudy Giuliani.
One of them joins me right now, Jay Seculo, also the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
You know, I read the whole thing.
I mean, I suffered through it because it was monotonous.
And, well, why don't I just let you explain your take on it at this point?
Because you couldn't cooperate any more than you did.
Even Mueller acknowledged that they had pretty much all the answers they needed.
To me, this is now dead, except for Congress needing to cling on to something because they hate Trump so psychotically.
Well, you heard Congressman Nadler's press conference.
I mean, it was deflated.
They are deflated.
The fact of the matter is, the basis upon which this inquiry began was allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the Russian government and Russian agents and members of the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign.
And everybody found there were no such activities.
None.
That was the conclusion.
No collusion.
Then with obstruction, they go through 200 pages of recitations of law and fact to conclude that they can't make a determination that the president, in fact, violated the law.
That's what it says.
And every, it's interesting to watch some of the spin on some of these networks, but the truth is right.
That's what it says.
And therefore, they make no conclusion except to say that we're not saying the president violated the law.
Well, if he didn't violate the law, then guess what this is?
A declamation letter.
If they had an obstruction case, they would have put it forward.
They did not.
Look, we all know if Mueller had it, he would have run with it.
And you're right, it is a declination letter.
Now, they come up, though, with their 10 possibilities.
And, you know, I actually predicted this last night on TV, that they'd say, well, the president, he hoped that General Flynn wasn't in trouble.
He wouldn't get in trouble.
Well, General Flynn still got in trouble.
Well, he wanted to fire Mueller, and he told Don McGann.
I'm like, what relevance is that?
He has the power to fire anybody he wanted to in this case.
He didn't.
But he didn't.
Of course, he had the constitutional authority under Article 2.
He did not.
So when you go through each of these, it ends up with the same conclusion, and that is no legal violation.
You know, at the end of the day, when you think of all the time, money, effort put into this thing, and we now have four instances.
The FBI investigation, we learned with the recently released closed-door testimony of Struck and Page, they revealed something I found fascinating, which was that the FBI had no power to make any decisions as it related to Hillary Clinton's investigation because those decisions were being made by the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the same person that was telling James Comey it's a matter, it's not an investigation, and met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix.
So we have 53 more of those to come.
But I look at that and I'm like, wow, that was never fully investigated.
As a matter of fact, it looks like that investigation was rigged.
I want to go through with you a couple of the key, because people are actually, no one, few people can read 400 pages, okay?
I did.
So let me go.
I'm going to do this with you tonight, but I think this is important for the people to understand.
Page two.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Page 187, same kind of thing.
Page 181, the investigation did not establish that the contact described in volume one, which is all of the collusion issues, amounted to an agreement to commit the violation of any federal law.
Okay, I'm only on page two.
Now I'm going to go to the next one.
This was also page one and two in the summary.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired to coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Page nine.
The evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges regarding a Trump tower meeting.
Here we go again on page nine.
And our evidence about the June 9th meeting and the WikiLeaks releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation.
I could go on and on.
The office has not uncovered evidence that Paul Manafort brought the Ukrainian peace plan to the attention of the president or the administration.
I mean, on and on it goes.
You know, let me then focus on where the media is on here because it's so declarative.
And then it says, well, it was very interesting because both Rod Rosenstein, the Office of Legal Counsel, joining the Attorney General on the issue of obstruction that Mueller left to them and had he had the evidence.
You know, in most cases, Jay, if they investigate somebody and they don't have the evidence to indict and bring that case forward, you don't hear about all the background noise that they looked into.
But that's not the case here.
And every single thing that I read was, okay, we know this already.
We know the president vented.
We know the president was angry.
We publicly called it a witch hunt.
He publicly hoped that Lieutenant General Flynn wouldn't get in trouble.
He openly said that probably Mueller should be fired.
And Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions, he was not shy about expressing that.
For example, we do know that Rod Rosenstein and others talked about, they talked about wearing a wire secretly against the president.
We know they talked about invoking the 25th Amendment, but they didn't do those things.
So those are words versus actions.
Now, as it relates to law, there's a great distinction there.
Yes, but let me give you another bit of reality news.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, based on what we've seen to date, that's talking about after the enforcement out, going forward on impeachment is not a worthwhile, is not worthwhile at this point.
Very frankly, there's an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.
Well, I mean, that sum up the victory right there.
That sums up the victory pretty much in full.
You know, I do worry about a double standard here because there are really serious issues that if we don't get to the bottom of, I'm worried about our Constitution, equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws.
And we do have a lot of evidence.
We know that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act.
We know even James Comey acknowledged he had top secret classified information on that private server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet called Platte Rivers Network.
And we do know that when she was subpoenaed, 33,000 emails were deleted.
The hard drive was bleach bit erased, and devices were broken up with hammers, and SIM cards were removed.
Now, I watched.
I'll tell you what's more important than all of that in my mind.
How did this investigation start?
Tell me.
What started this investigation?
When did it start?
That's exactly right.
More important than all the Hillary Clinton stuff is this issue.
Americans were surveilled through FISA warrants, which resulted in an operation called Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which became an spying, as the Attorney General said, on a political campaign.
A big deal.
That morphed into a collusion inquiry or conspiracy inquiry that morphed into an obstruction inquiry.
We've got to find out how this started because that's the outrage to the Constitution.
John Solomon hinted last night that this investigation did not start on the purported date of July 31st, 2016, as we believed up to this point.
He thinks it started months and months earlier.
Is there any evidence to that fact as of now?
I don't know about evidence.
I know that when this started, it was labeled Crossfire Hurricane.
They created their, in my mind, that's a line out of Jumping Jack Flash, by the way, I think they created their, I think they've borne on the Crossfire Hurricane.
I think they've started their own crossfire hurricane here.
I think this Attorney General will get to the bottom of the.
What about the issue, though?
There's other issues involved here.
If we really cared about collusion, number one, we have evidence.
The Ukraine, Ukrainian officials are admitting publicly that they tried to interfere in our elections and are willing to provide evidence.
Nobody seems interested.
We also have this whole issue of this bought and paid for phony dossier.
According to testimony of Bruce Orr, everybody was warned that it was tainted, that Christopher Steele hated President Trump.
Christopher Steele does not stand behind his own dossier anymore in an interrogatory in Great Britain.
We know that Hillary paid for it.
None of that was told the FISA court.
So wouldn't that mean in these FISA applications that they committed fraud on a court?
That's why the investigation of what transpired here is absolutely critical, and we have to get to the bottom of it.
I believe this Attorney General will.
Do you believe, as I believe, that the phony Russian dossier was used as the insurance policy to destroy a duly elected president, to attempt to destroy him?
I think that was the attempt.
It did not.
I think there was insurance policies in place on multiple fronts that were not cashed in, so to speak.
But, Sean, I think it raises a very serious legal issue as to what really is at stake here.
And what's really at stake here is something horrible happened.
No other president should have to go through this ever again, period.
This would be, you know, having followed this case, which 99.9% of the media went in one direction and they lied every night for two, two and a half years, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Well, now we've had the fourth confirmation that there never was any Trump-Russia collusion.
We had the nine-month FBI report, the House Intel report, the bipartisan Senate report, nothing.
Everyone is exonerated president.
But on the other hand, we do see a rigged invest, a rigged investigation for Hillary with real evidence.
We do see that a phony, unverified Russian dossier bought by Clinton using a foreign national with funneled money was used to deny an American citizen his constitutional rights.
And it also allowed the opposition party to spy on the Trump campaign during the election on top of Stefan Halper looking into Papadopoulos and Paige and Clovis.
Look, this matter has to be investigated significantly, seriously, and with an eye towards what the Constitution requires and mandates.
I think Bill Barr, without question, is going to do that.
He has said it.
He takes spying on a campaign seriously.
He said it is a big deal.
I think you've seen the leadership from him time and time again over the last several months, and I think we'll continue to see that.
Here's what we have outstanding.
53 closed-door testimonies we haven't seen.
We also have the Attorney General mentioning that there was spying and that a full investigation into this whole issue will take place.
Then we have the Inspector General Horowitz report on FISA abuse.
We expect that report in May.
Then we have John Uber.
He's looking into leaking.
We'll get that report.
Then we also, the president in the last interview I had with him, he will make available to the public the FISA applications.
Also the 302s, the Gang of Eight, all this information will be public.
I know a lot based on my sources what we will find out.
And there is a real abuse of power here.
Knowing the media, and they seem to now be pushing towards either getting his taxes or hanging on to this to the very last moment and beginning impeachment proceedings, which I think are absurd, but they may not be.
No, they're not.
I want to say something on that, Sean.
I mean, Stenny Hoyer's statement is not an accident.
This is the Democratic majority leader, okay?
And based on what we've seen today, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this time.
Very frankly, there's an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment.
That's about as good as it's going to get from them.
I think this issue is dead and done.
Yes.
In terms of the president.
TV networks are trying to hang in there, but they know it, and it's going very quickly.
Yeah.
Well, I will say this.
I know how hard you work.
I actually think this case was won by not allowing, after all that you turned over and allowing everybody to testify and no executive privilege ever invoked that, you know, I think that allowing the president to speak to this special counsel with the record of setting up perjury traps would have been a mistake.
Well, I wouldn't have let you do that.
I wouldn't let anybody else.
I mean, no lawyer worth assault would have allowed that.
All right, Jay Seculo, attorney for the president.
Thanks for being with us.
We'll see you on Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern.
We have Greg Jarrett's reaction, David Schones' reaction.
We'll take a quick break, come back, we'll continue.
Hey, kids, be sure and check out Santa Cast, the new hilarious holiday podcast with Santa.
It's the most wonderful time of the year, but that can be the toughest time of the year for Santa Claus.
And this year feels different.
Santa feels a little out of the loop, like he's missing something.
So he goes straight to the source and starts calling, well, you, the kids from all around the world, to reconnect and find out what you really want out of this holiday season and why.
So listen to Santa Cast on the iHeartRadio app on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
We can talk about the Democrats, and I know this is they're trying to reinvigorate the impeachment push of theirs.
I'm going to tell you right now, it's all going to die.
Lannie Davis is out there offering Michael Cohn to fill in the redactions in the Mueller report.
Didn't they just make a criminal referral the day that Lanny sat behind him when he was after he'd already been sentenced?
Now he has another criminal.
What is this guy doing?
How many times is he going to put this guy's life on the line?
Maxime Waters, now the big thing is to attack the Attorney General's integrity.
Oh, they loved him before.
And Democrats, they want to hear from Mueller.
They want Mueller to discredit Barr and the Attorney General.
You can't get around what this report says.
You can't get around four now, four independent investigations coming to the same conclusion.
And by the way, the Obama administration spying scandal just got a lot worse because the Mueller report concludes that Carter Page was innocent.
So that means they're in more trouble.
And by the way, the prosecution of Julian Assange, it's interesting how they actually recognize in this report that Assange, they basically say he is a journalist, that he's protected as long as he's not involved in whatever he's reporting if he's not involved in, quote, stealing it.
Well, that's right out of the Pentagon Papers.
We'll continue.
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.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 22 months.
Well, this is now the fourth, four separate investigations clearing Trump of Trump Russia, Russia campaign collusion.
Even the special counsel, the FBI, the House Intelligence Committee, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, all-powerful special counsel, now the latest, filled with investigators who were big-time Democratic donors, including the former lawyer for Hillary, Andrew Weissman, the pit bull, who was at Hillary's victory party.
22 months, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, how many pre-dawn raids with guns in people's faces, 230 court orders, and interviews with approximately 500 people.
Quote, from the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
No one inside the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.
The very lie that has been peddled now for well over two years, two and a half years, hysteria, breathless coverage, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories by the Democratic Party and the rage-hate Trump media mob working in unison.
Slander, besmirchment, nonstop attacks.
Well, now we'll impeach him over this.
That's what we're going to do.
We'll go right back to, but it was Barr, Barr's fault, Barr and Rosenstein.
They just cleared him of the obstruction issues.
Okay.
Well, if that's your, if we're going to have equal justice under the law, this is what the media doesn't understand.
They've been wrong the whole time.
We've been right.
We've assembled the team.
We're going to introduce two of them in a second.
And we've been able to determine that the investigation into Hillary's email server was rigged.
It was fixed.
Even Strzok and Page recognized it was rigged and it was run right out of the office, they say, of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
What did she know?
When did she know it?
The one who wouldn't even call Hillary's investigation an investigation.
She called it a matter.
And then, of course, meeting with Bill Clinton just days before the decision is made on the tarmac in Phoenix, hoping, I guess, talking about grandchildren for nearly an hour.
And then the same person Strzz and Page says she was making all the decisions, and we already know she's not going to be indicted.
Now we know that she had top secret classified marked as such information on that secret server.
That's a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793.
So there's an underlying crime.
And then the issue of intent.
Well, the intent was to get rid of the evidence.
That's why you delete 33,000 emails, acid wash your hard drive with bleach pit, and then, of course, bust up your devices in case any of the emails are on there.
Have an aid duel with hammers, remove the SIM cards.
So that's a big part of it.
Then, of course, we've got Hillary Rodham Clinton's bought and paid for Russian dossier full of lies leaked to the American people through their media allies, Korn and Isakov and the Washington Post.
Why?
So it would impact the votes with Russian lies.
And then, of course, it's used to bludgeon an American citizen as Pfizer fraud is committed.
And they present this phony dossier that everyone was told was never verified, corroborated, put together by somebody who himself doesn't stand by the dossier, Christopher Steele, using funneled money through a law firm to an op research firm out to a foreign national, put together.
And then it's used as a basis of a FISA warrant denying an American citizen his constitutional rights, but more importantly, as a backdoor into all things the Trump campaign.
Then we had other spying as the recruitment of Stefan Halper, who goes after Papadopoulos, Page, and Sam Clovis.
Yeah, we had spies in the Trump campaign.
And then you add to that that whole mess that they have.
Well, then they have their insurance policy, the very same people involved in rigging the Hillary investigation.
Yep, the insurance policy was to bludgeon Trump with a hoax, a conspiracy with the willing accomplices in the media, regurgitating every lie every minute of every day.
And now we have 53 previously secret, undisclosed, closed-door testimonies we will get a hold of.
We have Nunes and his criminal referrals.
We have the Inspector General, his investigation into FISA abuse.
That's a slam dunk case.
Then we have John Hoover and his report on leaking coming.
We have the Attorney General pledging that he himself will get to the bottom of all of this misconduct and spying that went on in the Trump administration.
And of course, we have the gold standard.
The president telling me he will release the FISA applications, the 302s, the gang of eight information.
Basically, an illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, the Russia hoax.
Greg Jarrett is with us.
That's the name of his number one best-selling book.
He's been proven right all along, as well as David Schoen, criminal defense, civil liberties attorney.
I actually read the whole thing today.
And, you know, I'm reading this stuff on the obstruction part, and I'm thinking, boy, if you have to stretch this far that Donald Trump got mad and wanted at times to fire Rosenstein, Sessions, and Mueller, but didn't do it.
How do you, you know, it's just like they wanted to tape the president secretly.
They didn't do it, but they said it.
They wanted to invoke the 25th Amendment.
They said it.
They didn't do it.
So they want to say he obstructed on something that he thought about or discussed doing, but didn't do.
Can that ever rise to the level of obstruction, Greg Jarrett?
No, absolutely.
I mean, we are not the thought police.
We are not the discussion police.
Our democracy and the criminal code says you have to engage in overt acts.
And obstruction of justice is a very specific statute.
It says you must prove a corrupt purpose.
What is that?
It identifies the five things that constitute a corrupt purpose.
A lie, threat, bribe, concealing evidence, or destroying documents.
Now, that report found that Trump committed none of those things, which is why there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction.
And on collusion, yes, I've read the entire report myself.
All Mueller had to do is read my book.
And in fact, the section on collusion looks like it comes right out of my book.
I've never read such an exculpatory document.
So Foursquare, the president did nothing wrong, but that will not, Sean, stop Democrats and the media from howling impeachment at the top of their lungs.
And I warn them, if they proceed with that, they do so at their own political risk, it will backfire.
But it's a dead issue with the American people, that I can tell you.
I mean, if Mueller had it, he would have brought it.
And, you know, it was a declarative statement.
You know, if you have the evidence, you're either going to indict or you don't.
And if you don't, usually you don't hear about the evidence because it wasn't rising to the occasion.
In this case, David, it's very different, I guess, because it's the president, right?
Yeah, that's right.
Listen, you've been right 100% of the time on this thing.
You were right earlier in the week in predicting what the report would say.
And Greg's right about this impeachment backfiring.
But one thing for sure, anybody who reads this report and thinks impeachment, they're out of their mind, and they certainly don't have the country's interests in mind.
The piece reads in many ways like a gossip piece or certainly a political piece.
Never before do you see a decision not to prosecute couched in these terms.
Well, well, we would say if we had evidence for sure that he didn't commit a crime, and we're not saying that, that's absolute nonsense.
But you knew when he picked it to when Mueller picked the team that he did, that they were political animals, rabid anti-Trumpers, and that they would put disparaging remarks in there to justify themselves and for the press and Congress to pick up on.
But listen, it's all a farce now.
They want to blame Barr.
Well, how about Rosenstein?
That was their man.
He's the one who wanted to use the 25th Amendment to get rid of the president.
They loved him then.
They didn't want him fired.
Rosenstein has said, no evidence of obstruction of justice.
So don't put it on bar.
You've got the report now.
This should be put to bed.
Let's get on with policy.
Well, I mean, we're going to get on with policy, but I think we have other issues that have to be dealt with with all due respect, David.
Right, right.
They did rig the investigation into Hillary.
She did commit a real crime.
We now have overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that top secret, classified, marked as such, were on that private email server.
So that would be an underlying crime.
18 USC 793.
Then we also have evidence when she deleted the subpoenaed emails and acid-washed the hard drive with bleach pit and broke up the devices and removed the SIM cards.
Well, that would be evidence of intent.
What is the intent?
To eliminate the evidence of the crime of violating the Espionage Act.
And then those people that rigged that investigation should also be held accountable.
Those that allowed an American to lose their constitutional rights and to spy on the Trump campaign based on a phony, unverified, bought and paid for dossier.
Well, they lied to the FISA court and committed a fraud, Greg Jarrett.
I think that has to be settled.
And then they have to settle.
Yeah, go ahead.
I agree 100%.
The Russia hoax has been exposed for what it is.
The witch hunt is now officially ended.
And now the real investigation, Sean, as you state, should begin in earnest.
It's been going on with Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General.
But now that Attorney Barr has this behind him, I think he will look quite seriously at the acts of corruption and illegality that were perpetrated by people at the FBI like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and also look at the lies peddled by John Brennan, the former CIA director, and James Clapper, the former DNI.
And they were also in on this hoax.
Brennan began working on the Russia collusion hoax beginning at the end of 2015 throughout 2016.
Well, this is funny you're saying this because now everybody is saying, and even Giuliani said, and others have been saying, this started way before the official start date of July 31st.
John Solomon said it last night on TV with us, Greg.
And so what does that mean?
When did it start?
It started at the end of 2015 when Brennan began soliciting, principally from the British, but other American allies, information, surveillance information, electronic information.
You mean stuff that they couldn't legally get in his position as CIA director?
The CIA cannot monitor and spy on Americans.
So he very much.
So they farmed it out.
They subcontracted out what is illegal to our friends in Great Britain and Australia and maybe Italy.
That's right.
And they reversed sourced the information spying on Americans through foreign sources.
All of this will be coming out in the months ahead.
Well, once that happens, I've got to believe that's part of the reason these countries are begging the president not to release the FISAs, the 302s, the Gang of Eight information and other...
That's right.
Because you're convinced it'll expose our allies as doing the work for our intelligence community that is illegal for them to do themselves.
I absolutely believe that.
Is that a crime to outsource something like that?
If your true purpose was to spy on Americans, absolutely it's a crime.
What about the 350% increase in unmaskings that took place in 2016 in election year?
Also a crime.
You know, it's a crime to unmask the name of someone without a legitimate purpose, and then it's an additional felony to leak it to the media.
And that's part of the criminal referral by Radcliffe and Nunes and Meadows and others.
And I, you know, that's going to be explosive when that comes out.
Think about the perversion of the FISA court process.
They should be livid, and the American people should have gotten real eye-opening on how secretive that process is and how dangerous it is.
The only thing I would modify about what Greg said is, I believe one witch hunt has ended.
I don't think the witch hunt has ended.
This Jerry Nadler is absolutely out of his mind.
Remember, he's hired two investigators now who've written treatises on how badly they hate President Trump and why he should be impeached and committed obstruction of justice without any evidence and without the law on their side.
So I'm afraid, you know, the press is picking up on everything as we knew they would.
So today they're going to be talking about the president said this is going to ruin my presidency, having Mueller appointed.
And then if you read the report, what he went on to say was: every time they tie a president up with this kind of thing, policy gets lost, it ruins the presidency.
Look at what this president has accomplished, especially in the area of foreign affairs, notwithstanding having both arms tied behind his back, being under the gun in the media every single day.
Now he's exonerated in this report, and you have another witch hunt starting with Jerry Nadler and the rest of his crew in Congress.
It's horrible.
Well, I think it's horrible, but I also think once we get to the real investigation, everything's going to boomerang back, and they've got themselves a lot of problems here.
Well, you're on the winning streak.
Let's keep it up.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll come back and we'll have more of our coverage.
We're going to replay Bob Barr, William Barr, rather, not Bob at the top of the hour.
If you missed him this morning at 9:30, and then we'll have more of our coverage continuing because what he said and the way he described it was very powerful, which is why so many liberals right now are clamoring that he get fired.
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 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.
Glad you're with us.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
Look, a lot of you working, a lot of you busy, 9:30.
The Attorney General with Rod Rosenstein with him, and of course, with consultation of the special counsel and the Office of Independent Counsel.
Yeah, they made the decision because there's no evidence that rises to any level of obstruction.
Many of you missed it.
I want you to hear it in full.
And this is the Attorney General Barr from earlier today.
The special counsel's report states that his quote investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I am sure that all Americans share my concern about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election.
As the special counsel report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election process.
But thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign, or the knowing assistance of any other American for that matter.
That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.
First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.
Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the special counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme.
Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.
But the special counsel found no evidence that any American, including anyone associated with the Trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA.
In another way, the Special Counsel found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities.
Second, the report details efforts by the Russian military officials associated with the GRU, the Russian military intelligence organization, to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals associated with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
But again, the Special Counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these hacking operations.
In other words, there was no evidence of the Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking.
The Special Counsel's investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet.
The special counsel found that after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen documents to entities that it controlled, DC Leaks and Gusifer II, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication.
WikiLeaks then made a series of document dumps.
The special counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts.
Under applicable law, publication of these types of material would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.
After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation.
As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation.
Instead, the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision.
Instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions.
In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context.
President Trump faced an unprecedented situation.
As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates.
At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability.
Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion.
And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.
And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.
Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.
These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the special counsel's office as well as the intelligence community.
And prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases.
The redactions are their work product.
No redactions done by anybody outside this group.
There were no redactions done by anybody outside this group.
No one outside this group proposed any redactions.
And no one outside the department has seen the unredacted report, with the exception of certain sections that were made available to IC, the intelligence community, for their advice on protecting intelligence sources and methods.
Consistent with long-standing executive branch practice, the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States.
Because the White House had voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege, and he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice.
Following that review, the President confirmed that in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the special counsel's report.
Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.
In addition, earlier this week, the President's personal counsel requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.
That request was consistent with a practice followed under the Ethics and Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.
The president's personal lawyers were not permitted to make and did not request any redactions.
In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the special counsel's investigation.
We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler through this process, and we will continue to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the special counsel's investigation.
Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available, subject to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from several congressional committees, a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand jury information.
Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves, with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.
I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the special counsel's investigation.
All right, that was the Attorney General at 9:30 this morning as he broke the news.
We've now read through this report.
We'll have more on the other side.
A huge Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
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 Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
As we continue with Attorney General Barr's comments from earlier this morning, as he laid out why there's nothing to indict, no obstruction, and no collusion, whether you like it or not in the liberal media.
Mr. Attorney General, we don't have the report in hand, so could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president and you say you disagreed with some of his legal theories?
What did you disagree with him on?
I'd leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense.
But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him along with Ed O'Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy.
On March 5th, we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.
And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position.
He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.
He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.
Given that, why did you and Mr. Rosenstein feel the need you had to take it to the next step to conclude that there was no crime, especially given that DOJ policy?
Well, the very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and the compulsory process that's involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only.
It's determine yes or no.
Was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal?
That is our responsibility, and that's why we have the tools we have.
And we don't go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public.
We collect this information.
We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision.
And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to.
And that was a decision by me and the Deputy Attorney General.
Did the special counsel indicate that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left before Congress?
And also, how do you respond to criticism you're receiving from congressional Democrats that you're acting more as an attorney for the president rather than as the chief law enforcement officer?
Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress.
I hope that was not his view since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.
He did not, I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as Attorney General to make that decision.
Democrats in Congress have asked for Robert Mueller himself to testify.
Robert Mueller remains a Justice Department employee as of this moment.
Will you permit him to testify publicly to Congress?
I have no objection to Bob Mueller personally testifying.
Mr. Attorney General, let's talk with Democrats who have questioned some of the process here.
A Republican appointed judge on Tuesday said, you have, quote, created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned about these redactions.
You clear the president on obstruction.
The president is fundraising, off with your comments about spying.
And here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions.
So what do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president?
Well, actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs are recognized in the report that there was substantial evidence for that.
So I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that I am being generous to the president.
You face an unprecedented situation.
It just seems like there's a lot of effort to go out of your way to acknowledge how this is.
Well, is there another precedent for it?
No, but it's an uncle.
Okay, so unprecedented is an accurate description, isn't it?
Yes, Mr. Eric.
Eric, there's a lot of public interest in the absence of the special counsel and members of his team.
Was he invited to join you up on the podium?
Why is he not here?
This is his report, obviously, that you're talking about today.
No, it's not.
The report he did for me as the Attorney General, he is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report.
I'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision, entirely discretionary, to make it public, since these reports are not supposed to be made public.
That's what I'm here to discuss.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
Then we'll have a debate on the other side of it.
Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam.
With respect to the breaking New York Times story about the White House and Justice Department, the only collusion here is colluding on Fox News.
This is actually collusion.
This is collusion.
By the way, in case you're wondering, what does collusion look like?
It looks like the Attorney General briefing, the Attorney General's lawyers briefing the president before Congress or the public.
Here's a different theory, that he spent the last 20 years watching Fox News, and he's become a real Trump supporter.
And he's like everyone else in the Trump administration.
I was asking if there's another explanation.
I'm not saying it's the explanation.
I just think, you know, if you look at his behavior, it is not that of a geriatric.
It is that of a partisan.
And although we thought going into it that he's deeply conservative as well, that he was very close to Trump, that he was going to be a lackey of the president, it turns out that this Attorney General is.
He was under oath.
He said he wasn't going to talk about the report till it comes out.
So I think people are confused, at best confused.
Why would you come out and talk about a document and shape perspective on a document that nobody has been able to see?
What has changed in a week?
The president is the subject of the investigation.
And honestly, I've never heard of such a thing.
It's a complete breach of precedent.
It's a breach of common sense.
And indeed, it makes Trump look blatantly guilty.
We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow.
You said it exactly right at the open.
We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow as anything other than performative coonery.
We shouldn't take anything that the president says tomorrow as anything other than spin.
This seems to me, it's just analysis here, exactly like something Trump would do is push someone out to brand it, then rebrand it himself, and then the report comes out.
And we have to go through all of it and do our best to deal with it fairly with every piece of information painstakingly.
But Michael, it's also short-sighted.
Again, he does something once again that is going to scuff up his reputation.
Actually, his reputation is a very important thing.
You mean the attorney general?
I'm talking about the attorney general.
Barr may be the person ultimately responsible for a change in how we select our attorney generals.
And it seems bizarre at this point.
Luckily, this president has a pliant attorney general.
Clearly, and a very amped-up, jacked-up message operation.
Sean Hannity said two years ago that Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to resign if he'd had Fox News.
Actually, I think Geralda said it too, Sean Hannity, and they chuckled.
That might be true because this conduct is as sort of impeachable-looking, if you put it in a time capsule, as Nixon's conduct.
But what Nixon didn't have was an overdrive sort of social media we now know aided and embedded by Russian trolls and a news network dedicated to amplifying what is a very subjective read of a report that in the end, if it exonerates them, why are they so upset by all the details?
All right, there you have it, more of the media meltdown.
I'll take it as a compliment because we told the truth.
It is amazing.
It's so predictable.
Everything I told you would happen yesterday happens, but it's over.
And they don't know yet that it's over in so many different ways.
800-941 Sean Tolfre telephone number.
Now, we played in the last half hour the Attorney General Bill Barr, and he had Rod Rosenstein right next to him.
And the Office of Legal Counsel in conjunction with consulting the special counsel, yeah, they left it to them to decide on obstruction.
And for all the reasons that we've discussed earlier in the program today, it's over.
It doesn't matter what these people think.
None of these people care about real obstruction.
Just like they cared about, I believe every woman has a right to be believed.
I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe.
Then it's a Democratic governor, lieutenant governor in the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia, state of Virginia, who is accused of rape and violent sexual assault by two separate individuals who told people at the time, give compelling interviews to Gail King of CBS, and all the I believers are nowhere to be found.
They don't care about a real obstruction with an underlying crime, which is the biggest problem here.
Biggest problem they have is that they have no underlying crime.
The president is totally and completely exonerated.
The idea, these 10 items laid out in part two of this, you know, waste, monotonous, boring, dull, ridiculous report that took two and a half years to put together is that they have nothing except innuendo, which is all they're left with, and process crimes.
Yeah, well, I conclude things.
I've gotten things out of this that nobody else seems to get.
And you know what?
They blow up the most insignificant things, ignoring the biggest one, is that we are vulnerable as a country, which brings to light the danger of what Hillary did by putting top secret classified information on a mom-and-pop, you know, server.
And then, yeah, that was a real violation, felony espionage act.
And then, of course, they rigged that investigation.
And then, of course, the intent, destroying subpoenaed emails and washing her hard drive and beating up her BlackBerries and iPhones.
Yeah, that was all that was the intention was to destroy the evidence.
Slam dunk case.
Not one person in this corrupt rage, hatred, media mob dare bring that up because they lose.
But it's now everything begins to go back to what I've been saying.
Anyway, joining us now, we have Jonathan Gillum, former FBI agent, federal air marshal, author of Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert.
Thank you both for being with us.
When you get to the bottom line in all of this, there is no collusion.
There is no obstruction.
There is no case for such.
And now we have, this is their last gasp at hysterical and feigning coverage of moral outrage, which we know is selective and phony.
Jonathan.
Yeah, I think, you know, I watched your show last night on Fox News, John, and one thing that really stood out as I went around because I wanted to see how the media was spinning certain things and how people were going to say stuff.
What you just brought up is something that's very important is that throughout this entire time, you all have been showing proof.
You've been saying this, you know, these are the examples of what happened and how this case should have never gone forward with the fake dossier and the fake evidence and all these other things.
And it was very important because last night was validating for you and today is validating for you.
But what it showed me was that when people on the right discuss and analyze this, they do it with evidence, not with emotion.
And that is the biggest thing that you see today with all those clips that you just played is that it's 100% emotion.
And these people are being fed their own information that they created.
And then they get emotional about it.
And it reminds me of when I was at the FBI.
Well, it's what they wanted.
And they put all their credibility, not that they had any on the line, and they ran with their anonymous sources.
But when you get to the whole issue, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion.
And even when the Mueller report with his partisan team of hacks, I mean, they're seething with hatred and dying and wishing and hoping that they could nail this guy and they can't.
And when the report has to state the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities, the case is over.
And then you say, well, the president wanted to fire Sessions and he wanted to fire Mueller and he wanted General Flynn not to get in trouble and all of this.
Okay, well, Danielle, you also had people in the deep state that wanted to wear a wire on the president and talked openly about it and wanted to invoke the 25th Amendment and talked openly about it.
And then you have real evidence where Hillary Clinton, you know, had her investigation rigged from the get-go and real evidence of obstruction.
The double standard is nauseating in this country.
Good afternoon, guys.
You know, there are 10 instances in this report where the president is alleged to have obstructed justice.
And there are many more where it's reported by the investigators that he tried and failed because people around him decided that they weren't going to go along.
I agree.
You know, Robert Mueller did his job.
Bill Barr did his job.
They have concluded, basically because the president had decided cannot be indicted for a crime, which is DOJ guidance, that there is not a crime there.
The answer here will be political.
And the way I think about it is this.
Would you lose your job if you'd done these things?
I would lose my job.
This is a political thing.
I suspect there may be an internal investigation at your job and you do go out of your way to destroy evidence.
You lie to the American people, which is what Sarah Sanders did when she talked about that FBI agents all over the country were glad that Jim Comey was fired.
By the way, no, excuse me, every FBI agent I know, and Jonathan knows more than me, none of them like what the likes of Comey, Strzok, Paige, McCabe, and others did.
None of them.
But that's not what Sarah said.
She said that people had told her that from the FBI, and that was a lie.
She lied to the American people.
How do you know?
Wait a minute.
I'm hearing it from my FBI friends all the time.
As a matter of fact, I'm wearing an FBI pin a lot of nights on TV because one of my FBI buddies said, you know, thank you for sticking up for the 99% of us that are honest and decent and hardworking and take our jobs seriously and we would never do what they did here.
I have ultimate respect for any person in law enforcement.
I'm talking about Sarah Sanders lying about what a purported person is.
You keep repeating it, but I'm telling you, I'm hearing it everywhere from the same FBI agents probably.
Jonathan, what do you hear from your FBI buddies?
I'm going to give you some pushback.
It's still a lie.
It's still a lie.
I'm going to go to the bathroom on this because it's not.
What people are looking at when they're saying that somebody obstructed justice, there was nothing there.
And if you're being an investigator, if anybody else is being investigated and they didn't do anything wrong, I would be telling people as well as a former FBI agent.
I would tell people, don't cooperate.
Go get an attorney.
If somebody's trying to prove you guilty of something that you didn't do and they're fabricating evidence and the entire case is hinging on fake evidence, I would say get an attorney.
Don't cooperate.
And then if you get a chance to go out into the media and stand up for yourself, I would say do that.
And that is exactly what the Trump administration did.
There's no obstruction of justice because there was no justice.
How can you obstruct a fake investigation?
There is a difference between not cooperating and actively obstructing an investigation.
Why would you cooperate with a fake investigation?
Why would you cooperate with a fake investigation?
If you were conducting an investigation as an agent and you knew that someone was trying to tell people to lie, was destroying evidence, was telling people to lie on other accounts, would you go after that person for obstructing your investigation?
Danielle, I would never investigate somebody unless, and this is the way the FBI works, unless we have probable cause to believe that they're guilty.
And in this case, there was no probable cause.
It was a fake piece of evidence that was paid for by political operatives.
I would never have brought that investigation forward.
Danielle?
We know about Papadopoulos.
We know about the Australian ambassador.
We know about the fact that somebody connected to that campaign knew that Russia had hacked the DNC and there was damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
That is probable cause.
You cannot have foreign interference in an election.
And I want to say this again.
I accept the report as all Americans should.
They did not find criminal wrongdoing.
This will become a political process.
And who knows what's going to happen?
We saw what happened with Bill Clinton.
Newt Gingrich got over his skis.
He went too hard and the Republican lost the house.
So Democrats are going to have to decide what they do.
But when I see this stuff in writing, I just think if I had a job and I did all this stuff and I'm thinking about people at home, would you keep your job or not?
This conversation that you're having with us doesn't mean anything because it was a completely fake investigation.
And let me tell you something.
If you were standing, you were really hungry and you were standing under an apple tree that was swarming with worms, but there was one small apple up on top of that tree, would you even waste your time with that?
No, because it's a spoiled tree.
And that's the way justice works.
We don't look at one thing that one person said and then build a case around that.
We look at the entire case and we say, is there criminal activity going on here?
And one person having one meeting when they were drinking does not make a case.
Right, but it was more than that.
Okay.
There were people who had ties.
There were four people.
And the New York Times had been watching for three years.
There were all of these things that happened in due time.
It was firing James Comey that got the special counsel prosecutor because the president reportedly, and this is in the report, asked Jim Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, to go easy on Michael Flynn because Michael Flynn, and he was on tape, he was lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the campaign and I think maybe into the transition.
So folks were worried that there was an actor who was getting rid of people who was investigating his friends because, and so they thought there might be something there.
Turns out there was no connection between Russia and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.
They could not thread those dots.
And I say to anybody in media, anyone on the left who is still banging the drum, the facts are there.
You have to live with that.
Okay.
We have to live with this and we have to go on.
And I guess my favorite thing is.
All right.
Let me go on then.
I'm just kidding.
Anyway, thank you both.
We'll have, we're going to lay this all out tonight because this, and they're so predictable, the media.
This is going to be fun because they can't handle the truth at all.
They can't admit they're wrong ever.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Full coverage of the Mueller report tonight.
Jay Seculo, the great one, Mark Levin, Sarah Sanders, Devon Nunes, Sarah Greg, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
Also, the media freak out.
We've got it all covered.
And what's to come?
We look into the future.
They're out of Mueller-Trump collusion coverage.
It's over.
They lost.
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 Podcast, or wherever you listen.
What do you think is a story that's been uncovered in the past two years?
That the entire Russia collusion narrative was made up, that the FBI and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice began an investigation against four American citizens simply because they worked for the opposition political candidate, that being Donald Trump.
She is taking the FBI to task for having given unlimited, unsupervised access to raw intelligence.
What do you look at in Google?
Telephone information, calls, texts, you name it.
Everything, every nightmare anybody has of information being collected by Big Brother.
The FBI gave three private contractors unlimited, unsupervised access to that.
All right, that was Sidney Powell on a radio show in New York and also on Cheryl Atkinson's.
She has her Sunday show called Full Measure.
Sidney Powell is the author of the number one runaway bestseller, License to Lie, as you just heard.
And it exposes corruption in the Department of Justice.
And also senior policy advisor for America First, Peter Schweitzer, joins us.
Remember, when he wrote his book, Compromise, and he talked about James Comey, we're going to get into how did Comey's net worth skyrocket so much?
What is his connection to Mueller?
What do they have with Uranium One?
And we welcome you both.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Thank you both for being with us.
You know, Sidney, I'm listening very closely to what you're saying.
I'm going to ask you a two-part question.
Where are the FISA judges?
When do we ever get to hear from them?
Because one thing I've learned in my life about judges, they don't like being lied to.
And obviously, a fraud on a spectacular level was perpetrated on them when the bulk of the information presented to them was the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier that they swear when they present it to the judges has been verified.
They purposely didn't expose Hillary as having paid for the document, just a slight asterisk.
It might have a political taint.
What do you think those FISA judges are thinking today?
They should be absolutely outraged, Sean.
I mean, if I were one, I would have already had everyone who signed the applications in front of me and under an order to show cause why they shouldn't be held in contempt.
But I imagine they are awaiting the report of the Inspector General on the FISA abuses.
That's the only reason I can think of that they have been completely silent.
Now, these judges are picked in secret by the Chief Justice.
In this case, it would be John Roberts, and they serve varying amounts of time in terms of their term, and there are a number of them, correct?
That's correct.
And so would it be something that they would be able to follow up on if it's discovered, and which it will be, that a fraud was perpetrated on them.
In other words, we now know that the bulk of information used in the applications for FISA were based on Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dossier.
And the reason it's unverifiable is its author, Christopher Steele, under oath in that interrogatory in Great Britain, says he doesn't even believe his own dossier, has no idea if it's true at all, maybe 50-50, and that it was just raw intelligence.
And that's what they signed off on.
I also think Nellie Orr and Glenn Simpson wrote about as much of it as Christopher Steele did, if Christopher Steele actually wrote any of it.
Yeah, well, that's pretty unbelievable.
All right, Peter Schweitzer, great to have you back.
And your book, Compromised, has done extraordinarily well.
And you give a lot of detail about James Comey that we never knew before.
Like his net worth skyrocketed over 4,000% when he left the DOJ in 2005, returned to the FBI in 2013.
He made $6.1 million after Mueller's FBI, after Mueller's FBI granted his employer, Lockheed Martin, the largest contract in history.
Quote, you call it a billion-dollar boondoggle.
I'm not against former law enforcement starting businesses and making money, but the connection to Mueller goes even deeper than that.
Why don't you explain?
Yeah, Sean.
I mean, I think that's what a lot of people have to realize is that we have to look at institutions like the intelligence community the way that we look at other government agencies.
There's revolving doors.
They have incentives to help their friends.
In the case of Comey and Mueller, they have a relationship that goes back 25 years, and they've always sort of functioned as a tag team.
And so when you have a circumstance where Bob Mueller is put in charge of an investigation that James Comey, his good friend, certainly has a personal interest and stake in, it creates enormous problem.
But add on top of that layer, Sean, the fact that, you know, when you look at the Mueller report, the interesting thing that stands out to me, there are a number of things, but part of it is when we look at the subject of foreign interference, the foreign interference that stands out to me is how much of MI6 has fingerprints on this.
Whether it's Christopher Steele, whether it's some of the stuff that was done to some of the lower-level Trump campaign volunteers, it speaks to the problem that when you have an intelligence community, it's a community.
And Bob Mueller and James Comey have long, deep, established relationships with people in intelligence, which is fine.
But when that spills over into interfering in a presidency and a presidential election, you have a huge problem.
And that's where I think is the big overlooked story in addition to all the other headlines that we can glean from the Mueller report.
What you're really saying is, and this now is coming up more and more and more, especially, and we'll have John Solomon coming up at the bottom of the hour, but there is more and more evidence, and I'm hearing a lot more chatter from my sources, that the official start date of this Russia witch hunt was not July 31st.
It was not based on Papadopoulos, who was being spied upon and tasked to spy on Papadopoulos and Carter Page and Sam Clovis, that it started well before that, probably in February of the same year of 2016, and that some of this might be related to some of our allies and outsourcing of intelligence methods.
In other words, using methods that would be illegal for our intelligence officials to use.
Again, I want to put this caveat in, though.
You know, we have the premier law enforcement agency known as the FBI in the entire world, 99.9%.
The same with our intelligence agents.
99.9% would never abuse the powerful tools that we give them.
We're talking about that tiny one-tenth of 1%, the upper echelon that abused their power here.
But did they outsource to foreign countries or task our allies with doing things for them that they knew they couldn't do because it's illegal here?
In other words, spy on Americans.
No, I think I'm pretty sure the answer to that's yes.
But I think your percentage is a little bit high, Sean.
I think we've got probably a 20% problem in a lot of the agencies.
Well, that scares me because if you're talking about the tools of intelligence, it was Chuck Schumer who probably infamously, famously said that, you know, you screw with the intelligence committee, they're going to get you 10 ways in Sunday.
Right.
Well, I mean, what do you think the percentage is, Peter Schweitzer?
I think it's, yeah, it's probably 15 to 20 percent.
I think it's highly concentrated among those that work out of FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.
I mean, you hear this time and time again: people that work at the Bureau, they've done great work in the field, they move to headquarters, and it becomes much more political.
But I think to your larger point, Sean, you're absolutely right.
I mean, this is a story of outsourcing and trying to gin up an investigation without having your fingerprints on it.
I mean, you know, look, if you and I lie to the FBI, we all know that that's a crime.
If we file a false police report, we claim our neighbor did something nefarious that they didn't do, that's a criminal offense.
Well, what especially.
Unless you're Jesse Smollett.
Right.
But, you know, but if you look at what happened in the case of the dossier, the Clintons essentially paid a guy to do that and try to avoid having their fingerprints on it.
And I think that's why what the Attorney General has said is so important: we need to investigate the investigation.
We need to look at the headwaters of all of this and see how did this happen?
Because it's had a dramatically, you know, troubling effect on our politics, on this administration.
And if you don't deal with this, this is going to become standard operating procedure in American politics.
And I don't think anybody wants that.
Sidney, let me go ahead and say that.
We need to know who the private contractors are that Comey gave that illegal access to to the raw face, the raw NSA database.
That's crucial.
One of them's got to be Fusion GPS.
There are a lot of indicators for that.
One of them may very well be CrowdStrike, the group that also gave the, you know, reviewed the DNC server and is heavily Clinton connected.
Sidney, let me go back to the Mueller report from yesterday.
Usually, if a prosecutor or in this case, a special counsel, if they can't indict the details of what they may have found, et cetera, et cetera, never come out.
But I think Robert Mueller, because look at the team around him, I think you're the world's biggest critic, and I'm probably number two of Andrew Weissman, Jeannie Ray, and this merry band of Democratic donors and only Democratic donors that Mueller surrounded himself with, which was fundamentally unfair in the first place.
So we have a definitive statement, no collusion.
Got it.
But he leaves open.
We're not saying we're not clearing him.
We're not making a determination of any kind.
But he really should have.
And by not doing it, he has sort of left the door open.
That, to me, was all political.
Because when Rod Rosenstein and the Office of Legal Counsel and the Attorney General all at once, in about 30 seconds after reading the report, say it does not rise to the level of any type of indictment, then Mueller did all of that.
And by the way, all the things he listed were stupid.
You agree?
Totally.
Yeah, this is textbook Andrew Weissman smear tactic and throwing red meat to the Democrats to fuel their resistance and impeachment efforts or whatever trouble they want to cause for the next 18 months.
That's absolutely all it is.
Let me pick it up right there.
Yeah, I want to pick it up there.
I mean, if it doesn't rise to the level of an indictable offense, then this information is meaningless.
We'll get to that more with Sidney Powell, Peter Schweitzer on the other side, John Solomon at the bottom of the hour.
Oh, and then Geraldo's.
He's wondering if any Democratic candidates are going to apologize to Donald Trump.
That'll be fun.
Him and Dan Bungino.
All coming up, Friday edition, Sean Hannity Show.
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 Howe.
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.
All right, as we continue, Sidney Powell, author of License to Lie, Peter Schweitzer, author of the book Compromised.
Thank you both for being with us.
I want to go back, Sidney, to the second part of the Mueller report.
He doesn't make a determination, just lays out the facts.
Basically, all he's saying is Donald Trump publicly talked about firing Mueller, Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions, and he hoped and was praying that General Flynn didn't get in a lot of trouble.
Okay, that's called freedom of speech.
He didn't do or act any way on any of these issues.
Just like the deep state officials that were talking about secretly taping the president or invoking the 25th Amendment, they only talked about it.
They didn't do it.
So it's not a crime.
It's not obstruction.
Hillary Clinton's case was obstruction with real intent with an underlying real crime.
So Mueller put it in there why.
To throw red meat to the Democrats.
It's Mr. Weissman's report.
I call it the Weissman Report, not the Mueller Report.
I guarantee you, Mr. Mueller didn't write this.
I'd be surprised if he even read the whole thing.
Maybe he edited a word here and there, but this is textbook Andrew Weissman.
It's a smear campaign.
It's throwing red meat to the Democrats to fuel the resistance and whatever impeachment and other havoc they want to wreck for the next 18 months to continue the harassment of the president.
That's absolutely all it is.
There isn't a single case or statute in the obstruction section that would warrant an obstruction prosecution.
In fact, on page nine, I think it is, they even flag it as potentially relevant obstruction statute.
That is a huge red flag right there that they have absolutely.
That's a great catch.
I actually picked up on that as I was reading it.
I actually read through the whole thing, believe it or not.
There has to be an underlying crime and there has to be intent.
Hillary did violate the Espionage Act.
It is irrefutable.
The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, and we know that that investigation was rigged.
We know the intent when she deleted the subpoenaed emails and cleaned up the hard drive with bleach pit and busted up the devices was to destroy evidence in that case.
That is, you're a former prosecutor.
Is not that a slam dunk obstruction case?
Yes, one of the stunning things about the report is the obstruction of justice legal analysis.
only anything like that had been applied to Hillary Clinton's concrete actions in destroying her BlackBerries, having her hard drive bleach-bitted and completely wiped.
Yeah, completely wiped out and destroying all the emails after they've been subpoenaed, all of that.
All of that conduct was actual obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.
Nothing they talk about in the report respecting President Trump was obstruction in any way, shape, or form.
Last word, Peter Schweitzer.
Look, all that they're left with after all the claims at the beginning of 2017 that there was massive collusion and cooperation, we're left now with them essentially saying that there were some meetings and there was some contact between Trump campaign officials and Russians.
If that is where it's left, the Clinton team has far deeper ties, far closer relationships with those same Russian entities.
And I think Sidney talked about it earlier.
It's really the double standard that everybody is fed up with.
If you want to have a consistent standard, a hard standard apply to Trump, apply to Clinton, that's great.
That's fine.
I think that's a good thing.
But that's not what's happening.
And that's why people look at this and believe the process has a lot of power.
Exit question.
Yes or no answer.
Will people be indicted, Sidney?
Yes.
Peter.
Yes.
Three yeses.
All right.
Thank you both.
Peter Schweitzer, Sidney Powell.
We appreciate your insight.
As always, when we come back, John Solomon, well, he's breaking big news next week.
He'll give us a preview.
Do you feel like this public-facing document by Robert Mueller in his office today correctly and aptly explains why those investigations were started and whether the predicate was sounded?
I think it does.
I think it validates the decisions that we made, certainly in July of 2016, to start the initial Russia-focused investigation.
And then, of course, the decisions that we made in May of 2017 to include the president in that investigation personally.
As you know, Rachel, the FBI, the standard for predication to open an investigation in the FBI is an articulable, factual basis to believe that a threat to national security might exist or that a federal crime might have been committed.
We have been saying as much as we can publicly in the last few months that those are the reasons, looking at the facts that we had before us, that we opened the case on President Trump in May of 2017.
The Mueller report today, this redacted version of the report that we got, essentially tries to address the controversy a little bit over what it would take to get a FISA warrant on somebody, for which you have to prove to the court that somebody may be acting as a foreign agent.
That's right.
Versus no prosecutorial decision to charge that person as a foreign agent.
Tell us about that distinction.
Sure.
So the standard is the FISA, you have to prove to the FISA court that to a not a preponderance of evidence.
I see this essentially as a roadmap for prosecutors after the president has left office or for the Judiciary Committee while the president is still in office to essentially pursue those charges in a trial after he's no longer president or in impeachment proceedings while he's in Congress.
I think otherwise you wouldn't go to the lengths that they go to in order to explain the president's state of mind.
Is that how you read it?
It's absolutely how I read it.
You know, the Bob Mueller that I know, the Bob Mueller that I worked for for many years, is not a guy who's going to write a report that contradicts existing DOJ policy.
So he's not going to write a report that says the president should be indicted, knowing that that's not a possibility under the current policy.
But what Director Mueller has done here is he's provided an avalanche of facts that clearly indicate obstructive activity on the part of the president.
He calls it out plainly in 10 different sections in that volume two of the report.
And he lays out why he believes in many of those cases the intent is present, why he believes that the nexus to the contemplated or ongoing matter is present.
So the analysis is extraordinary.
The scope is incredibly damning for the president.
Nothing you just heard from former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe is accurate.
It's not accurate on the law.
It's not the interpretation of what the special counsel said and did.
Yeah, it was a political document.
Sure, did he point out, well, Congress, you can take this and run with it if you want.
And by the way, good luck to anybody that thinks that.
Missing the fundamental issues, no Russia collusion at all.
And for a guy that is under his own criminal investigation here and likely up to his eyeballs in more legal trouble to make those comments and for him to make those suggestions, all it does is reaffirm everything that we have known and know about the deep state.
Remember, he was there when all the talk about, oh, let's secretly spy on the president.
Let's invoke the 25th Amendment.
It was the deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, that allowed the FISA warrant to be based on unverified, uncorroborated, Hillary bought and paid for Russian lies because of his and others' disdain for all things Trump.
And remember, when Paige and Strzok were texting back and forth and they're talking about Andy and they're talking about the insurance policy, that's the same Andy.
On the media side of it, I mean, as I mentioned earlier, this hope, we might be able to resuscitate this.
It's not going to work.
And the avalanche we've been talking about is coming.
John Solomon next week is going to break huge news as he has since March of 2017 when this all began for us.
He joins us now.
He's the executive director of The Hill, investigative reporter.
And John, is there anything I just said about my analysis about McCabe that's wrong?
No, you know, it's fascinating to me as you've watched the last two months as Democrats have tried to sustain the now disproven collusion narrative.
They've had to turn to less and less credible people.
Who did the Democrats call as their first witness when they had their first hearing on Trump?
They called a convicted liar, Michael Cohen.
And what did he do?
He gave more inaccurate testimony.
Last night, what did the networks that have tried to sustain a false narrative do?
They turned to Andrew McCabe, a now confirmed liar who's facing prosecution for that lie.
And the reason they have to turn to people like that is that credible people who now know the facts can't say what they want to have on their network.
And I think it's a shame for journalism that what we're getting on these television networks is less factual and more propaganda at a time when this country deserves the facts.
The facts are Director Mueller, Special Prosecutor Mueller, said no American, read that, no American colluded with Russia on their campaign to disrupt the election.
That is a fact.
It is now not in dispute.
And anything Andrew McCabe says can't undercut that finding.
So I think we're in a period now where we're actually in fantasy land.
Responsible networks should acknowledge where the factual case stands and start embracing it and explaining it to the American people.
There are lots of important issues to be resolved, but pretending there's still a collusion fantasy is not doing anyone any good.
Well, I don't think they can let it go.
I think it is that ingrained.
It's really now a psychosis that exists.
And it's so fascinating because they just want to double down.
But what they're going to end up doing is just slowly, gradually moving on to, oh, maybe the memorandum of understanding between Cummings and Maxine Waters and the cowardly shift Adam Schiff, because one way or another, they're not going to govern the country.
They're just going to try and destroy this man as they have from day one.
The fact that it's so clear that there was no collusion from the beginning, even the items that are mentioned in the second part of Mueller's report, okay, yeah, he said publicly, maybe I should fire Mueller and Rosenstein and Sessions, and he didn't hide any of his comments.
He had every right to fire Comey.
Why that was even brought up is absurd to me.
Comey, in his own words, said he could be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
Or the idea, well, Dom McGahn, he wants to be the hero in all this, and he saved the president from firing Mueller, et cetera, et cetera.
I'm like, no, you didn't, because if the president wanted to do it, he would have done it.
And knowing Donald Trump as well as I do, he was venting.
He was sick of it because he was an innocent man for two and a half years being persecuted unjustly and was pissed off, rightly so, and screaming it at the top of his lungs, which I can't blame him for.
When I wrote my column yesterday, what I said is the Democrats are trying to take the actions of an innocent man, trying to defend himself against false allegations and make it look like obstructive behavior.
You have a right to defend yourself.
If you see people that are conspiring to make a false allegation against you, we do this.
We're allowed when we face a criminal trial to knock jurors out of Voordier because we don't think they're going to be fair to us.
What you see in Donald Trump is that when he's thinking about Mueller, he's like, I don't think he could be fair to me.
He just hired 17 Democrats.
At the same time, were some of his comments intemperate and chore?
Will he learn from some of these things, perhaps?
But at the end of the day, to build an obstruction case on what, when there is no crime, he wasn't obstructing a legitimate criminal investigation.
There was no crime.
And what he was really doing was trying to defend his presidency and himself from what he ultimately turned out to be truthfully saying, which was there was no collusion.
It's really remarkable.
I wrote a whole column on it yesterday, and lots of people have commented on it because when you look at it from the different perspective, would a man obstructing an investigation open up all of his files, all of his files, his attorney client privilege files, his executive privilege covered files, and cooperate if he was trying to obstruct?
Why didn't he just shut the investigation down?
He could have just done that.
It was in his power.
There's just a lot of things about the obstruction narrative that are absurd when you step back and you take a look at the big picture.
I have given my list of things that are coming because this story is hardly over.
While the collusion delusion media will remain focused on their phony narrative and never retract, apologize, correct, nor will they pay attention to what is the biggest abuse of power in our country's history.
And next week, it is going to get dramatically worse for them to the extent that it's possible.
Can you give a preview?
Sure.
Listen, I'm going to talk about a couple of things that I think are going to become new points of discussion, investigation, and concern.
One of those is when you read the entire Mueller report, there is a theory that I think I saw Devin Nunez first mention on your show a few weeks ago and that I've been hearing from intelligence professionals, career intelligence professionals for several weeks.
And that is it is highly likely that these contacts like the Trump Tower and the former Russian intelligence agent that just happens to feed steel all of his bogus information that we now know has been disproven in the Steele dossier, they may have been known or they may have been what is known in the spy tradecraft as discoverable operations.
So instead of a secret effort by Russia to influence the election, they used overt people.
What do I mean by that?
When you interview a former intelligence officer of Russia inside the United States, everybody in the United States knows he's tied to Russia intelligence.
That's not good spy tradecraft if you're trying to keep it secret.
When you want to keep it secret, you do what you did with Robert Hansen for 20 years, where Moscow used cloak and dagger tactics to keep his work secret as a spy.
It was overt.
The same thing.
If you're going to set up a secret meeting to coordinate with Donald Trump at the Trump Tower, would you really send a Russian lawyer who's in on the country only because she got a special parole visa declaring she's a Russian government asset to come into the United States?
That would be the last person you would use for a secret campaign.
So some of these intelligence people are beginning to reassess the original idea that maybe this is all about helping Hillary lose and Donald Trump win to maybe they were trying to destroy both candidates.
And the effort on Trump is a very different type of intelligence effort.
It's known as discoverable intelligence operations, designed to create doubt in the mind of Americans.
And if that's the case, Robert Mueller's report just helped Vladimir Putin extend the doubt outward for months more.
We'll be debating this, just like Vladimir Putin wanted, probably when he sent that woman to the Trump Tower and sent that person to Christopher Steele to dump all that bogus dossier.
I've got to take a break.
When we come back, there is a likelihood this all started way before the official start date based on Papadopoulos having a drink with Stefan Halper, correct?
That's correct.
I've begun to talk about that.
All right, I want to talk about that more.
John Solomon.
And as we continue, John Solomon, executive director at the Hill, investigative reporter, he's been in a forefront of our ensemble cast exposing the deep state, which 99.9% of the media in this country, they just were selling you lies and conspiracy theories for over two years.
All right.
So there's two things that you're working on.
One is Ukraine officials are now admitting that they interfered in our 2016 election and they want to give us the evidence.
They're willing.
Correct.
Okay.
And it's real evidence.
And then we have on the other side of this, we are all beginning to believe that all of this Trump-Russia collusion stuff didn't start July 31st of 2016, as we've been told, way before that, maybe as far back as February or March of that year.
Yeah, I think that's right, Sean.
And next week, I think I'll be able to get some new information out that will really enlighten the timeline.
And I think there's another element of it, too.
The Obama White House has been remarkably missing from the entire timeline and, quite frankly, the entire discussion for the last two and a half years.
But there's one text message over and over again that plays in my head, and that is Pete Stroh coming out of a meeting in August of 2016.
There was a multi-agency coordination meeting on the Russia investigation saying, and the text message, quoting someone else from the meeting, says, the White House is running this.
We've not figured out what did that mean and when did that start and who knew what?
I believe we'll be able to show that in December 2015, a Justice Department official and an undercover operative began conversations with an eye towards Ukraine.
In January or February 16, Ukraine and U.S. authorities had a very sensitive discussion about something that ultimately became the Paul Manafort-Russia collusion investigation.
And by March and April, the efforts had expanded beyond White House, Justice Department, informant to the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And all of these people have the same objective.
We are going to try to show Paul Manafort and Donald Trump are agents of Russia.
Well, we found out yesterday Donald Trump was never an agent of Russia.
But who and why and how many people participated in it?
And definitely next week, we're going to get a lot more on this, right?
Yeah, that's right.
And for weeks to come.
I think it's a long process.
And we're going to hold them all accountable.
We're only just beginning, and I keep telling people that there's so much that is coming.
It is going to blow the country away, I think.
At the end of this, we, and if we don't fix it, we lose the country.
It's that serious.
Great work, John Solomon, once again.
Thank you, sir.
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.
