Carter Page, American petroleum industry consultant and a former foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential election campaign, who was unfairly targeted by his own government, namely the DOJ and FBI. New developments in his case show just how singled out he was. Plus, the latest on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Wow, this just breaking.
Hunter Biden, it's on Fox News.com, agrees to pay monthly child support, ending the stand up uh standoff over contempt.
He has agreed to pay monthly child support retroactive to November.
Well, he has plenty of money, wouldn't be a problem, right?
Ending a standoff that began after the judge in his Arkansas paternity case had ordered him to appear in person for a hearing to explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt.
Anyway, the court judge noted that zero experience hunter paid millions by a gas company uh for no reason at all, except they wanted his name, noted that the exact amount of child support couldn't be determined based off the defendant's income and that the modifications to the total amount owed every month uh could be made,
and Biden was recently driving a sports car, promoting prompting concerns of he was shrinking his child support habits, uh you know, obligations.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
Oh my gosh, John Bolton write a book.
He's writing a book.
Did you see this?
He wrote a book.
Well, we just got uh news that in fact Mick Mulvaney just through speaking through his lawyer, uh, push back on any report that he was involved in any discussion about holding back hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, by the way, like Joe Biden did in exchange for investigations.
John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton's purported August conversation with the president, his lawyer said in a statement.
Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for Ukrainian investigation of Barisma, the Biden's, or the 2016 election.
The statement remarked that the latest story told from the New York Times, coordinated with a book launch, has more to do with publicity than with any truth.
And furthermore, Mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with Rudy Giuliani resembling that reportedly described in Bolton's manuscript as it was Mulvaney's practice to excuse himself from conversations between the president, his personal counsel to preserve any attorney client privilege, according to his statements.
Well, it sounds like uh huh.
We have to move this to the, I guess, the fiction section or whatever, if it even is true.
By the way, notice the timing of all these things?
The timing is amazing, isn't it?
A pretty quick written book.
Oh, when is it coming out?
That would be coming out, oh, in March.
How convenient.
Uh now, what's amazing is if you I you know, look, the only thing I would say is every time they think they have Donald's.
Oh, we got Bolton Bolton, gotta get Bolt Bolton.
There is a part of me with fidelity to our constitution, the specifically spelled out roles of the House and the Senate, which I find repugnant, that don't seem to filter through the brains, and it's so simple, it's not a complicated constitutional concept.
Number one executive privilege is separate and apart, but number two, the sole role of impeachment is the House.
Okay, they've impeached, didn't they race through their impeachment?
They thought they were gonna get it from Mueller.
They didn't get it from Mueller, so why bother with an investigation this time?
Well, no investigation.
Okay, we'll move forward as fast as we humanly can move fast and get this out there so we can go on vacation and then hold it back.
And the sole power to try the case, that power constitutionally lies with the United States Senate.
It's not the Senate's role because they have a slam dung case.
Well, we this is this is a rock solid, lock solid case.
We got it all down here.
Okay, they've now been presenting it, and it's not what they say it is in any way, shape, manner, or form.
So they know it's weak.
So now they're trying to desperately get weak Republicans to agree to bring in not just witnesses, they can bring in all the witnesses that the House used.
They could bring in the only fact witness, the only non-opinion or non-hearsay witness, and that would be Ambassador Sondlin, and he's gonna say no, there's no quid or pro or quo.
Now you've got Mulvaney totally saying, no, didn't happen as it relates whatever Bolton is claiming here.
President has now come out and said, I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to the investigation into the Democrats, including the Bidens.
He said, in fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination.
If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.
And the president said, with that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that's needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky and the foreign minister of Ukraine said there was never any pressure, no problems whatsoever.
And the president adding that he believes he did more to protect Ukraine than Obama, and he met with Zelensky.
Remember, that was supposed to be based on conditions until he came out with the invitations and then meeting with Zelensky at the United Nations.
Democrats had said the president didn't meet him there, and he did release all the military aid to Ukraine.
And guess what?
There was never any condition, there was never any announcement, there was never any talk of any investigation.
So, in other words, well, what are we now going to say?
Well, the president, he maybe let's say Bolton has a memory where the president was frustrated and annoyed, they need to look into this.
I've been arguing myself, I guess I'm a lone voice here, that president should faithfully execute the laws of the land.
And I would argue what Joe Biden is on tape saying you're not getting the billion unless you fire a Ukrainian prosecutor.
Stop and think about why.
Why would any vice president want a Ukrainian prosecutor fired when we now find out Joe knew quid pro quo Joe knew that that prosecutor was investigating his zero experienced son, no experience in Ukraine, oil, energy, gas, whatsoever, millions of millions of dollars.
I mean, it makes no sense.
So if they did investigate it, to me, that would be faithfully executing the laws of the land.
Now let's say the president thought for a minute, you know what?
I'm gonna kill that person.
I'm gonna kill that idiot.
Uh-oh.
You speak and you say, I'm gonna kill that person.
Do you kill them?
No, you're not guilty of murder.
You what are we now gonna are thoughts crimes now, according to this new politically correct world we live in?
And if they want it, look, I am so against this idea that the Senate take on the constitutional role of the House.
But I guess there's gonna be some weak Senate Republicans.
Maybe some of you would want to call them.
You know who they are, and maybe say it's not your role constitutionally to do their job.
Now they're acting like this is a big bomb show.
Um Bolton's book.
Okay, the problem is it's a New York Times story.
How often do this New York Times get things wrong?
Well, Maggie Haberman, June 29th, 2017.
They had to issue a correction to her report that said 17 Intel agencies agreed on Russian actions during the election.
Times published that story June 25th.
And by the way, the Times story originally included the following line.
The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of the Trump party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees that Russia orchestrated the attacks and it did it uh did it to help him get elected.
Well, the figure was not accurate.
Whoopsie daisy, and even finally the New York Times mentioned the dirty Clinton dossier unverifiable was likely Russian disinformation from the get-go.
And go through the March 2nd, 2018.
New York Times major correction to an accounting error in a piece about Trump's tax plan.
Whoopsie Daisy.
Oh, that's not good.
They have a lot of these corrections at the New York Times.
The January 6th hacking assessment was a conclusion drawn by analysts representing, etc.
etc.
And we have the oh, we have plenty more examples of the New York Times getting it wrong.
I just don't have the time to get into it all.
So doubts are growing over the accuracy of this entire report.
You know, it's the New York Times, number one, never trust fake news organizations.
Two, the Times bases their so-called bombshell story on the very same kind of oh, secondhand anonymous sourcing that they use for all their other articles that they've gotten wrong with the fake news.
Third, we don't have Bolton on record here anywhere saying any of this to anybody in the White House.
Quite to the contrary, what we've been hearing all day is everybody saying, I never heard it.
And in a sub headline on their story, the Time itself describes the source materials, which again they haven't seen for themselves as drafts of the book.
Well, a draft of a book is at best a preliminary transcript, which is subject to probably editing and changing, especially after the book is vetted for accuracy and legal liability.
And Bolton's lawyer was asked today to confirm the accuracy of the Times report, and he refused to refuse to do so.
Anyway, Bolton attorney, Charles Cooper, stop short of confirming the contents of the report.
Whoopsie Days a fifth.
The Justice Department has now contradicted a key claim in the so-called Bolton book.
And the book states Bolton called Barr after Trump's July twenty fifth phone call with Zelensky in order to raise concerns about Giuliani.
And informed the attorney general the president had mentioned him on the call on Sunday night, senior Department of Justice official disputed what Bolton is saying here.
All right, so that's not one, that's two.
You know, now we get into the issue, okay.
Well, what did the president do wrong here?
Well, we have the Jordan four.
Think about this.
It doesn't matter what the president thought.
Well, you know, okay, I'm I'm going to kill you.
Okay, did you kill the person?
No, he's sitting right there.
Okay, I thought about it, but I didn't do it.
Well, what do we know?
The four facts never change.
The president released not one, but two transcripts voluntarily.
There was no mention of aid on any of those com in any of those conversations.
There was no quid or pro or quo like Joe.
The two individuals on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky, and the foreign minister of Ukraine, all repeatedly saying there was no pushing, there was no pressure, there was no linkage between the security assistance dollars and any type of investigation by anybody in Ukraine.
Then of course, the Ukrainians didn't even know at the time of the call that aid was being held up, and by the way, it was given to them in full early.
They took no act and the and the most important part of it is what happened.
They got the aid.
What did they do for the aid?
Nothing.
What did they promise to do for the aid?
Nothing.
They never started an investigation, and they got the aid.
They never promised to start an Investigation.
They got the aid.
Those facts will never change.
Now, after the phone call, I'll add this.
There were five high profile meetings between the United States and President Zelensky in Ukraine, including with the vice president.
And not one of those conversations was aid ever brought up.
The transcript shows clearly the president didn't condition anything.
Any security assistance on any meeting or them doing anything.
One, the President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials, they said there was no quid pro quo, no pressure on them at all ever.
And Zelensky, number three, the high ranking Ukrainian officials didn't even know about the aid not being there.
And fourth, with all this noise in the mob in the media and lying in the Schumer Schiff Sham show, not a single witness ever testified that the president himself said there was any connection between any investigation or security assistance.
And even if he did, they still did nothing.
They still promised nothing.
And the security assistance flowed, and it flowed to Ukraine.
Uh, and they got the money and they got it early.
If there were any quid pro quo, it failed.
It didn't happen.
And nobody's saying it happened.
No person that is a part of what it is says it happens.
So this idea that this is a big development is another lie by your media mob.
This is who they are, this is what they do, this is why we have an information crisis, and so-called journalism, Maggie Haberman by you and by the your, you know, New York Times state democratic socialist radical newspaper is dead.
Because nobody trusts you, and nobody should trust you.
You got everything wrong with Trump Russia.
Now you're getting everything wrong here, and you missed the biggest story of your career, which was the abuse of power, FISA abuse, and the dirty dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Delaware, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, as we roll along, 800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
You know, it's just one big.
It is like this incestuous media mob, this nexus between them and the democratic radical extreme socialists.
It really takes your breath away.
You know, and and now I'm watching, and I'm our senators, and I'm like, oh, here we go again.
You know, I don't understand why some would take on the role of doing the constitutional duty of the House.
I don't really understand that.
Now, I know that we've had Mitt Romney say, well, I think now maybe this opens it up for witness.
Why?
Why would this open it up for witnesses?
The president's team destroyed them all day today and all day on Saturday.
You know, oh, and and to get insulted by the likes of the congenital liar who's compromised.
Oh, yeah, Trump would have your heads on pikes.
Really?
If you voted against them?
Well, that kind of ticked off Lisa Murkowski.
And I know a lot of these swing moderates, and they're now getting incensed by and rightly so by all of this.
And the fascists that said this, and I think Jonathan Turley rightly pointed out, you know, you don't want to you don't want to make a jury or insult the jury, and that's exactly what Nadler did when he accused all those senators, the jury of being involved in a cover-up.
Wow.
And by the way, the irony, most of the House impeachment managers voted against any aid for Ukraine.
President gave it to them, and they did nothing.
Wouldn't say they'd do anything either.
And they didn't do anything.
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.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theories.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800 941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
I guess it just I can't.
It's very frustrating to see.
I don't know what it is.
Something happens to candidates when they run for president and they lose.
I've I've witnessed this my entire career.
I guess you could look at Al Gore.
Al Gore, you know, we had swinging, hanging, nimbled, pimpled, dented Chads and George W. Bush wins the election.
And he lost his mind, meaning Al Gore.
Couldn't couldn't handle it.
Hillary, same thing.
I mean, I mean, Hillary has come up with more excuses for losing in 2016.
Now she's even launching a I Love Hillary, I don't know, movie Or series or whatever it is.
Um, I've seen it before.
I thought John McCain took it really personally.
And I think the reason is I'm not a psychiatrist or playing one on TV either.
Uh I think the real reason is is that it's it's hard to lose.
It's hard.
And I I've watched candidates over the years, and they're right there, and I thought Mitt Romney really had a shot.
I think by the third debate, it was over.
I was I remember making phone calls.
What what are you guys doing?
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
They took they they just decided to go in and phoned it in the last debate, and they didn't want to stay aggressive, and you need to be aggressive, or else you're not going to win.
And for whatever reason, all the things that Donald Trump is doing, or all the things that Mitt Romney had he won, pretty much said he was going to do.
I understand that he doesn't like the style of Donald Trump.
That's fair.
And I know he said all the things that he has said, but it's it's not something in dispute that Donald Trump, who spoke as the first president in a pro-life rally.
Donald Trump, who's ended more burdensome bureaucracy than any president in the last hundred years, and yes, and total dollars, the biggest tax cut in history, and then we got the promises, new trade deals with uh China, new trade deal with Japan, Mexico, Canada, Western European allies.
We're now energy independent for the first time in 75 years, 8 million new jobs created, 8 million fewer Americans uh in poverty.
Um, actually more, but eight million fewer on food stamps.
I mean, every demographic in our country at the engine of this economy is just humming along.
China deal is particularly impressive, helps out, you know, in 220 billion in two years.
220 billion bucks.
That's gonna go to a American farmers, American service industries.
It's gonna go to American manufacturers, the energy sector, and our car manufacturers.
Huge.
That means great long-term paying jobs for our fellow Americans.
How great is that?
But it's just in spite of all of that, Mitt can't seem to get over.
And I always liked him personally.
I thought he had a lovely family.
I I get his style is not Donald Trump's style.
He tried to be nice, and they still called him a sexist and a misogynist.
They still went after, well, he cut up some kids' hair when he was in boarding school, you know, 45 years ago.
They will they were just out to destroy him.
And somehow, I guess people just forget, you know, we had, but for John McCain, you know, we we we had health care done.
Could have gotten done.
He was pretty angry at Donald Trump, didn't like Donald Trump.
And unfortunately, that now that now matters because if you have three Republicans saying, oh, yeah, not just the witnesses that that testified in the you know, after the audition witnesses behind closed doors, we still have information I'd like to get out of them.
But then now they're talking about new witnesses.
I I guess if we're gonna have witnesses, if you're gonna force this on us, I guess then the Republicans better have their list ready because that means Joe Biden, quid pro quo Joe, zero experience hunter needs to be called.
Why?
Because the president, okay, did mention their names.
Now they got the money, they never promised to do anything.
President didn't ask them to do anything, but they have to be brought in now because we need to understand if the president was faithfully executing, because I think it's a slam dunk case that both Quid and Pro and Quo and Joe and Hunter were involved in a pretty corrupt enterprise here.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of laws were broken, and we've had a lot of lawyers on this program and on Hannity that say, yep, they did.
You know, now we're hearing that the brother of a key shift impeachment witness, I've not confirmed this myself, but it it was on Breitbart and other places today.
Hang on, I got it right here somewhere.
Um, that in fact, um I guess a source close to the Trump administration is telling Breitbart.
I again, I have not corroborated this that Army Lieutenant Colonel Vimman, ethics lawyer for the NSC, maybe may have some influence over the reviewing of publications.
That'll be interesting to find out if that's true.
Um, there's other doubts that are emerging in terms of the accuracy of the New York Times, their big bombshell.
You know, but this is what we've gotten for three years.
Oh my gosh, we got him.
Breathless reporting.
This hysteria watching this unfold.
I'm nonplussed by any of it.
Doesn't mean a thing.
Already it's getting contradicted left and right by the other people that would have known.
And there's no official record of him as having done any of this.
Not sure what John Bolton is doing except writing a book here.
But anyway, the New York Times charter member of the same fake news industry media that spread lies for three long years, breathlessly reporting one lie after another, and in some cases, like the Times and the Post, actually getting Pulitzer prizes for it.
Okay, so if Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, if they want witnesses, okay, they're gonna bring in Joe and Hunter.
Are they gonna bring in Adam Schiff?
Because he's compromised.
He's lied in this case.
And the contact that took place with his office, people that work in his office.
I'd say we need to talk to the hearsay whistleblower.
There was a report out last week that the non-whistleblower hearsay whistleblower had in fact been talking just two weeks into the Trump presidency as an Obama holdover about getting rid of Trump.
That might be pertinent.
White House literally questions, you know, look at look at the timing of this whole thing here.
Do you think this is by accident?
The defense team slaughtered them over the weekend.
It was a devastating takedown of every argument that they had.
Nobody in the media I see is really looking at a guy like Joe Manchin.
This is getting pretty interesting because he's now indicating that he's open to the arguments from the president's defense team in this trial.
And after an abbreviated session on Saturday, in which the president's defense lawyers presented a preview of their case, which they're now going through at this moment, they're resuming now today.
One thing that's stuck in my mind is they said there isn't a witness that they have had so far that had direct contact with the president.
Well, the only one that talked to him was that would be Ambassador Sondland.
And again, the facts never change ever in this case.
It would be such, you know, and I know that um Peter Schweitzer was on with the great one last night.
And, you know, he it would be an outrage if if the Trump family, if they did, if if you had Donald Trump, vice president saying you're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor who's investigating my son, zero experience Don, who's being paid millions for zero experience.
It's called buying access.
I don't think that's that hard to figure out.
Or the fact that the president was interested in Ukraine.
This is all separate and apart.
Left the left, the media would have you think that conservatives are saying they're saying Ukraine interfered and it wasn't Russia in the elections.
No, I'm saying both did.
And I've been saying, had we listened to Devin Nunes in 2014 that the Russians were going to interfere.
Well, we could have prevented a lot of it.
And of course, their biggest interference, even the New York Times, two and a half years behind us on this show, discovered it was likely the dirty Clinton dossier, Russian disinformation from the get-go.
And a Ukrainian court determined, yep, Ukraine interfered in America's 2016 election to help Hillary.
Look at the political article 11, 2017, January 11th, just before Donald Trump has sworn in.
The inauguration.
Headline, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect.
That would be Trump after quietly working to boost Clinton.
This is a foreign country admitting election interference in their own court, they determined it.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington.
We now, the peace goes on.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They Also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aid in corruption, suggesting they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors.
A political investigation found.
Wow, foreign election interference.
A Ukrainian American operative who was a consultant for the DNC met with top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation, advancing the narrative that the Trump campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the East, Russia.
But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's hack, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, so the president had a right to say to Zelensky on that call, I'm worried the people that you're hanging out with.
They bother me a little bit.
Seem to be hanging out with the same people as your predecessor.
You know, you probably notice a pattern with the mob in the media.
It always is, oh my gosh, does he got him?
We got it, we got it and the facts come out, and they don't got him.
It's it it it is an amazing thing to withhold every day.
Now we're hearing, according to the uh the president's legal defense, Democrats are actually concealing exculpatory information testimony of a major witness that the House questioned during their audition hearings.
And that is into the Ukrainian matter.
At least one Republican present during Michael Atkinson's testimony is saying the reason the Democrats are not sharing that information with we the people is because it does not advance Adam Schiff, the congenital compromise liars impeachment case against the president, John Ratcliffe.
The reason it hasn't been released, it's not helpful to Adam Schiff, and it's not helpful to the whistleblower, hearsay, whistleblower, non-whistleblower.
Well, amazing things there.
You know, what do we know?
Let's get to what we know.
Well, Donald Trump might have said something that he thought about.
I'm not giving the money until they do this, this, and this.
Okay, he thought about.
Let's say, let's say he did.
For the let's say he expressed that thought.
Okay, did he do anything?
The facts that never change are this.
We have the transcript.
Aid was never mentioned.
Not once.
Now no quit or pro or quo in the transcript.
Ever.
The two individuals, the president, President Zelensky, and the foreign uh minister of Ukraine.
Over and over and over.
We we never felt any pressure.
There was never any linkage between the security assistant dollars and the type of investigation in Ukraine.
Maybe we ought to bring Zelinsky over to testify in this the Schumer Schiff sham show.
You know, the Ukrainians didn't even know at the time of the call aid had been held up, but was eventually paid and paid in full and paid early.
And guess what?
The most important thing.
What did they do to get the aid money?
Nothing.
Nothing.
So if the president did talk about it, as John Bolton's book may or may not say, who knows?
They took no action.
None whatsoever.
They never started an investigation, nor did they announce they were going to start an investigation, and nor did they ever promise to start an investigation.
And they took no action.
And they got their money.
And there were five subsequent high-level meetings.
And in all five of them, all five.
Aid was not brought up a single time.
So why are we here?
We're here because this is pure politics.
That's it.
I wonder if John Bolton remembers the same New York Times in March of 2018, writing about, yes, John Bolton is really that dangerous.
Anyway, John Bolton, his new national security advisor of Trump.
The problem with him, or the good thing is, is he says what he thinks.
The bad thing is what he thinks.
There are few people more likely than Mr. Bolton to lead the country into war.
His selection is a decision that is as alarming as any Trump has made.
His selection, along with the nomination of hardline CIA director Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, shows the degree to which Mr. Trump is indulging his worst nationalistic instincts.
Bolton in particular believes the U.S. can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties, political commitments, and previous administrations.
He wanted to attack North Korea to neutralize the threat.
It goes on from there.
I don't know if maybe some people think that one day, you know, the New York Times will like John Bolton.
I don't think so.
I don't think so at all.
But, you know, where are we here?
We're the same place we were.
Now the Republicans are weak, and they want and they insist on bringing in new witnesses and taking on what is the sole power in the Constitution of the House.
Then I guess that means, okay, in comes quid pro quo Joe.
Incomes zero experience hunter paid millions.
In comes the congenital compromise liar, Adam Shift.
In comes the non-whistleblower, hearsay whistleblower.
Bring them all in.
You guys are gonna open that door?
Fine, open it wide open.
Because I'm certain none of this is gonna matter to the president.
Because he never, he never got a thing.
He never did a thing.
They never promised a thing.
Oh.
Well, he said he wanted them to.
Maybe he did.
Are we gonna now punish people for thoughts?
I'm gonna kill this guy.
Did you kill him?
No.
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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nayfok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Then candidate Trump urged the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.
Russians, the Russians' contacts with the Russians.
The Russians will do this again.
Russians, the Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russian interference in our election, Russia, Russians.
The Russia issue.
Vladimir Putin, Russian, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russia.
For understandable reasons, I tend to view a lot of what's happening sometimes through a Russia prism.
Russia, Russia's Russians, Russian Putin's Russia, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russia, Russian government effort to help Mr. Trump, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russia, Russians, Russians, Russians, Russians.
Vladimir Putin, Russian, Russian, Russia, systematic interference of the Russians.
Colonel Venman said, Here right matters.
Here right matters.
I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.
If right doesn't matter, we're lost.
If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost.
We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.
We would like to.
Right is supposed to matter.
It's what's made us the greatest nation on earth.
The Russians offered help.
The campaign accepted help.
The Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help.
Because right matters.
And the truth matters.
Otherwise, we are lost.
I certainly share the view that there are parts of the dossier that uh have been corroborated.
Uh, and that seemed credible.
Right doesn't matter anymore.
All right, uh, hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Yeah, we ran that uh on Friday night on Hannity.
You know, we have Jim Jordan's, there are four things, four facts never change, never will change.
Then we have Jim Jordan, seven important things that Schiff had exactly wrong, which is why we know in this case he's compromised.
Oh, we'd love to talk to the whistleblower.
Yeah, you did talk to the whistleblower, your staff.
Uh more than circumstantial evidence of Trump Russia collusion.
Lie.
Adam Schiff uh said the Nunes memo was false.
Nope.
The inspector general uh Michael Horowitz uh said no it wasn't.
He added exactly right, the one that lied to the country.
That would be the congenital liar Schiff himself.
Uh you you you can trust the Pfizer court.
Adam Schiff told us.
Michael Horowitz says, no, you can't.
They lied to the Pfizer court 17 times 54 if you add the subsections.
Adam Schiff said, We're looking forward to hearing from the whistleblower.
We haven't spoken with the whistleblower.
Uh, yes, sorry.
Uh I must have just forgotten my office.
You know, I had lots of conversations with him.
Acted like Mr. Z referred to Zelinski when it in fact referred to Zolochevsky.
The four facts never change.
All right, let's look at it through the prism of the big Bolton bombshow that he might testify.
Well, that's if the president has the right to uh executive privilege.
Okay, you want him?
Fine, let's get quid pro quote Joe.
Let's get Hunter.
Let's get the congenital liar Schiff.
Let's get the here hearsay non-whistleblower whistleblower.
This is what we know.
Donald Trump willingly handed over the transcript.
He handed over two transcripts.
Idea that we have the transcript of the phone call, zero quid pro quo, like Joe.
None.
They never even mentioned aid on the call, not one time.
And we know that the president and President Zelensky both have said, and foreign minister of Ukraine has said, there was no pushing, we felt no pressure, no linkage at all between security assistance dollars and any type of investigation.
Uh the Ukrainians didn't even know at the time of the call that the aid had been held.
More importantly, they took no action.
They never started an investigation.
They never did a thing.
They never promised to start an investigation.
They never announced it.
And what did they get?
They got all the money.
They did nothing.
They were asked to do nothing.
The fact that the president may be thinking, oh man, you know, I got the 2017 January 11th politico and a Ukrainian court saying Ukraine interfered in our elections.
And Joe saying you're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor investigating my zero experienced son that's being paid millions.
I think that would be faithfully executing the laws to get to the bottom of that.
Anyway, Congressman Mark Meadows, the great state of North Carolina is with us, sir.
How are you?
It's great to be with you, Sean.
Obviously, uh, you may hear a little bit of uh noise in the background because we're actually just off the Senate floor.
We're part of this impeachment defense team.
So you're bringing uh you know your listeners in in the room when it happens.
And and when we see this, you know, you talk about Adam Schiff telling the truth.
Well, he's going to need to get injected with truth serum to start telling the truth because each and every day he brings out one more false statement, one more accusation, and yet the facts continue to mount up on the president's side.
President needs to uh not only have a vote in the Senate, but it needs to be an overwhelming majority Of uh not only all the Republicans, but I would say a couple of Democrats to come across and finally vindicate the President because the facts are supporting what he has told us all along, is that he didn't do anything for his own personal advantage.
What do you make of the Bolton book proposal and the president tweeting this morning?
One, I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.
In fact, he never complained about any of this at the time of his very public termination.
If John Bolton said this, it would be only to sell a book.
He said, with that being said, transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof it is needed.
In addition to the fact that President Zelensky and the foreign minister said there was no pressure, no problems, and the president added he believed he did more to protect Ukraine than Barack Obama.
Well that just happens to be a fact.
He said I met uh the with President Zelensky without any conditions at the UN.
Democrats say I never met, and release the aid to Ukraine without any conditions, without any investigation, without any promise of any investigation.
So I guess at the end of the day, what's the crime here?
That he might have been annoyed?
What?
Well, yeah, maybe maybe annoyed, but it listen, there is no crime here.
The president's absolutely right.
Not only did he not tell anybody to to link the aid for a political favor, but I can tell you it was never communicated.
You know, when you mentioned about the four facts that uh that never changed that Jim Jordan talks, you know, each and every day.
The other thing that doesn't change is the fact that President Zelensky, the foreign minister of Ukraine, and others uh truly are in a situation where uh ultimately uh we we have a a the best witnesses saying that that's not the case.
You know, and so those best witnesses are those that truly, if there was leverage to to be applied, it would have been to the president of of Ukraine, and it just didn't happen.
It never happened.
Now the question is we're gonna get into the 16 hours of questions.
Okay, that'll be let's say maybe some today, but certainly tomorrow and the next day.
That brings us through Wednesday.
Then I guess we're gonna have a a debate discussion over witnesses.
Now, the sole power to impeach rests with the House of Representatives constitutionally.
They said they have a slam dunk case for impeachment.
All the evidence they need.
Okay, now they present their case, and there are some Republicans saying, well, we need to speak to witnesses that they never even subpoenaed or called or took the time to call.
Why would the Senate take on the role of the House?
Well, it it is the House's responsibility to do the investigation.
We've had 17 witnesses.
Listen, this leaking that they did uh with the John Bolton uh uh manuscript, by the way, that that no one in the media has read, uh, that the president has denied is right out of their playbook.
We saw it when we heard from the 17 witnesses, they would go out and leap over and over and over again.
Little bit bits of information that were contradicted in the room because I was in the room, and yet they wanted to spin a narrative that is uniquely the Democrats' narrative that suggests that there's some nefarious purpose uh behind the president's actions.
And I can tell you that that didn't happen.
We will continue to push back on that.
Uh the defense team is actually on the Senate floor now making a very compelling case on why this should be dismissed.
Uh ultimately you're right.
The senators are going to grapple with should they have more witnesses.
Uh that will backfire on my Democrat colleagues.
If there's more witnesses, we will have the whistleblower.
We'll have Adam Ship.
We'll have Hunter Biden.
And so if they're going to do a witness exchange program, this will lengthen it out, and where will we be at the end of the day?
The president will still be uh vindicated and and truly uh the votes will come in that says he will be acquitted.
Does this have then become a a long protracted fight over the issue of executive privilege in your view?
Well, I think it could.
Uh I I also think that what uh might happen is that they say, well, we want to hear from these witnesses, and they do it in a closed session with depositions uh to ask just a few clarifying questions.
Uh what I don't want to see is us Uh talking about this impeachment four or five months from now.
Uh the Democrats need to be serious about lowering prescription drug prices, keeping our economy going, and uh fixing roads and bridges, and yet all we're talking about is impeachment here in on Capitol Hill.
It's not right, it's not what we should be doing.
Uh, but I'm I'm hopeful that our Republican senators will sit stay strong, and uh and your listeners letting them know that they want to get on to other priorities will help them stay strong.
Do you know anything about the report that exculpatory evidence is being held back by House Democrats and apparently related to the testimony of Michael Atkinson, the uh intelligence agency inspector general with first hand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint,
because I know uh mutual friend of ours, John Ratcliffe has said the reason it hasn't been released is it's not helpful to Adam Schiff, it's not helpful to the whistleblower, and it raises credibility issues about both of them, and it doesn't advance their their agenda here.
Washington Times noting that the evidence may be potentially exculpatory.
Uh, why are we having a hard time getting that information out?
They've that this was during the audition process of witnesses.
Right.
I think what we we see over and over and over again is is that anything that's to the president's advantage uh has been held back, or at least there's been an attempt to hold it back by my Democrat colleagues.
You saw over the three days of them presenting uh their argument that they failed to tell the rest of the story, and the Trump defense team eviscerated it their three days of testimonies and just two hours of rebuttal.
Um you know, as we look at uh at that particular bit of testimony, the biggest thing that we're seeing is a back and forth between the coordination efforts uh coming out of the White House with the whistleblower and other people uh that perhaps were involved in that whistleblower complaint.
Adam Schiff doesn't want the American people to know that that was more orchestrated by his team than perhaps is being reported, and because when that comes out, they will see this for what it really is a partisan activity designed to try to affect the 2020 election results.
I think all of that is true.
Um, what are the odds?
I mean, I guess you're there and you're watching and you're talking to some of these senators.
We know what they're saying.
We know Mitt Romney is now, I guess, moving in in the direction of, oh, we need more witnesses.
Now, wouldn't shouldn't that be limited to the witnesses that the House called considering they impeached or based on their case?
If there's any need for clarification, wouldn't you bring in the witnesses from there?
You know, why do you bring in Mulvaney?
Why do you bring in John Bolton?
What well, because if you do that, you're right.
Then we get quid pro quo Joe and zero experience hunter paid millions and and Schiff and the non-whower hearsay whistleblower.
Right.
Well, I think the big big aspect of that is that they want additional witnesses because the Democrats' case is so weak.
That's why the Democrats want it.
It it's they know that they've lost this argument with the American people, and they've lost it with our Republican senators.
And so they say, Well, gosh, there must be something more here.
If we just call in an enough witnesses, we can perhaps get another bit of uh a soundbite for MSNBC and and it will all work out to our advantage.
That's not the case, and I can tell you they will never be satisfied with any witness.
They will never be satisfied with any witness that comes forth to support the president.
They will always say, Oh, for example, if Mick Mulvaney came in and said nothing happened.
Well, of course he did.
He worked for the president, and so it they prop up witnesses that speak against the president.
At the end of the day, this is nothing more than politics, and sadly it's politics in a way that most Americans reject.
I got to take a break, we'll come back.
We'll have more with Congressman Mark Meadows, great state of North Carolina.
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.
Sir Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markovich.
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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up!
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Alright, a final moment, Congressman Mark Meadows, he's part of the president's defense team in this impeachment uh Schumer Schiff Sham trial that's going on.
Okay, so it's Monday.
Where are we gonna be by Friday or Saturday this week?
Uh by by Friday of this week, uh we will have finished uh not only the defense but the QA uh section.
I believe we will not get an agreement on additional witnesses, and that we'll have uh a vote uh to actually acquit the president of the United States from this impeachment process and hopefully on to everything else that is good and right for our country uh by Saturday.
So do you so do you think that Democrats don't want to hear from Schiff or the whistleblower or Joe Biden or Zero Experience Hunter?
They don't want to hear they don't want them to talk.
Uh of course not.
They they don't want to hear from anybody that might uh start to undermine their case, and all of the people you just mentioned will undermine their case.
Uh they're they're uh more afraid of witnesses coming in that we might request than we are of witnesses that they want.
I mean, uh they've got more exposure to this.
This will backfire on them.
I promise you it will backfire on them.
Ultimately, I don't think witnesses being called.
All right, Congressman Mark Meadows, thank you.
800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, Rolled their eyes or just asked why.
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, 25 now until the top of the hour.
800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Jordan Ste uh Seculo is part of the president's defense team, as well as his father, Jay Seculo, American Center for Law and Justice, has been able to step out of the Senate chamber.
We only have a couple of minutes to update us.
I watched on Saturday and I've been watching today, and the case is overwhelming.
When do you see this ending?
A and B, where do you stand on the Bolton issue?
Sure.
I mean, I think listen, uh, my dad addressed that issue right off the top today.
If people are watching, I think he's he said it very clearly.
We're going to address the facts and the evidence.
We're not going to deal with unsourced allegations, you know, and and the New York Times and other kind of you know news articles.
We're dealing with uh two articles against the president of the United States that the House uh decided was enough to impeach the president.
But uh let me then go to what Ken Starr had to say.
Uh uh Judge Starr, uh, who's been through this before, has said that there's a huge deficiency, a very big problem with these two articles of impeachment.
That when it comes to the president or any impeachment, but especially the president of the United States is elected by the American people, not to a lifetime appointment like a judge, but to uh has to be re-elected then, uh, should be able to finish out their term unless the impeachment rises to the serious level of offense.
He said, you know, you know, am I saying it always has to be crimes?
No.
But when it comes to the president, it should, it should.
Why?
Because and it should be bipartisan.
And those two fundamental flaws within what the House Democrats did alone should think these two articles of impeachment.
So I I think that was very clear.
Uh he then, you know, went into the idea of this idea of no due process when it comes to the president of the United States and removing him from office uh less than a year before an election.
And and this was this was someone who's been on the other side of this when when he had the power to investigate the president, telling the House this is not how you do it.
You've got to be if you're not if you're not going to be bipartisan, you should not move forward with impeachment, and you certainly shouldn't have moved forward with articles like this which don't allege any kind of criminal conduct and don't have any evidence.
So that I I expect, you know, we're gonna have a full day today.
I don't think it's gonna be necessarily like how the House Democratic managers, some of that's based off uh the majority leader timing, but how they went like late into the night every you know night after night.
But uh, but I do expect um, though I'm not I'm not sure yet.
I expect that uh we'll we will have some uh uh remarks uh tomorrow as well.
Uh I'm not saying necessarily it's gonna be another full day, uh, but we have to kind of see uh how things develop today.
You know, this is our this is our first day, really, of argument.
We had two hours on Saturday, Sean.
You know, that was uh this is the first day where it's a Monday, and uh the senators are back.
They got a little bit of a rest after the shift show, um, uh for three you know, for this for three, four days.
And uh and so we want to kind of uh kind of restart this process, bring in, you know, we've got Ken Starr and then others who will be presenting some new faces who will be presenting today.
All right, Jordan Seculo, uh part of the president's defense team along with his father uh Jay Seculo.
I thought they had an amazing two hours on Saturday, and and so far good all day today.
Uh thanks for being with us, uh 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, you know, despite all these hours and all this r repetition, and now let's go back to the Mueller report and let's bring in the opinion witnesses and replay what they said 400 times.
You know, people like uh that believe Donald Trump should have been impeached for tweeting out the words faking news.
That's how dumb this is.
This entire case is based on nothing.
The whole thing is based on, it's been based on nothing.
There's not been one single witness here that has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever that the president did anything at all.
Not one witness has testified that the president asked for investigations to be linked to aid, which by the way, and I have made this point, maybe one of the few voices that are.
Um we can hear Joe bragging about a shakedown, leveraging a bill.
You're not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor.
A vice president wants to fire a prosecutor in Ukraine, huh?
Oh, because he's told he's investigating his son with zero experience in Ukraine, oil, gas, and energy, millions of dollars.
Oh, that to me would be faithfully executing the laws of the land.
I've been saying it, but I guess nobody likes that argument because they're not using it so far.
But the, you know, we have no fact witnesses here.
You keep going back.
You cannot, there's not a single witness ever, you know, talking about the president linking aid to meet, you know, either meet with Zelensky or get the aid release to Zelensky.
No matter how many times you you hear and you watch and you read whatever they're saying for any given day, it doesn't matter because the facts, they just remain the same.
And the it all it is is that if you look at the facts, if you care about truth, if you care about defense, well then things don't change.
The president did nothing wrong.
The truth is right before your eyes.
We have the transcript, two of them, because the president released them.
Acting according to America's national interests.
He was concerned about corruption.
That came out in the call.
Never mentioned aid once during the call.
It shows the president never conditioned either security assistance or the meeting, in spite of everybody saying, well, he wouldn't meet with the guy unless he did these things.
No, the president met with the guy, and we have the invitations that were written to the guy.
And Zelensky, the foreign minister.
They've repeatedly said, we never felt any pressure.
We didn't even know the aid was held up or delayed at all.
You know, the you got Zelensky and other high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know.
They knew nothing.
Not a single witness testified.
The president himself said there was a connection, just the opposite.
What do you want?
Nothing.
No quid or pro or quo.
Not a single witness testifying that the president himself said there's a connection.
And more importantly, they got the money.
What did they do for the money?
Nothing.
What did they promise to do to get the money?
Nothing.
You know, how many more times do we have to go over the four facts?
I add one more fifth that never change.
And that is we have the transcript.
There was never talk of aid.
There was no quid pro quo in the transcript.
No demand for them to do anything.
You know, now we do know, in fact, that the Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election, separate and apart from Russia, at least according to a Ukrainian court and according to Politico, Politico Chronicled, the in depth the amount of collusion, if you will, coordination between the Trump, uh the Hillary campaign and Ukraine to work to get Donald Trump not elected.
Yeah, that wasn't Trump.
That's Hillary.
The same people all outraged over potential Trump Russia collusion that never materialized, seem to be, you know, totally absent, missing in action on this.
Anyway, they we've repeated it over and over again.
At the call, we read it.
No quit or pro or quo.
They never discuss aid.
At no time did they discuss aid.
President Trump, President Zelensky, the foreign minister, all say no pushing, no pressure, no linkage between security dollars and any investigation Into Ukraine.
The Ukraines, the Ukrainians didn't even know that aid was delayed at all.
Now, more importantly, they actually got the money.
Now, did they start an investigation?
No.
Ever.
Did they promise to start an investigation?
No.
Never.
And there were five other high profile meetings, even including with the vice president.
And in those conversations, people that were there all said aid was never discussed.
What else do we need here?
Well, John Bolton, he he may say it in his new book.
Say what?
The transcripts speak for themselves.
We know the meetings afterwards.
They speak for themselves.
Zelinski speaks for himself.
The foreign minister speaks for himself.
You know, the funny thing is watching these these congressmen, they didn't even want Ukraine to get the aid that Donald Trump gave them.
Pretty amazing.
Uh to our phones we go.
Let's say hi to John in California.
John, hi, how are you?
Welcome to the program.
Good, Sean.
How are you?
Good.
What's going on?
Um a lot of us, um, starting with uh the uh impeachment manager saying, well, we've given Donald Trump enough chances to prove his innocence.
And so that's assuming guilty until proven innocent, which is not our justice system.
And the blatant lying that's been going on.
I mean, just throwing it out there, throwing it out there, throwing it out there.
I I can't believe that there aren't ethics violations just you know being shredded here.
Uh because a lot of these people are attorneys, and there's there's uh attorneys have ethics, and then as a congressperson, uh you have ethics as well.
So uh there's this rapid crazy ethics violations going on in my mind, and I I just I I don't know how that can just continue without some checks and balance, and somebody say, Rain it in, guys, because you're out of control here, you know what I mean.
Listen, I I'm gonna tell you, it is this this is the swamp.
This has been their their three-year mission.
They tried to first influence the outcome of an election, cheating.
There was Russian interference.
Devin Nunes warned it'd be Russian interference.
Nobody listened in the Biden Obama years to to prevent it from happening.
But also now we know if the New York Times got any one thing right, it Hillary's dirty, unverifiable dossier was likely Russian misinformation from the get-go.
Now Russia was putting out, you know, stories about Donald Trump and hookers that are Rich Carlton in Moscow urinating on his bed.
I think sounds like to me that Putin and whoever from Russia gave that disinformation that Hillary paid for, probably didn't want Donald Trump to win.
I think we can figure that out too.
It's the truth does not matter to them.
That's why they get lectured by the congenital liar on truth.
Truth.
I'm like, yeah.
Please look.
Anyway, thank you, John.
Appreciate it.
Uh saying hi to Randy in Nebraska.
Randy, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Good.
Good, Sean.
How are you doing?
I'm good, man.
What's going on?
Hey, uh, I just had uh a comment to make about the impeachment trial.
I watch a show every night, and the other night you had uh uh Alan Dershowitz on there, and somebody asked, why don't they object to the statements that Adam Schiff's making?
And uh well they can't, which led me to the next thing is on your show every night, you'll have your little montage of Adam Schiff and his lying and spewing the facts that are totally wrong.
And it's like I would love to see your crew, because I know they do a great job, put together the Adam Schiff lying show along with the Democrats, the the crying for impeachment that started, you know, 19 minutes after he was sworn into office.
Put that in there and show that I have done it.
We've done everything.
We've laid out the timeline through 2016, through all through 2017, all through 2018, all through 2019.
Impeach, impeach, impeach.
I mean, honestly, I would I I could run it probably a full hour if you wanted.
Uh I try to make the case efficiently, um, but also leave time for some other content in the show.
Anyway, I got a roll, but uh you're making good points.
We're all over it.
If anybody wants the truth, we're giving the truth.
If anyone wants to believe the Congenital liar.
I guess you can, but uh how many more times do you want to be lied to?
All right, we got time for one more quick call here.
The great state of Oregon, Kelly, you get the final minute this hour, then our news roundup with uh Carter Page coming up.
Hey, Sean, how's it going?
I'm good, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing all right.
I'm out here in uh liberal country, Oregon, but there's quite a few of us supporters uh more than they they like to advertise.
There's a lot of people out here that you respect and appreciate what the president's doing.
One thing to hear talk about, wanted to ask.
Uh I want people to start looking into the motives of some of these some of the I mean, everybody knows uh even on the Democrat side, this impeachment is a sham.
I want people to look into like it's uh it's blatantly obvious Chuck Schumer's only gunning for those four seats in the Senate.
It's blatantly obvious that Nancy Pelosi is trying to obviously protect your son Paul Pelosi, which we haven't even gotten into yet.
I can't wait until that rank open.
Uh there's other people that's out on boards and in other companies that are reaping the benefits, and uh I feel like the Pfizer release is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think there's so much corruption going on, and like Donald Trump said, he's coming in to stir up the nest.
And when you stir up the nest, what happens?
The hornets get pissed off.
Start stinging back.
And I think that's why we're being looked this is what draining the swamp looks like.
And let me tell you they they the the swamp creatures, you know, now that the the swampy water is getting drained out, and and you know, they're coming out of the deep dark crevices and the dark, muddy areas.
It's pretty ugly to see how hard they're gonna fight to maintain this swamp just the way they want it.
And let me tell you what it all comes down to.
I'll break it down to a brass tax here, and that is they want the power.
They don't care that their plan screwed everybody over the last eight years of Biden Obama.
They just want to go back to those days and double down on stupid.
Now they want the new Green Deal at 94 trillion and Medicare for all at night at 52 trillion.
It's a lot at stake in 281 days.
Uh, but you're the ultimate ultimate jury, and you can shock the world again.
Quick break.
Carter Page reacts.
Yep.
It is now been vindicated even further.
Our reporting has been vindicated.
That next, straight ahead.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
On December 17th, 2019, the FISA court issued a scathing order in response to the Justice Department Inspector General's report on FBI's cross-fire hurricane investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia.
We already know the conclusion.
That report detailed the FBI's pattern of practice, systematic abuses of obtaining surveillance order requests and the process they utilize.
In its order, this is the order from the court.
I'm gonna read it.
This order response to reports that personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided false information to the National Security Division of the Department of Justice and withheld material information from the NSD, which was detrimental to the FBI's case in connection with four applications to the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
When the FBI personnel misled NSD in the ways that are described in these reports, they equally misled the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
This order's been followed up.
There's been another order.
It was declassified just a couple of days ago.
Thanks in large part, the court said to the Office of Inspector General's U.S. Department of Justice, the court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in applications filed by the government in the above captioned documents.
DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications and at least two specific docket numbers, 17375 and 17679, if not earlier.
There was not, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
The president had reason to be concerned about the information he was being provided.
Now we could we could ignore this.
We can make believe this did not happen, but it did.
Among the most important are the requirements in FBI policy that every FISA application must contain a quote, full and accurate, close quote presentation of the facts.
And that agents must ensure that all factual statements in FISA applications are, quote, scrupulously accurate, close quote.
These are the standards for all FISA applications, regardless of the investigation sensitivity, regardless.
I'm sorry, and it is incumbent upon the FBI to meet them in every application.
Nevertheless, we found that investigators failed to meet their basic obligations of ensuring that the Pfizer applications were scrupulous, scrupulously accurate.
We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications.
Seven in the first application and a total of seventeen by the final renewal application.
Did you have total confidence in the doctrine when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent renewal?
Total confidence that the FISA process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI.
I think the notion that Pfizer was abused here is nonsense.
Nonsense?
Not quite, because last week's big bombshell, of course, the mob in the media would never want to report, is that uh in fact the DOJ said it was abused.
Everything we'd been telling you, the dirty dossier, the bulk of information in all four FISA application warrants.
Well, now they're saying at least two numbers three and four, Comey signed one of those two uh was uh likely illegal on every level and shouldn't have been issued.
And now there's a full top to bottom, you know, uh you know, investigation as to what's going to happen from here.
Because the inspector general report has said it, and now others live through it.
One person had lived for a year being spied on illegally uh because people had a political agenda.
That's Carter Page, who joins us now, former Trump campaign associate.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing great, Sean.
Uh like I guess I can now, by the way, I I can I can also now introduce you as former CIA operative.
Well, unfortunately that's been disclosed by uh, you know, really some after uh some really dirty acts.
So it's unfortunate.
But I yes, it's uh it's now a matter of the public record, uh, as you uh as you figured out through your great investigative journalism uh beforehand.
So yes.
Well, let's talk about your reaction to the announcement by the DOJ.
That's an admission of guilt.
That's an admission that what we said about the bulk of the FISA applications being an unverifiable dirty dossier that Hillary paid for.
Uh that means that they were legally spying on you, but you basically became a conduit into all things Trump world because once they get a FISA application on you, well, that means they have the ability to go back right through every email you've written, uh, every phone call you've made, every text message you sent or received.
So that I I I actually think you many ways you are being used the entire time.
Now they're admitting to it.
First, your thoughts about it, and secondly, I know what I do.
I'd be suing everybody.
Well, Sean, I think that court filing from last week that you uh talked that you mentioned at site, it really represents just you know, along the lines of what we've been talking about for the last couple of years, another step on the road to recovery for America's really deeply damaged judicial system.
And I I just hope this is this latest admission of guilt for all these terrible civil rights abuses against the Trump campaign and you know, including myself by the Justice Department.
Really the marks uh continued progress towards you know another step towards justice and and really remedying these reputationally brunous injuries.
So it's been uh pretty pretty incredible, but a a lot more to come as you as you've long known.
Do you believe as the next step now?
Because the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, he had a limited purview because he only worked as the inspector general of the DOJ within the confines of the DOJ in the confines of the FBI, and yet it was a very damning report.
He's now referred both Comey and McCabe for criminal investigations.
And more importantly, the attorney general and we know that John Durham, the prosecutor, have both said this goes a lot deeper and a lot further than the purview of the Inspector General, and even takes uh well, they they they disagree.
They've said, based on our ability to go way outside of the limited area you had in which you could look into this thing as bad as it was.
It sounds to me like foreign countries, and this will impact you as well, because if I remember correctly, uh you were approached by a Professor Misfit and as was George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis and others, uh, and that they were they were trying to get information on you over there.
Now the question is, did they outsource spying to circumvent American law?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Well, the professor uh it was actually a a separate professor.
I I think you you cited uh some important things that happened a few months earlier.
The professor, another for uh professor overseas in England was uh Professor Halper at Cambridge University uh in the UK.
So um, yes, he didn't have a lot I I I correct myself, because yes, Halper was the Australian that brought up the issue or brought the attention of Papadopoulos to authorities, but also going after you and Sam Clovis, if my memory serves me well.
You you you have that right, yes.
Uh and poor Sam.
I mean, if you look at the tumult that it created, not only for the president and the candidate he supported, but you know, President Trump eventually uh nominated him as the under-secretary of agriculture, a really top position at the Department of Agriculture.
And unfortunately, with all this fake Muller investigation stuff, he had in the all these leaks in the media, he had to step aside, and it was just really a tragic series of events.
So now that all of this has happened to you, now the question is where do you go from here?
Because you've been vindicated.
I mean, I think probably there was a period of time I didn't really know what to think about you.
I was probing and I was asking, and I noticed that you had pretty pretty much duck and dodge questions when I asked about what you did over in Russia.
Uh but then I got you to finally admit that you would come back and you would sit down with and speak to uh many of our intelligence uh agents and and three letter agencies, and you gave them all sorts of download as to the work we now know you were doing over there, which by the way probably puts your life at risk somewhat.
Yeah, Sean, look, I mean, tr tribute to you on that front.
I and you you now understand the reason why I was trying to, you know, both for those life-threatening problems that it it created for me, but also uh just as as it was being falsely leaked out to the media, you know, misrepresented in the media.
But uh in addition, uh I mean, you the all the the all the hard work you did in terms of getting to the bottom of it was really essential.
You know, I I actually I was flying uh to uh to go visit with uh you know my my big legal team, which is is working on all this last last night, and I I watched the Mike Wallace documentary about you know what he did with 60 minutes, etc.
And you know, all the challenges in taking uh taking on authority and everything you did to really dig into this and and push forward uh getting towards the truth was so much so much deeper.
And uh I mean really how is this impacted your career now?
I I would assume your career uh in the Intel communities now finished, correct?
Well well, I mean, my my career on on many levels.
I mean, uh that was I was I was serving my country in that context and you know, helping out in any way I can.
But in addition, you know, my my work in the finance industry, so many deals uh I was working on uh before were cut off when you know all the banks didn't want to deal with me anymore with these uh fake media reports pushed by the DNC and their consultants and and all their uh terrible operatives like the congenital liar Adam Schiff, etc.
So and uh really across the board.
I mean, it was it's been a lot of people.
Would you consider but I think we're yeah would you consider suing Adam's Schiff?
Well, I I don't want to get into specifics uh on in terms of our strategy right now.
I uh all I can say, Sean, is we're uh we're working around the clock this week as we've been working the last several months.
Major steps are going forward, and uh I'll uh I'll plan to tell you about that later this week.
So more to more to come.
But I mean, specifically he was telling America a story that was false.
Is that not we now know that to be True.
Now he's doing his Ukraine thing, but you know, if we look over Adam Schiff and his track record, he was wrong on pretty much everything, wasn't he?
I I I was I was uh it was crazy.
I this this morning I I just tweeted out a uh a a tweet that he I retweeted a tweet that he sent out on July twenty second, twenty eighteen saying uh falsely saying that the release of the Carter Page Pfizer application makes clear once again the FBI acted lawfully and appropriately.
And this hasn't stopped the president and Republicans from repeating the same fraudulent talking points in their discredited Nunes menu.
Sadly, some things never changed.
And I mean it just uh, you know, the the c why hasn't he deleted that?
You know, there's just he because I I think part of the reason that he's lied so many times, he's just been such a congenital liar.
You know, it it would it would be impossible.
He has you know, the last six months on the congressional record, everything that he's done.
You know, it's impossible.
Uh you know, with the impeachment hoax and all the all the terrible things beforehand, him and uh the other uh DNC operatives, um and you know, benef uh financial beneficiaries.
Do you have a timeline when we might hear about any potential legal action?
Uh I think I'll have uh things to tell you on about that uh later this week, Sean.
We'll work in uh very very hard, but you know, it's gonna be uh well you deserve it.
I mean for a long time I think a lot of Americans uh thought, well, they gotta be surveilling this guy for a reason.
Um and it was just the opposite, because you were cooperating with our intelligence community.
It began to make sense to me after you spent so little time with Robert Mueller, and then they just left you alone.
You never came up in their world anymore.
Because they knew the truth.
And yet they never told anybody the truth.
Nobody ever went out there to defend you.
And there were perceptions and lies and and thoughts that were created uh for pure nefarious purposes, and I believe in many ways you were just used as a means of of violating as a frankly as a means to spy on a campaign, a transition team and a president.
And unfortunately you got caught up in the middle of it, uh, which really is awful for you, and it shouldn't have happened, and your civil liberties and constitutional rights were violated in numerous and a multitude of ways.
So on I mean, it's just it's just too much.
It's just too much.
The story is just too much.
It doesn't make sense.
Um just to make a long story short, now I'm here in the Lakers uniform in Philadelphia, where he's from, where uh one of the first first time I ever met him, gave me his shoes, he won an all-star week.
It's just it's surreal.
It doesn't make no sense, but uh the universe uh just puts things in in your life and and and when you I guess when you live in the right way, or you just given everything to whatever you're doing, um things happen organically, and it's not supposed to make sense, but it just happens.
Kobe, thank you, man.
Thank you for all the memories.
We got a lot of good ones.
And these tears that we cry.
We're gonna miss you.
And it's not gonna go.
It's not leaving today.
A week from now, a month from now, a year from now, we'll forever, forever miss you, man.
You are a legend.
You're an icon.
You're a father, your husband, your son, your brother, your friend.
Thank you for being my friend.
Do you think your daughter might want to play in the WMBA?
She does for sure.
She does.
I don't I mean, this this kid, man.
Wouldn't that be great?
Dude, man, uh I'm telling you.
The best thing, the best thing that happens is when we go out and and fans will come up to me and she'll be standing next to me and be like, Hey, you gotta have a boy, UM V gotta have a boy, man.
Yeah, somebody carry on the tradition, the legacy.
She's like, Oh, I got this.
You know, both of that.
But that's right.
Yes, you do.
You got this.
All right, that was uh Kobe Bryant.
The last part was about his uh daughter who also died in this tragic helicopter crash uh that took place over the weekend.
So, you know, one of the things I love about sports, I love that the the way that athletes will push and push and drive and work and sports and you know, Super Bowl Sunday is coming up.
It's they mirror life in so many ways.
What do you learn in sports?
You learn that, okay, sometimes uh not everything's fair.
The ref makes a bad call.
Sometimes people cheat.
Sometimes uh you gotta learn you're not gonna win every single time you play every single sport.
If you are, then I guess you'll be, you know, like Hobie Bryant, because he won a lot his entire career.
It's just to watch the gifts that people have.
Why do we like to watch sporting events?
Because you're watching people that can do things that we mere mortals cannot, and the talents that they've discovered.
You have to learn to be a gracious loser, learn to be a good winner.
You learn that the harder you work, the better you do.
Uh anyway, thoughts and prayers to the whole uh LA Lakers organization.
And it's um it's just sad.
I mean, just so young.
I mean, I think he's what, 41 years old, 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, and was one of the game's more popular players, 16-time MBA champion Lakers.
Wow.
Cause of the crash is unknown.
AP said, I don't know if this impacted the crash aspect of it, that it was apparently a pretty rugged hillside outside of Los Angeles.
Foggy conditions, some considered so dangerous that the local police agencies grounded their choppers, and it plunged into a hillside.
But we're getting a little bit of conflicting information here.
One witness said it was falling and spluttering, and I mean, this was a this this was like a Rolls-Royce helicopter.
This was a Sikorsky.
Uh, this is a real deal helicopter.
It wasn't one of those little bubble helicopters that I would never get in myself.
But um, anyway, there's just nothing to say, except that somebody that gifted, that talented, so young, tragic.
It shows us how life is just always hanging in the balance, doesn't it?
Um, and the me, by the way, the media, of course they get it wrong.
Mangle the whole thing.
You know, it's I I guess whatever they say, they always get wrong.
You can't even get, you know, straight news, even on something like this, you know, immediately reacting the way the reporters react.
Um, that, you know, here it is, nine people died in this terrible crash.
They can't they can't wait for the facts to get in.
We see that happen all the time.
It did include his daughter and and one of her teammates on her basketball team.
Those are the facts.
Everything else you hear about the victims has been false.
Turns out to come almost entirely from reporters and mainstream news outlets of the journalists who fell down on the job.
You know, you have ABC news guy, Matt Gutman, inexplicably repeating a rumor on the air, alleging that he had died in the helicopter crash with all four daughter daughters.
Okay, well, is is his wife listening to that report?
Maybe just wait and find out if in fact you have the truth yet.
You know, four of his children were believed to be in the helicopter with him, one of them a newborn, simply devastating.
Whoops.
Oh, sorry, I ran I ran too quickly.
It's uh he's had an amazing life and career and legacy and impact on this game.
You will forever be remembered.
Amazing talent.
Amazing.
Uh we haven't done a lot yet.
Uh I'm watching it really closely, but when you see this virus in China, and uh I know President Xi warned telling senior officials that China faces a grave situation.
The death toll there is 81, 2,744 cases reported.
Uh it seems like they got in very, very late into recognizing what the cor uh coronavirus outbreak was about.
The incubation time is quite long.
That makes contact tracing even more difficult, although contact tracing is okay.
You have the virus.
Tell us everybody you got into contact with, everywhere you've been.
If you've been on a plane, if you've been on a plane, everyone now has to be screened that was on that that airplane.
Uh to shut down Disney in China, to shut down movie theaters in China is uh quite alarming.
It looks like they're trying to build a new hospital in a day to deal with this.
And then the question is, well, how widespread did it get around the world?
Um we just gotta watch it.
We gotta we have to be careful.
Uh it's having an impact on the stock market.
They got scared by it, hitting tourism, which is a big part of a lot of people's economies.
Other countries are now scrambling to evacuate citizens uh from China.
Mongolia has closed its borders with China as a result of the virus that's happening.
Uh in You got a case in Arizona, one in California.
We have the Fox News is now saying five confirmed cases of the new virus in the United States.
And so we'll watch, monitor.
It's not time for anybody to get scared, but you gotta pay attention.
These things can get out of control very quickly, very dangerous.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
281 days, and you get to shock the world.
San Francisco, Tim, you know what would really shock the world?
If California went red.
That would shock the world.
Well, we got a ways to go.
I'm the only uh conservative in the city of San Francisco.
But uh Sean, Adam Schiff needs to go down.
This guy needs to be exposed.
He needs to be politically filleted like rotten fish that he is, so that all the America can see the the rotten maggots running around in his soul.
He and uh the problem is that uh the Democrats are gonna do everything they can to per circle and protect him.
Um without witnesses, I you know, I want to see Adam Schiff called more than I want to see Hunter or Joe Biden called.
I think that he, this one person who's been the most awful cynically wicked politician in my lifetime, my 61 years, I've seen a lot of them.
This guy to be able to bring the country to his knees because of his singular egotistical maniacal wishes, he just needs to be cut to the quick.
The problem is about calling witnesses.
We can't call him unless we're we agree to call these other people, but this is my point.
We have 16 hours of question and answers.
Now I don't know how this is going to go because no one's talked about it, and I don't know why no one's talking about it.
I mean, is the chief justice who's been sitting like a bump on the log as a chess timekeeper?
Is he gonna be the one handling objections, uh telling whether or not a uh an answer is germane, whether it's relevant, is he gonna be is that gavel can be.
If it becomes an executive privilege fight, which it could very well, you know, I'm really torn.
I and and I guess I wouldn't be torn if we didn't have some weak Republicans, and it gets frustrating.
Although I do see I know that Susan Collins is quite annoyed and angry, even I think would be the right word.
Um I'm not sure.
I I just I I really am frustrated by Mitt Romney in a lot of ways.
The very things we need to use we need to use the question and answer period to question Adam Schiff because we don't need we can say no to witnesses and still use our question and answers.
We don't have to subpoena uh the Senate.
If we if they want Bolton and they want Pompeo and they want Mulvaney, well, that then it's open season.
Then you then you're gonna have Schiff have to go under oath or members of his staff that that were talking to the hearsay non-whole whistleblower.
Uh then you're gonna have to you you have to then bring in the legitimacy of even mentioning Joe, quid pro quote Joe and Hunter, and that's a slam dunk case.
I'm all for bringing that up.
Every bit of that up.
Because there is the very thing that they themselves are claiming is so outrageous, and they just exonerate the Biden's for just purely partisan purposes.
You know, it's the the fundamental lack of uh of fairness, the the breathtaking hypocrisy they are willing to take on to advance their psychotic Trump hate Trump rage.
Because that's where all of this ends up.
Uh so I guess we'll go everywhere.
There's your answer.
Tim, thank you.
800, 94, 10.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, Iowa, caucus is coming.
Don, Iowa, how are you?
What is it?
Next uh Monday, I believe, right?
How are you, sir?
Next Monday, yes.
Very good, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm uh forever listener and very appreciative of everything you do.
Um, thank you.
My condolences to the uh Kobe Bryant family and to his daughters and to the whole Aker nation.
I I'm really uh in shock, same as everybody.
But yeah, I mean, it's just it's what it is is it's sad.
It's, you know, he's he's literally in the prime of his life, having had the most amazing career, and we he just dazzled every arena he ever played in.
He was he just had that extra whatever it is that makes him better than all the rest.
Amazing.
Without a doubt.
Um, what I called about was this whole uh this whole impeachment that's going on.
Months ago, I remember reading the DNC was out of funds.
They were broke.
And once this started, I decided that early on that this whole thing is their lack of fundraising, that this is their only way to get their uh political faith out to the country because they're using it for basically fundraising and to send what limited message they have saying elect us because we're not Trump.
That's that's all this is.
This is all they've ever had.
What are they gonna be able to say they've done in the three years Donald Trump has been president?
Well because what is their job?
Is their job to hate Trump every second of every day?
Now, okay, I understand the game of politics, and you want to beat the other guy.
I've always believed that if you keep your promises and you make the country more safe and more secure, and you create more prosperity and you create jobs and opportunities for Americans, I think that's a pretty good platform to get re-elected on.
Right?
Pretty simple.
I'm not a politician, and what have we I have not seen that from the this group of radical extreme socialist democrats?
I just have I don't we're not going to see it because it doesn't exist in them.
That's the sad part.
It's it's it is it is so beyond frustrating to me that this is all they ever do.
We got an election, the ultimate jury in 281 days.
And to watch these weak Republicans, I mean, you know, think about what these Republican senators are taking on on the end of this year.
I mean, they're really you're gonna allow uh the congenital compromise liar Adam Schiff, you know.
Oh, you get your head on up your heads will be on a pike, he says.
Or Trump would have their heads on a pike if they don't vote the way that Trump wants them to vote.
Well, I hate to tell and inform the ever so ignorant liar Schiff.
Uh many have voted against Donald Trump on some important issues.
I know Lisa Murkowski, Senator from Alaska, she's ticked off, and she has every right to be.
And it wasn't much better, you know, with the fascist comment of uh Jerry Nadler.
You know, I I think Jonathan Turley's analysis, yeah, he made a huge mistake.
He was talking about Nadler during the impeachment trial.
And one thing you teach law students is that when you make arguments to juries, make sure you don't insult the jury.
That is, don't want to make statements that make them feel stupid or ascribe any bad motivations to to them.
And he was referring to the moment Nadler accused the Senate of a cover-up, just like he's calling the president a fascist.
The question is is whether the Senate will be complicit in the president's crimes.
Well, that's a little insulting to the jury, wouldn't you say?
Yes, absolutely, without a doubt.
But uh as long as Donald Trump just keeps doing what he's doing and winning and winning for Americans, we're gonna all be fine through this whole thing.
It'll go away eventually, hopefully, maybe by the end of this week.
We could always hope and pray, right?
All right, Hannity, tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel, loaded up as we have Congressman Kevin McCarthy, also Carl Rove.
This is now backfiring on the Democrats all around the country.
Uh part of the president's defense team will join us.
Congressman Mike Johnson, uh, Jordan Secolo, Michael Waltz will join us.
Also, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Nervous about this virus.
We'll get the details.
All coming up.
281 days to go tonight at nine.
Hannity on Fox.
Thanks for being with us.
We'll see you back here tomorrow.
We'll see you back here tomorrow.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carolyn Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
