Judge Ken Starr, lawyer who served as a United States circuit judge and 39th solicitor general of the United States. He is best known for heading an investigation of members of the Clinton administration, known as the Whitewater controversy. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
Big news in the case filed by the state of Texas.
We've got all the news analysis of this, and it is a strong and powerful and well-written suit.
And we've got all the details we'll share with you.
I want to just take a quick diversion, though, because there was a big announcement by the president today as it relates to the coronavirus vaccine and Operation Warp Speed.
The president had already long prepared once it was available, once it gets FDA approval.
It's been fast-tracked.
These companies, they've now had this since early October, which would have been nice before the election if they told the American people, yeah, we're on track.
We got it.
I was hearing from people within these companies.
They had it.
It was obvious they had it.
They started trials in late August.
I'm sorry, late July, early August.
The fact that the trials were ongoing with the massive numbers, human trials, meant only one thing.
And I had this confirmed numerous times.
Antibodies were being created.
People did not die from the vaccine and that the side effects were minimal, muscle aches, headaches, you know, maybe minor chills, virus signs for 24 hours.
That seemed to be the worst.
We'll have more details obviously coming in the days to come.
But anyway, the president now had prepared the logistic distribution.
Where I live in Nassau County in Long Island, they will have 100,000 doses in this county by in one week from today, literally seven days from now.
NYU Langone announcing they are getting, I think, over 100,000 doses to start.
Now, logistically, the states are telling the federal government where they think they most need it.
Look, off the top of our head, we've got the first people that deserve this and should be prioritized over others would be those with pre-existing conditions, other morbidities that they may have to deal with health challenges, compromised immune systems.
Those would be most vulnerable to dying from it.
Then it would, of course, be frontline health care workers would be the top priority.
We see disproportionately in some minority communities where the virus has taken a hold and it's been more severe and impactful.
I think you go in order of neighborhood needs, what areas are most impacted negatively by this.
You know, somebody says to me, well, does that mean you're going to go get it, get it right away?
I'm like, no, I wouldn't get it right away.
There are people that are far more deserving than I am and in need of it more than I am.
I mean, people are so stupid.
Good grief.
And I want our healthcare workers, they deserve to be prioritized over everybody.
Older people with compromised immune systems, underlying condition, they take priority over everybody.
This is ridiculous.
Those neighborhoods hit hardest, they should take priority over everybody else.
And then eventually, by Memorial Day, anybody that will have wanted it will be able to get it.
And it's going to be rolled out in incredibly quick fashion.
They're turning this into a U.S. military operation, which is amazing.
And the president also signed an executive order today to guarantee the American people will have this priority access of our vaccine before it gets shared with other nations around the world, which, you know, I couldn't believe the Biden folks were actually saying, no, we want to share it with the world first.
Like, what?
Are you out of your mind?
The president's commitment financially to literally protect the investment that these companies could then freely throw everything they've got at this, knowing that they weren't going to come out on the other side bankrupt, that incentivized them to go out and get this thing done.
And here we are.
It's December.
The first case in this country was January 21st of this year.
I mean, we've never had anything like this.
So the president emphasizing today is America-first approach, distribute the vaccine to we, the American people, before we start shipping them around the world and open international access, which by the way, we will do, which, by the way, a year ago, I was saying on this program and on TV that, yeah, we'll probably be the ones that save the world again as usual.
And it turned out to be right.
But anyway, it's now effective COVID vaccines for the American people.
I mean, it's a tribute to our medical researchers and medical scientists once again that have done their job and prioritizing it is just the right thing to do.
Now, the UK, they did partner in the case of Pfizer with BioNTech, and they've got their own rollout and doses of the COVID vaccine, and they should take care of Britain first based on what contributions they made.
You know, they're now, you know, we're now watching California in the middle of a shutdown.
I felt terrible for this guy, the Staten Island bar owner that was on Hannity last night.
You know, with all this election stuff, the one thing that, you know, the praise that is heaped upon Dr. Fauci, who did make a lot of mistakes, and I'm not critical of him.
I don't think he did anything nefarious.
I don't think anybody understood the magnitude of this thing.
And everybody got it wrong, and all the models were wrong, and all the predictions were wrong.
And there was a learning curve, even for the great Dr. Fauci.
But we did know more.
And when he did say you can vote safely in person with social distancing and a mask, nobody at that point wanted to hear it.
You know, and by the way, this was not Joe Biden, not Joe Biden's vaccine.
Well, if Dr. Fauci says it's okay, I'm like, oh, good grief.
Yeah, Dr. Fauci already said it's okay.
Now there are going to be some of you that don't want anything to do with it.
And by the way, you shouldn't be forced to do it either.
That shouldn't happen.
All right, on to the big news today.
And it's a little, there's a multifaceted approach, but it really organically evolved and developed into what we saw with Texas earlier today.
And just before midnight, state of Texas filing this lawsuit.
And I think Chris Kolbach will join us later.
The former Arkansas Secretary of State had a great op-ed on it, is by far the most important of all the others surrounding the presidential election, November 3rd.
Now, it does not negate the separate path that's going on in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, for example, and Michigan.
It does not negate those other efforts.
Quite the contrary, I think it's complimentary towards.
But when you look at the latest Rasmussen survey, 61% of GOP voters do not believe that President Trump should ever concede this election based on what we're watching.
I agree with them.
62% of Republicans think it's very likely the Democrats stole the election.
It's pretty obvious rules weren't followed.
It's pretty obvious laws were ignored.
It's pretty obvious that there's a lot of nefarious crap going on all over the place, especially in the states that we have been focused on.
But back to Rasmussen, you know, even 17% of Democrats think Joe Biden stole the election.
67% of Republicans convinced that mail-in voting led to an unprecedented voter fraud.
41% of independent voters agree.
13% of Democrats agree.
89% of voters who think mail-in voting led to voter fraud believe Democrats stole the election.
Even among those that think mail-in voting was largely successful, 19% still share that view.
So what we have in the state of Texas now is this lawsuit that goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Shall they accept it?
We can get four justices aligned.
I've got to believe, you know, there's a high number of volume of cases that are presented to the Supreme Court.
They usually take about 80 a year, but something of this great constitutional importance, I believe, should be picked up by the court.
I think they need to do their job, weigh in on the legality, weigh in on the constitutionality of the whole thing.
The Attorney General of Texas Paxton said Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin destroyed the trust and compromised the security and the integrity of the 2020 election.
And these states violated the statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution.
He's right.
His arguments are solid.
And any Democrat, oh, this is not, they don't even have an answer to this, which is fascinating to watch in and of itself.
And he points out that by ignoring state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens' vote, but of Texas and every other state.
In other words, it's like nullifying somebody else's vote or disenfranchising voters in other states.
He's right.
He adds their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election.
We now ask the Supreme Court to step in and correct this egregious error.
They offer a remedy, which I'll get to.
And he said the election suffered from significant unconstitutional irregularities.
And it also claims there were interstate differences in how certain voters were treated and unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity laws.
You know, in an op-ed put out by Chris Kobach, he points out that, yeah, this is the most important suit.
And it did something, they brought the suit against specific states and did something, for example, that the states can't do themselves.
But Texas pointing out they violated the Constitution and how they handled the election.
And by doing so, they're disenfranchising all the voters in the states that got it right and did follow the law and the Constitution.
And by the way, the interesting part of it is the violation has occurred, and they make this regardless of any amount of election fraud that may have resulted in this, which we do know has happened.
And these four states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
A lot of this is similar to the separate cases that will remain ongoing, but this suit filed directly to the Supreme Court, as per Article III of the Constitution, listing a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has their, quote, original jurisdiction.
In other words, it doesn't have to start in a lower court.
You go into the right court right from the get-go.
And one of the categories is about controversies between two or more states.
Texas, that lawsuit filed late before midnight last night is that suit.
And the Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases at its discretion, but it's incumbent upon the high court to take this case, I believe, as Kobach believes, because it's a cut-and-dry question of constitutional law.
Well, that's exactly the question that the Supreme Court should weigh in on.
And what they point out is each of these four states violated the Constitution.
One, they violated the electors clause of Article II of the Constitution, where executive or judicial officials in the states change the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures.
Well, that electors clause requires, meaning constitutionally, each state, quote, shall appoint its presidential electors in a manner as the legislature thereof may direct.
And the point of that being is they didn't do it in a constitutional fashion.
Now, when you have this constitutional principle remaining consistent, regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote or, for example, early in our republic by the legislature, it's the state legislature, constitutionally and only the state legislature that sets the rules.
Pennsylvania, well, the Supreme Court expanded by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots.
That's contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, that the state court changed the rules in violation of the electors clause.
In other words, if the state legislature doesn't do it, it's not valid.
If you notice where we ended up here, it's pretty much where we, now we looked into everything on this show.
We've been looking at everybody, everything, every argument, every investigation.
And, you know, we were willing to do what the mob is never willing to do.
They ignored the real whistleblowers because they're such phony hypocrites, never accepting the results of 2016 either.
And what was the main focus?
We were focused on the legal side of it because at the end of the day, I knew that this is where it's going.
It's going to become a legal case or it's not.
And, you know, you really, as we learned in Georgia, you can't expect state officials to really give a crap because, you know, and I'll tell you what in part I think it's the problem in Georgia is with the governor and secretary of state.
And this comes out in this Texas suit, is that if, in fact, they were to call the state legislature back, which was inexplicable to me.
Now, in spite of that, I've got to encourage everybody in Georgia to get out there for the special election.
But I understand their anger and frustration that they're not taking the steps necessary to fix it.
Understand why, because to do so would be to admit that the reason George is mentioned in this suit is very, very clear.
And that is this compromise settlement agreement, the consent decree agreement that we have focused at length at on this program based on the early lawsuit against the state of Georgia early this year by the Georgia Democratic Party,
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, resulting in this idiotic consent decree that the Secretary of State had no right to enter into based on what this Texas lawsuit is pointing out.
And that is the electors clause of the Constitution, where when executive and judicial officials in the states are changing the rules in the state of Georgia, that would be the Secretary of State and the consent decree without going through the state legislature.
Hence, we've been saying open the legislature and call for a special session in Georgia.
They steadfastly refused because it would be an admission of a huge error on the Secretary of State and the governor's part.
They don't want to admit that.
More coming up.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
So I've gone through all 90 whatever pages are in this.
It was extraordinarily well done, well written, well thought out.
It is a clear, it is a compelling case offered by the state of Texas and this lawsuit being directly brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, and which would, under Article 3, have original jurisdiction.
And dealing with one of the categories in which they do have original jurisdiction would be controversy between two or more states.
That is what the Texas lawsuit is exactly what it is.
The Supreme Court has opined in the past.
And, you know, we'll see if we get the four justices signing on to give this the go-ahead.
And at that point, they could just make a ruling.
They could make it based on written arguments.
Oral arguments could be heard.
But today, obviously, being Safe Harbor Day, it was a critical deadline that was met and put together.
And frankly, it took a lot of courage, Paxson and the rest of the people in Texas to do this.
And they did the right thing.
And they did it not only on behalf of the people of Texas, but for every other citizen in every other state whose states got their elections done on time with integrity, that we have confidence in the result.
And without all of this madness that we're watching unfold.
Now, if you get to the constitutional issues in play that they raise, one is the electors clause.
That's Article 2 of our Constitution.
Executive judicial officials in the states, when they change the rules of the election and they did not go through their state legislators, the Electors Clause in our Constitution requires that every state shall appoint presidential electors in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct.
I'm trying to make this understandable.
Now, if you go to the early part of our republic, state legislators appointed presidential electors directly.
It wasn't a popular election for a president.
Anyway, that changed in the early 1800s.
The constitutional principle is the same because the Constitution remained the same.
And whether, you know, regardless of who appoints the electors by a vote in the legislature or the people, and now it's the people, it's the state legislature constitutionally and only the state legislature that sets the rules.
In other words, you don't have a Secretary of State deciding that they're going to count votes after what the legislators had passed as law in their state.
And when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline to receive mail-in ballots, which is contrary to the law passed, again, constitutionally by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the electors clause.
You know, similarly, this is what we've seen in Georgia, what I was explaining before the break.
When the lawsuit was filed early this year by the Georgia Democratic Party, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, and this dopey Secretary of State, we've been pointing this out now for a while, ends up in a settlement agreement consent decree with those Democrats that brought the suit.
And at that point, they decided and agreed to in this consent deal to modify the signature verification requirements that are spelled out in Georgia law that changed the rules and violated once again the constitutional electors clause.
I mean, these are both, those are both slam-dunk cases.
And it's well written and it's well thought out and it's well put together.
Now, the other constitutional issue that is in play here is when individual counties in each of the four states that we're talking about, we're talking about Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
Okay, specifically.
When they change the way they would receive and evaluate, and Chris Kolbach, who did a great analysis of this, will join us later.
When in fact they would evaluate or treat ballots in each county.
Now, this is where Bush v. Gore comes into play, the Supreme Court precedent, landmark case, that the court held that they had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
And there are still to this day, people that argue the constitutionality of the decision, et cetera.
The principle was that if one Florida county treated ballots one way, remember dimpled, pimpled, you know, perforated, you know, Chads, hanging, swinging, dangling Chads, et cetera, et cetera, and another Florida county treated a ballot a different way, voters had a constitutional right to have all their ballots treated equally from county to county.
Okay, well, that then brings in Michigan, for example, because they ignored the requirements of Michigan law.
And remember, we were the first to point this out that I know of.
We went and researched what the laws were about partisan observers.
And I was, I even said at the time, I was shocked that every one of the states we were looking at all had statutory language in the law, in the state, passed by the state legislatures as in terms of how you handle elections that allowed partisan observers to watch and observe the entire process.
There were absolutely no considerations given to the unique challenges that were set up for COVID-19, which by law they had to do or go to the state legislature and have them change the law that would have allowed six feet of distance, which would still have rendered that law impossible to possibly enforce, which didn't happen.
That's a big deal to me.
It's just like chain of command issues of the ballots.
That's a big deal.
How these ballots end up in suitcases in Georgia, kick out the media, kick out observers, pull them out and start counting the ballots.
And we confirmed that there were ballots in those suitcases.
So in that case, when poll watchers are denied access to the vote counting as the law passed by the legislature, which is constitutional, wasn't followed, okay, you're also violating the Equal Protection Clause.
In other words, if one Michigan county is denying poll watchers a right to count and another counties follow the law, okay, then Bush v. Gore, that landmark case, kicks in.
That's a good argument.
That's a strong argument.
I've been telling you now for the longest time, and I knew this was coming from the beginning.
I kind of was asked, to be honest, to just keep it below the radar for a little while on purpose.
And I did, because there were statutory deadlines that had to pass before they could even begin the process of a judicial review.
This is the case that, frankly, Reince Prievis knows more about than anybody else in the country.
And he's been explaining it to us regularly on radio and TV.
Anyway, and that is where the administrator, for example, the city of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law, directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witnesses were deemed invalid elsewhere.
Okay, that exactly goes to the heart of the decision in Bush v. Gore in that landmark case.
And that, again, resulting in unequal treatment of ballots in that state.
But there's the other case that I'll get to in a second.
So the Texas lawsuit is rightly where I knew we would end up in all of this.
This has now fallen on the Constitution and the law.
And if the Constitution and law matter, and if they are followed, then what you have out of Texas is an extraordinary case.
And they actually seek remedy from the Supreme Court.
And I had wondered in my own mind, what would the remedy be?
It's really the obvious that we talked at length about also, which is to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures.
Remember, the Supreme Court, you know, you take this back to 1892, McPherson versus Blacker.
Whatever provisions may be made by statute or by state constitution to choose electors by the people, there's no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time.
So you have that court precedence.
So if Texas ends up winning this, they could follow any number of courses in appointing presidential electors.
I thought that Chris Kobach laid out in his article some really good options.
They could assess the election results and try to exclude ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner, or they could divide the Electoral College votes between the two candidates, or they could follow a different path, but they have to follow a constitutional path is what the Texas lawsuit is all about.
If in the rest of the country, if every other state is following these constitutional rules and the appointing of presidential electors, offending states can't be allowed to violate the same rules.
It's just the simple, basic 101 constitutional law.
Does that give me faith that John Roberts isn't going to play politics on the court again?
No, I don't have faith in him.
I do have faith in Alito and Clarence Thomas, and I believe they're going to follow the law.
I think it's compelling.
I have faith in Gorsuch.
I have faith in Amy Coney Barrett.
Little questions in my mind still about Kavanaugh.
We'll see.
But the principle couldn't be any more clear.
Now, I've been telling you about other suits in other states.
I want to be very, very clear here because none of what I am saying here negates the separate lawsuit, for example, in the state of Pennsylvania that we've been following.
This is the one that we had Ted Cruz on TV last night was really great on this.
And that is the Pennsylvania Act 77.
All right, that lawsuit, if the Supreme Court could take that up independently, would be argued in a different way.
And that is, although the principle is often the same, and it was passed by state Democrats, signed by the state's Democratic governor, but it's in direct violation of the state of Pennsylvania's Constitution because their state constitution features carefully documented restrictions surrounding mail-in voting.
They actually, as we pointed out, have the verbiage.
And that can only be changed through a constitutional amendment.
It can't be changed by an act of the legislature without doing it the constitutional way.
In other words, you can't change the Constitution without a constitutional amendment.
So that's a separate case.
And, you know, that would need, I think the Supreme Court actually has a responsibility, and it's within their powers.
And that we're following the law, following the Constitution.
74 million people voted for Donald Trump, and they rightly deserve answers.
Then you can go to the Wisconsin case.
And I thought that was a strong case also, because they don't allow early voting by statute in Wisconsin.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has supported that law in the past.
We have court precedent, state precedents in that case.
And then that has to do with the fact that it would impact 200,000 ballots whereby they were doing mail-in balloting, which the law prohibits a violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution.
Nor were they following the proper procedures for somebody that were to have an absentee ballot for a good reason.
Hence, they just wanted to do it because even as the lawsuit points out early on, a lot of this was done in large part under the idea, well, this is about COVID, COVID, COVID.
That's not why they did it.
I mean, I'm reading this thing and I'm like, yeah, they have this thing absolutely nailed down.
And, you know, how these actors, you know, basically, you know, put these new laws in effect.
without regard to the Constitution, without regard to the legislature.
And I think that they've got some serious flaws here in constitutional issues.
And I think the court has to take it up.
Will they?
I don't know.
Now, some of you say, why is it taking so long?
Because it's a process.
And yeah, it's been frustrating for us too, because we're trying to be factual.
We always are smart and careful.
That's how we got Russia right.
We're right on the law here.
And we've been right on the law.
And we've stayed within the parameters of it.
You know, we have found a lot of things that we really don't like that we just can't, we can't back up yet.
We've talked to sources that are telling us stories that haven't signed affidavits yet.
And some saying that they can't because they think their lives are going to be in jeopardy, you know, as per the courage of whistleblowing.
So, but, you know, we all need answers why partisan observers, as allowed by law, were blocked from doing their job.
You know, 74 million Americans want answers.
The 67% of Americans that think that this thing is full of nothing but fraud have a right to have confidence in the final outcome of an election.
And just because the mob dismisses it and Democrats dismiss it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.
So you have the Pennsylvania case on a separate simultaneous track, the Georgia case, separate simultaneous track.
Wisconsin, the same thing.
And then you have it all tied together in this Texas case.
I hope I did this justice, but we've done a lot of work on this all day today.
Just to try, I'm trying to make it understandable for everybody.
And it's really not complicated.
This is actually a fairly straightforward, simple legal constitutional issue.
I think very understandable, actually.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hi, our two Sean Hannity show.
Thanks for being with us, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza, look, we've got a lot to analyze here, but not the least of which is, and this is pretty interesting here, now that Texas has gotten the ball rolling, I'd like to see other states, Other, you know, secretaries of state, especially attorneys general, you know,
where are their amicus briefs that they could file in support of the brief out of Texas.
I think it would be fully and wholly appropriate.
And I think also give the Supreme Court more pressure and ammunition to rightly take on what is a case that has significant and very real, from my vantage point, constitutional implications that are very understandable with a direct remedy involved in the actual challenge that they make, as Texas has now filed this lawsuit against these other states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Ken Starr is with us, served as a United States Circuit Judge, 39 Solicitor General of the U.S. Sir, welcome back to the program.
Great.
Thank you, Sean.
You know, I think as I've read through the case now and the suit that they filed, which, by the way, does give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction based on controversies between two or more states.
And then I look at what is in the case.
I think it's pretty compelling about how they violated these states, the electors clause of the Constitution, Article 2 of the Constitution, where when executive judicial officials in states change the rules without going through the constitutional process of state legislators and the electors clause requiring each state shall appoint its presidential electors.
And, you know, we've gone through the varying violations in the varying states that, frankly, had nausea in this case.
And also then it raises the second constitutional issue when each of the four states changed the way they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots.
And that went to the heart of the landmark Bush v. Gore case as the court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when one Florida county was treating ballots in one way and another Florida county was treating them in another way.
And voters had a constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally and consistently from county to county.
And that would then impact states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Georgia for sure.
Let's get your thoughts on the filing.
Well, it is a remarkable filing, and I mean that as a compliment.
Sean, the battle thus far has been where's the evidence, where's the evidence?
Comments even from very important people in the administration, no systemic evidence.
And we've heard that now for several weeks.
The beauty of what Attorney General Paxon of Texas has done with his very able staff is to say, look, let's just go back to basics, and that is the Constitution of the United States.
And we're seeking a declaration as a sovereign state that what our sibling states, our sister states, have done is just, as you were saying, violations of the Constitution.
Declare that to be so.
And so it's so, shall I say, pure?
It's so simple.
You don't have to have a lot of affidavits.
You don't have to have any affidavits.
You just look at what was done, what is not undisputed.
You can take, what, as we call it, judicial notice, and just say, yes, this was a violation.
What Pennsylvania did, we've already had indications, right, Sean?
Justice Alito's opinion and so forth.
And they have been forewarned, they being the officials in this state, you have been riding roughshod over the constitutional authority of state legislatures, and someone should hold you to account.
And I think that's exactly what Texas is doing in this very well-drafted complaint.
You've got your finger on the pulse.
My sense is that people who may not agree with the complaint say, this is a very serious matter.
A sovereign state saying, here it is under the Constitution.
We don't have to go to our local federal district judge or to our state Supreme Court.
We are a sovereign state.
Our elected attorney general has the authority under the Constitution and laws of the state of Texas to say, Washington, D.C., Supreme Court of the United States, here we are.
Please hear the case.
Now, look, they don't have to.
This is why I would like to see other states, Red State Attorney Generals, weigh in on behalf of Texas.
Because when I read it, I was frankly blown away at its simplicity and the power in the argument is just, it is plain as day.
This is not a complicated issue.
Exactly.
It is exactly that.
It is a pure issue of law.
As you and I have been seeing this unfold in various courtrooms, Rudy Giuliani, God bless him, may he get well in legislative bodies, Georgia, Michigan, et cetera.
We can set all that aside for those are serious issues.
I'm not discounting them at all.
But this is, again, a pure, pristine constitutional question.
Judges, just get out your Constitution, look at the undisputed facts.
These are not going to be undisputed, that the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania took the following actions.
Governor Wolf took the following actions.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania took the following actions.
This is all out there in the public domain.
We don't need a trial.
We don't need a special master.
All we need is a declaration.
That's what this complaint says.
Now, we'll see what the, you know, that's one side.
I think it's very strong.
So we'll see what the opposing states, I think led by Pennsylvania, will say in response.
But I think, let me say an amen.
Yes, the other states, it would be helpful to the Supreme Court to be advised.
This is, we've assessed this here in our state, in our attorney general's office.
By the way, never underestimate your state attorney general.
Your state attorney general will typically, in virtually every state, if not every state, have a really strong, able, dedicated staff.
They can obviously go outside counsel from time to time.
But what this complaint suggests is that in Austin, Texas, in the offices of Ken Paxton and his staff, there's a very careful analysis.
That same thing should go on in other state capitals and other attorneys general offices.
Well, I mean, so you seem to agree with me.
Now, this does not negate, and we spent a lot of time going over, for example, the Pennsylvania case, which Ted Cruz said that he would argue for before the Supreme Court.
And this is about the Pennsylvania Constitution and the legislature, the Democratic legislature, passed by state Democrats, signed by the state's Democratic governor, Act 77, expanding mail-in voting, which is in direct violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the language within the state constitution.
So that would continue.
How do you look at the constitutional merits of that case?
Yes, I think that is, if I may say so, cold on the docks that Senator Cruz should win.
As you know, I said this on your show several weeks ago.
This is just a constitutional travesty, this being what happened in Pennsylvania, to override the careful consideration of the Pennsylvania legislature.
You know, the Commonwealth, the people of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have a Constitution, and the Constitution provides for a legislative body, and the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the importance in Bush v. Gore of legislative bodies.
These are the people closest to the people, right?
Our elected representatives in our state capitol.
We probably know them.
We probably know our state representative.
We might not know our senator, but we sure as heck probably know if we're interested in politics at all.
We sure as heck know our state legislator and state, and typically state senators.
Well, that's who the Constitution of the United States looks to.
And that's not what the Secretary of the State of Pennsylvania did, nor the governor of Pennsylvania, nor the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by the way.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court wasn't unanimous.
It would still be wrong if they were, but it was a deeply divided court.
I think that the Pennsylvania case being argued, if it's argued by Senator Cruz, if the Supreme Court goes forward, should readily prevail.
Now, let me go to the Michigan, I'm sorry, the Wisconsin case and also the Georgia case.
The Georgia case deals with this issue of the consent agreement between the Secretary of State bypassing the legislature, which again becomes the constitutional issue, the elector's issue.
But that case seems particularly strong because it was basically the Secretary of State independently and separate from the legislature agreeing to this consent agreement with the Democratic lawsuit.
But that's not the process by which that should get done.
In Wisconsin, they don't allow mail-in balloting as per their laws and their statutes.
Previously, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld that law, and yet it happened and it impacts some 200,000 ballots in the state of Wisconsin.
These all go on independently.
Am I mistaken or am I right?
You're exactly right.
There are a whole lot of litigation paths.
So it's a busy network right now of lawsuits.
Some are being brought by citizens, as you know, who have felt this sense of moral and legal constitutional outrage.
Some are being brought by the campaign.
But that brings me back to Texas.
Attorney General Paxton's lawsuit is, I believe, the very first one brought by an attorney general.
It certainly is the very first one being filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is where the founding generation said states are so important.
After all, we are the United States of America.
We're not just America.
We can sing songs about America, but we, as a sovereign body, are a group of states, and each state has such dignity in the constitutional order.
And then who in the state is responsible?
The legislature.
Not with all due respect to the Secretary of State of Georgia, the Secretary of State.
No, the Constitution was not contemplating.
There are some 8,000 cases usually presented to the Supreme Court, none of as great importance as this.
So I've got to imagine that they will take this very seriously.
Your thoughts.
Yes, I believe it will be taken very seriously.
I'm not going to make a predictive judgment about what they're going to do, but here's what.
Explain the process.
You need four justices.
Yeah, you may even need five.
I need to clear the cobwebs and go check because this is an original action as opposed to a discretionary action, which is the rule of four to get an application called petition for certiary.
But yes, it doesn't take a unanimous court, but it's not just one justice.
We keep talking rightly so about Justice Alito, who's a great man and a great justice.
But the paper file, the petition, as it's called, filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas is, in fact, a petition by a sovereign state.
And I hope that all members of the court, regardless of who appointed them, will take this very seriously because it's a constitutional case, as you put it, of the highest order.
You know, one of the things that bothers me, I like, for example, I felt John Roberts became very political on the ruling on Obamacare.
There have been many reports that he had changed his view because of political considerations and how it would be viewed through a political prism, which is the exact opposite of what he should be doing.
But if you look at this purely from a legal constitutional standpoint, this is not complicated to me.
No, I agree.
It is not complicated.
That is the brilliance of this complaint, that it is fashioned in such a way that you don't have to go get affidavits from voters who saw something happening in the casting ballots, nor poll watchers who are watching or prevented, as it happened in some instances, the ballots being counted.
This is, we're up on Mount Olympus now.
We're not down in the trenches.
Yeah, I mean, it's just a fascinating time.
Now, we may even know as early as some point before we get on TV tonight where they stand if they're going to listen to arguments.
I mean, I think we'd know very, very quickly, you know, from the court.
And that is we're waiting to see whether they will or will not hear the case.
And if they set a briefing schedule, we're in the ballgame, right?
Right.
I think they'll want a response from the states, is my, I guess I am making a prediction, some kind of response from the states just to give them their opportunity.
And if I were the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, I would want to be heard because this is a very serious matter.
And this cannot be swept under the constitutional rug.
This is out there.
It is now in full play.
Very important.
And that's what the Supreme Court is there to do to handle very important issues under the Constitution.
Ken Starr, thank you.
Appreciate it.
When we come back, Joel Pollock will join us.
He actually has an e-book out today, Neither Free Nor Fair, the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
Then we'll hear from Chris Kolbach, former Kansas Secretary of State.
He wrote a great op-ed on all this today.
Dan Brown, I'm sorry, Don Brown, attorney and patriot.
He's been working a lot behind the scenes on this.
And he'll tell us more of the insider details of it.
Well, full coverage on Hannity tonight.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
Rasmussen reports, 61% GOP voters do not believe that the president should concede the election.
62% of Republicans say it's very likely Democrats stole the election, a view even shared by 17% of Democrats, 28% of voters not affiliated with any major party, and 67% of Republicans convinced mail-in voting led to unprecedented voter fraud.
And 41% of independent voters agree.
89% of voters who think mail-in voter fraud led to voter fraud believe Democrats stole the election.
Oh, we told you this is all covered.
The one thing, the great Dr. Fauci, loved by liberal Democrats, the media, one thing they never wanted to hear from Dr. Fauci was, yeah, we've got, it's okay to go out and vote in person.
Anyway, culminating with the Texas lawsuit from earlier today, also this other suit in Georgia, too, and the Wisconsin case and Pennsylvania cases.
Listen, I've been telling you where this is going.
To be very honest, I expected this might happen.
What happened earlier today after obviously working with all of these people in all these different states and when push came to shove with the limited time we have and our safe harbor deadline upon us today, that this was inevitable and it came down to being the best strategy in the end, although there are other factors that should be that first need to be resolved if we're ever going to have free,
fair elections we can have confidence in.
But there's a lot to this.
Our friend Joel Pollack, brilliant writer, editor-at-large, House Counsel, Breitbart News, author of the brand new book.
It's called Neither Free Nor Fair, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
And he's looking at this appropriately for today from the legal aspect of this and how distorted this has all been.
And Joel, we welcome him back to the program.
Joel, how are you?
Great.
Thanks so much for having me on, Sean.
And by the way, and you went to what, UCLA?
You went to Harvard.
Where'd you go to school?
I went to Harvard undergrad.
I went to Harvard Law School.
And I also have a degree actually from the University of Cape Town.
I spent some time in South Africa, which is actually where I got some of the inspiration for writing this book.
All right.
So let's start with what we've all learned here, why all of us see that nobody's ever going to have faith and confidence and trust in this.
The suit filed by the state of Texas today, the other suits that are pending, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia in particular.
And frankly, I see a lot of merit with all of the data that they've been able to develop out in Nevada, but go through it from your perspective.
Well, what's really elegant about the state of Texas case is that it doesn't require anybody to prove that voter fraud actually took place.
What they're saying is you guys changed the rules in the middle of the election, and you did it in an unconstitutional way, and that hurts voters in other states.
So the Supreme Court has to send these elections back to the state legislatures, which is where the Constitution says that electors ought to be appointed or decided.
And that's quite an interesting argument, but it points to the bigger issue I highlight in my book, which is that if you zoom out a little bit, take a step back from the voter fraud question.
Just look at this election as a whole.
This was not run in a free and fair way, and the changing of the rules halfway through was part of that.
Well, but that's the unconstitutional part of it.
You know, and then you can look specifically at the state legislature.
For example, I've been saying now for the longest time, this Pennsylvania case is real because the state legislature there violated the state's statutory language, constitutional language, state constitution, which they cannot do because there is a process to change the Constitution in the state of Pennsylvania.
In Wisconsin, they don't allow for mail-in balloting.
And for those that get absentee balloting, there is a process and procedure, but yet all of that was pushed aside and new rules that were illegal were adopted for over 200,000 ballots in the state of Georgia.
Certainly equal protection arguments can be made over this ridiculous lawsuit, consent agreement made by the Secretary of State that created a separate and unequal, if you will, tell me if I'm wrong in my use of that language, signature verification system, one for mail-in balloting and one for in-person balloting, when you should have one clear standard that applies to every Georgian voter.
Right.
And the equal protection argument goes even further because Mark Zuckerberg donated hundreds of millions of dollars to local government efforts to turn out the vote.
They call it safe elections projects.
But they only ran those projects in counties that were heavily Democratic.
So if you are a voter living in a Republican county, you had less help and support from the government because of these private donations, which may themselves be illegal.
But they may also be unconstitutional because you had a privately funded election operation in Democrat counties helping local authorities turn out the vote.
So there's that element to it as well.
But, you know, you pointed out something interesting there with the consent agreement.
What is a consent agreement?
The consent agreement is a compromise between Democrat pressure groups and Republican state officials.
The voters have no say over this whatsoever.
And the person suing to get that consent agreement or some of these agreements was a guy named Mark Elias.
Mark Elias is a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer.
He was also the guy who arranged for Fusion GPS to write the Russia dossier back in 2016.
He came back in 2020 and started suing all over the place to force these changes to the rules, which I would agree are unconstitutional.
So the same cast of villains came out again.
And we were warning about this during the whole election.
It's not like it's just sour grapes after the election.
You were warning about it.
We were warning about it article after article saying, hey, wake up.
The guy behind the Russia dossier is also suing all these battleground states to change their rules.
And you, the people, have nothing to say about it.
The problem is, is that we can send men to the moon and bring them home.
We have all of the other states, and they're impacted and frankly disenfranchised, I think would be the right word for it, when other states don't follow either law or constitution or changing the rules after the game has started to be played, or they're making side agreements that are unconstitutional and illegal.
And that is the fundamental legal argument of it.
The Supreme Court is petitioned 8,000 times a year.
They take maybe about 80 cases.
But when an issue of great importance such as this comes up, and I think they have an obligation to look at it, let's say for a moment that they do.
I actually think the odds are pretty decent they might.
And if they do, on the legal merits, which is the way and the constitutional merits, any Supreme Court decision ought to be made, I think we win the argument.
Now the question is, does politics come into John Roberts court yet again?
Because I don't really have a lot of faith and confidence in the Chief Justice anymore.
But we do have Amy Coney Barrett.
We do have Clarence Thomas.
We do have Sam Alito.
We have Neil Gorsuch.
And Kavanaugh is still an open question in my mind yet.
But, I mean, you might have the votes there if they follow the law and the Constitution.
What this case would do is it wouldn't quite overturn the election.
What Texas is asking the court to do is to send it back to the state legislatures.
Now, those state legislatures could still decide to give the electoral votes to Joe Biden, but at least at some point there would be accountability.
Right now, there's no accountability because these rules were just changed outside of the state legislatures, outside of the laws, and there's no accountability.
And voters are going to lose faith in the system if you elect these people and they write these laws and they pass these laws and then the rules change in the middle of the game because the Democrats have a lawyer who's willing to sue or they have interest groups that are able to get these consent decrees.
And that's what people are infuriated by.
You know, people can actually accept a loss if it's a free and fair election, if there's accountability.
Right now, there isn't any.
So I think the Supreme Court has enough justices.
Alito, I think, wants to take the case.
Clarence Thomas wants to take the case.
I think you've got enough people there who are at least going to want to weigh in on the constitutional issues.
Again, it might not change the result in the election.
We'll have to see.
But I do think that sending it back to the state legislatures where there's accountability, at least, you can hold these politicians accountable for what they decide to do.
I think that's a step towards restoring public trust.
Quick break right back more with Joel Pollack, and we'll preview the top of the hour.
Chris Kolbach is going to join us.
Don Brown, the attorney patriot, working behind the scenes on all of the Texas lawsuit that we're talking about today.
We'll give you all the details of that.
We have full coverage on Hannity that you won't get from the mob anywhere.
Nine Eastern, set you DVR.
Quick break right back.
We'll continue.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Continue with Joel Pollack, his new book, Neither Free Nor Fair, an e-book, available on Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
And it's called the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, the first book on it.
All right.
So now there's also the issue of protecting the integrity of future elections.
Now, we have the next one on January 5th.
It's beyond inexplicable to me, the actions of the Georgia governor, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor, and others that they have shown no desire to resolve the issues of signature verification, not having the same standards for mail-in voters versus in-person voting and no voter ID and a whole different signature verification system adopted just for people that vote one way.
I don't understand this mysterious reluctance, resistance, and frankly, outright hostility towards instilling confidence in the system and writing an obvious inconsistency and wrong and injustice.
Is it the admission part that if they did go into session and they did make the necessary proper legal changes that it would be an admission they failed the first time?
And that's what they're avoiding at all costs?
Yeah, it may be that.
And then also there are other forces at play here.
You know, what I write about in my book, Neither Free Nor Fair, is that there are other things that make an election free and fair.
And what made it unfree and unfair in November was the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Google search results, all the things that Silicon Valley did in November.
They're still doing that in Georgia.
They're suppressing traffic in conservative media about the Georgia race.
Now, people who are saying, well, we don't know if our vote counts.
We don't know if we should vote.
Let me tell you this.
If Democrats win those two Senate seats, they're going to take control of the Senate, and then they can pass Nancy Pelosi's HR1.
You remember HR1?
They wanted to get rid of signature matching all over the country.
They want to institute ballot harvesting all over the country.
So they want to take the abuses that they were able to sneak through in 2020, and they want to make that the nationwide standard.
And they'll do that if they take over the Senate because they'll just pass HR1 in the House and send it over to the Senate and Democrats will pass it.
So the only way to stop this is to stop the Democratic takeover in Georgia.
But you're 100% right.
The Georgia state legislature and the Georgia...
What do you say to the great people of Georgia that are, for, I think, all the right reasons, frustrated?
Unfortunately, I can't encourage the frustration further.
It's like you got to try, even though it's imperfect, and you've got, you know, even Republican bureaucrats and rhinos just, you know, getting in the way of fixing obvious errors and injustices in this.
What I would say is that the people who want to be let off the hook, the people who don't want to do anything about it, they will be gratified by a Democratic win because then they'll say, you see, the voters didn't care enough about fraud.
They didn't think that Trump was heading down the right track here.
They stayed home.
They didn't vote.
And therefore, we can just keep getting away with this.
Those officials aren't even on the ballot in this runoff.
It's just the Senate candidates.
But if Republicans...
Well, the governor will be in two years.
And let me tell you, he'll also be primary, it is my prediction.
Well, that's when people can hold him accountable.
But if you want to hold them accountable, now's not the time to do it because the two officials who have called for the Secretary of State in Georgia to resign, those officials are on the ballot.
Those are the two Republican senators who are running for re-election.
So those are the people trying to bring some accountability into the system.
And I think if you want that accountability, that's the choice you've got to make.
All right.
The book is called Neither Free Nor Fair, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Just Out Today.
We have a link on Hannity.com.
It's on Amazon.com.
I assume, Joel, in bookstores everywhere.
It's an e-book, so it's only online because I wanted to rush it out there.
I got it out first before everybody else.
So that's where it is.
It's online, but you can read it there.
And I hope people enjoy it.
It's been getting some great reviews so far.
Neither free nor fair e-book, Joel Pollock.
We have a link on Hannity.com.
It's on Amazon.com.
All right, Joel, thank you as always.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, news roundup, information overload hour, Sean Hannity show Chris Kolbach with a great op-ed analysis of this lawsuit filed by the state of Texas, more important than all the others, although it does not negate the great case that we have been pointing out that exists in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the voter verification standard case in Georgia, and all the anomalies discovered in Nevada,
but actually brings them all together.
And we're going to talk to Chris in a minute.
And Don Brown, the attorney, patriot working behind the scenes on all of this.
You know, let's remind you what Ted Cruz said last night about the case, for example, in Pennsylvania that he'd be willing to argue.
You know, we're seeing across the country lawsuits that are challenging voter fraud, that are challenging irregularities in the election.
And in Pennsylvania, this appeal to the Supreme Court raises very serious issues.
It raises pure issues of law.
And I believe the Supreme Court should choose to take the case.
I think they should hear the appeal.
And as you noted, the legal team reached out and asked if I would be willing to present the oral argument if the court took the case.
And I told them I'd be happy to, because particularly at a time when this country is so divided, when people are so angry, I think we need a sense of resolution.
And we need the Supreme Court to step in and ensure that we're following the Constitution and following the law.
Right now, it's not healthy for our democracy, what we're seeing.
And in Pennsylvania, the problem was made worse because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a partisan Democratic court that has issued multiple decisions that were just on their face contrary to law.
And that's not how elections are supposed to work.
All right, joining us now, Chris Kobach.
He is the former Kansas Secretary of State.
He has a great analysis write up on this Texas case, this challenge going directly at the Supreme Court.
Don Brown, attorney, patriot, working behind the scenes, assisting in the correction of this illegal election.
And honestly, from Chris's piece on Monday, just before midnight, the state of Texas filed the lawsuit far more important than all the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.
And he describes what we've been talking about the better part of the day, this Texas suit against four states that's something they can't do, and they violated the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of the presidential election.
And this violation occurred regardless of the amount of election fraud that may have resulted.
And again, the states are the four we probably have focused most heavily on, and that being Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
I'd add Nevada to that on my side, but Texas filing the suit directly with the Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution listing a number of categories of cases which the court has original jurisdiction.
One of the categories concerns, quote, controversies between two or more states.
Well, this Texas lawsuit does exactly that.
Anyway, Chris Kobach, former Kansas Secretary of State, back with us.
Don Brown, attorney, had a big role in all of this.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Chris, I'll start with you, longtime friend.
I read your op-ed and your analysis.
It's dead on accurate.
I agree with all of it.
Well, thanks, Sean.
Yeah, I think this is a case that the Supreme Court should take.
You know, the Supreme Court says that they have discretion to take or not take these cases that are filed originally with them.
But it's just such a clear case that Texas has made.
There's two constitutional violations, and Texas doesn't need to prove factually which fraud did or did not occur because the violations are just right there on the face of what they did.
One is the electors clause, the electors clause of article two says that the state shall appoint its presidential electors in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct.
And it's only the state legislature that can do that.
And these four states, they made changes.
Pennsylvania made a change by its Supreme Court deciding on its own that it would extend the deadline for receiving absentee ballots three days.
And the legislature could have made that change, but the Supreme Court of the state cannot make that change under the U.S. Constitution.
And similarly, the other states had changes made by either the Secretary of State, the Wisconsin Election Commission.
And all four of these states changed the rules for selecting the president without going through the legislature.
And that is a crystal clear violation of the Constitution.
The Rehnquist concurrence in Bush v. Gore 20 years ago wrote about that.
And then the other violation is also stemming from Bush v. Gore, the Equal Protection Clause.
You can't, you'll remember, Sean, in the 2000 election, it was impermissible for one county in Florida to count the dimpled chad or the hanging chad in another county not to count it.
You have to treat each ballot equally across a state.
And the four states being sued by Texas do not treat each ballot equally.
And that's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
So Texas has got a winner here.
And they're asking the Supreme Court to simply say, look, you can't appoint your electors, you four states, based on an unconstitutional election.
So you state legislatures have to decide what you're going to do.
Doesn't mean that they can't do something in the meantime, but it's up to the legislatures now.
You know, and they also offered that remedy, which I found pretty fascinating.
And actually, it's the constitutional one.
I know, Don, I know that they finally got in a quick response to this at the last minute.
And I did get an opportunity to go over it.
I thought it was weak and inarticulate.
And they don't really seem to have an answer to the questions raised in this lawsuit.
If we stick to the arguments that Texas lays out in all 90, whatever pages of this, and that Chris just emphasized the important parts of, there's no way this would be a slam-dunk Supreme Court decision.
But that's also assuming that politics doesn't play in the minds of the court.
And I'm not particularly confident in John Roberts at this point in history.
But if they follow the law, to me, it's very clear Texas is right.
You're right, Sean, both on the Constitution, and I've read many, many, many affidavits.
This whole notion that there is no evidence, it goes back to the whole Joseph Goebbels principle of if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it.
The evidence is overwhelming.
The law is overwhelming.
But listen, you talk about politics.
I want to give a shout out to the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the pride of McKinney, Texas, and also to Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Patrick.
But it took some guts for them to step forward and file this action with the Supreme Court filed a little before midnight last night.
Today is the best day for the Constitution since after the fraud on Election Day because it's giving us hope.
And for other Republicans out there, whether you're members of state legislators, you know, of these six swing states, you have to make a decision.
It's time to put the Constitution and the Republic ahead of personal political ambition.
And Ken Paxton, God bless him, did that.
And America owes him a debt of gratitude today.
And I'm grateful, Mr. Attorney General, for what you have done and step forward, and our prayers are with you.
But this should be a slam dunk, as Chris has pointed out and you pointed out.
So step one is the court has to accept the case.
And it seems that twice now, the Justice Alito had basically been saying, get your arguments in.
Let's go.
We're willing to hear this, or at least he is.
And won't he make that decision on his own?
Well, I think Justice Alito has made it very clear he's not happy with Pennsylvania at all.
But I'll turn that over to Chris to finish up on that because I think he's probably going to consult with his.
Well, let me just remind people what you're referring to because in Pennsylvania, without going into all the details here, they passed Act 77, which massively expanded mail-in voting passed by state Democrats, signed by the state's Democratic governor in the lead up to this election.
But the problem is that's a direct violation of Pennsylvania's Constitution.
Their state constitution carefully documents restrictions surrounding specifically mail-in voting.
If you want a change in Pennsylvania, it has to be done through a constitutional amendment.
That legislative action would be unconstitutional as it relates to the state constitution.
Chris Kobach.
Yeah, and that's a completely separate track, too.
That's a different case, but the merits to that case are very strong.
And it goes back to the last-minute changes that occurred in Pennsylvania and in Wisconsin and Michigan and Georgia.
And as far as the Texas case goes, both of these cases are headed to the Supreme Court.
It is so important that the Supreme Court takes these cases.
And as Don was mentioning, and you were mentioning, Sean, it looks like Justice Alito is very eager to ensure that the Constitution is abided by here.
I hope that the other originalist justices will be right beside him.
I think Justice Thomas is a good candidate to stand up for the Constitution here.
Of course, Justice Thomas concurred alongside Justice Rehnquist 20 years ago in Bush v. Gore when Justice Rehnquist pointed to the electors clause.
So I think the critical moment is probably happening today or tomorrow when the Supreme Court looks at this Texas case and decides: you know, will four justices say, yay, we need to take this case.
And you wanted to add Don Brown.
It's going to be a real gut check for these justices and for others as well, including state legislatures.
But there should be no hesitation at all on whether to take this.
It's very clear that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan have thrown the United States Constitution into the trash can by making a mockery of electoral process in the 2020 election.
That cannot stand if we are to survive as Republic.
This isn't a matter of learning lessons for 2022.
We must draw the line now and save the Republic.
And these justices are going to have to put their oaths on the line when they consider what to do here.
And they got to be in our thoughts and prayers.
Yeah, well, we'll see.
But I mean, we both have experience with Chief Justice Roberts, and we see which way he's gone.
Now, the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett, I think, could be game-changing.
I'm not really too worried about Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas or even Neil Gorsuch, to be honest.
I think maybe the one other unknown would be Justice Kavanaugh.
Could be.
You know, that's possible, certainly.
But, you know, I think Justice Kavanaugh, too, is at his heart.
He is a constitutionalist and originalist.
And when you have a case like this where the text of the Constitution is so clear in the electors clause, there's no ambiguity at all.
I think that Justice Kavanaugh, if the court takes this case, I think he will go in Texas's favor.
Okay, now if that happens, then it gets sent back to the legislature.
Let's walk through that possibility, Don.
Well, if it goes back to the legislature, then, of course, it'd be up to the state legislatures to appoint, as I understand the Constitution, the electors who they best see fit to vote for president.
And the Supreme Court, depending on what the final ruling would be, this is where the gut check comes in with these Republican legislators in these six-swing states that all have Republican legislatures.
Are they going to do the right thing or are they going to, are they going to fold?
So then it becomes to a large degree a political question, as I understand it.
Chris may have some other ideas on that, but I think at least as the Supreme Court, you know, gives us somewhere to ruling that we have election fraud on a mass scale.
Maybe that will give some of these state legislators some cover to do the right thing.
I hope so anyway.
And do you have different thoughts on that, Chris?
No, I agree.
And I would point out that the state legislatures would have several courses they could follow.
So the Supreme Court, if they rule the way Texas wants them to, would say, right now, if you allocate your electors based on this election that was conducted unconstitutionally, those electors would not have valid votes.
So state legislature of Pennsylvania or of Georgia, you have the opportunity now to appoint the electors.
You have the constitutional prerogative, and you could do it any number of ways.
You could look at your own state's election results and say, yes, these votes here were, you know, the ones accepted three days late, according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule, those aren't going to be counted.
And so now if we tally, we see that this candidate wins.
They could do that.
Or they could just have a, they could say, you know, each of us represents part of the state, and we're going to vote in the shoes of our citizens to determine it.
Or they could divide their votes between the two candidates if they thought it was too close to call.
But ultimately, the Constitution says they have the ultimate decision as to how the electors are going to be appointed.
They, the state legislators, and it's up to them to make sure that it's done in accordance with the Constitution.
So they have multiple paths they could follow.
All right.
I mean, it's just pretty fascinating on every end of this.
I want to thank you both for the work you've been involved in, and we really appreciate it.
And an update, we're going to get to people's calls when we come back.
Chris Kolbach, thank you.
Don Brown, thank you.
Great job, both of you.
Let's get to our busy phones.
A lot of you have been very patient here wanting to weigh in on all of this.
We have Carolyn is in Georgia.
Carolyn, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Well, it's a mess down there, and what we've got to ask the great people of Georgia to do is kind of compartmentalize away from the stupidity of state officials led by your dumb governor and secretary of state and understand the importance to the country of these two Senate runoff races.
I do have faith in the people of Georgia, but I'll tell you, the elected politicians aren't making it easy.
Thank you for taking my call, Sean.
Yes, absolutely.
We are so frustrated down here.
We feel let down by our governor, all of our officials.
We have nobody standing up for us.
And, you know, we're at the point now, so many of my friends and family are frustrated.
We are going to vote in the primary.
I mean, excuse me, the runoff, but we feel a little bit defeated.
We feel like who's standing up for us?
And is our vote really going to count?
Are they going to steal this one?
Yeah, the answer is I've got to, they could certainly step up and do more to instill more confidence and integrity, and they haven't.
So regardless of how you might feel about, you know, people like the governor and secretary of state, the president is asking his supporters to help him.
And frankly, it helps the country.
And that's what I'm asking the great people of Georgia.
And I'm fully sympathetic to your, you know, how you feel right now.
Trust me.
Yeah, it's just very scary.
You know, when we saw the momentum that Trump had, I was at the Trump rally in Rome in Floyd County.
That's my hometown.
I recently moved just a couple of years ago.
I was there.
We had 30,500 people in that small little regional airport show up from around the area for Trump.
I am telling you, we will sort this out.
In-person voting begins December 14th.
Every Georgian needs to know how important you are to this country.
That's it.
Forget about the local guys.
Quick break, right back.
Thank you.
We'll continue.
Chris, yeah, but we can get our Christmas music rotation going as we usually do.
800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
25 to the top of the hour.
You know, I've been a little busy, you know, since November 3rd, you know, day and night, night and day, just trying to get to where we ended up today.
And by the way, it was a process that, like a lot of things, it just you don't get to snap your fingers and all this gets to evolve.
The process of acquiring people, eyewitness, affidavits, whistleblowers on paper under penalty of perjury.
I felt it was a little bit disorganized, the efforts in the beginning.
And I'm not saying this critical of anybody or anybody's efforts.
And then, of course, you have the weak, timid Republicans that just are willing to fold at the sight of anything.
And the mob and the media, pretty, the audacity and double standard and flagrant hypocrisy nauseates me because they're going to lecture us on accepting elections when we have obvious issues that need to be fixed and resolved for the integrity and confidence in our electoral system, which most people rightly don't have.
That's gone now.
And now it's a matter of how we get it back.
And it's also about the importance of January 5th and voting in person starts in Georgia, December 14th.
And we're asking a lot of the people of Georgia, and the president's asking the people of Georgia to go out and vote in these two Senate races, these runoff races.
But Linda's also worked up about this mall Santa Claus.
And I didn't even know they were having Mall Santa this year in light of COVID-19.
You know, as Andrew Cuomo, the New York governor, has been saying, when you think Christmas, you think COVID Grinch.
All right, good grief.
I actually think that it might have been a Cuomo relative in that suit because he sounded just like that was definitely a Ba Hambug moment.
And this is a video.
You sent it to me earlier, making the rounds on social media showing a mall Santa Claus rejecting a child when the child requested the Nerf gun, saying no guns.
The boy's mother tried to clarify by stressing that her son wanted a Nerf gun.
Now, my kids had these Nerf guns.
They're like, you know, they shoot these like, you know what a Nerf ball.
You can hit somebody as hard as you want with a Nerf ball and there's no big deal.
But I mean, we are a society now that has banned dodgeball because people get hit.
But anyway, so the mall Santa takes this anti-gun stand being Santa Claus.
Nope, not even a Nerf gun.
Then the mother used Facebook to summarize my poor baby the first year.
Michael, excited to see Santa.
Supposed to be magical instead.
I had to watch my sweet little boy fight back tears because Santa told him no because of his own personal beliefs.
And I had to think fast and explain to him that this Santa was just a helper, not the real guy.
I want to console my baby and wanted to console him and get him out of there.
Flipping out on Santa would have made it worse.
Zelphi is going to bring him a Nerf gun directly from the North Pole from the real Santa tonight.
The NRA then tweeted a response to the video of the incident.
All this little patriot wanted for Christmas was a Nerf gun and this anti-gun mall Santa.
By the way, maybe nobody knows this.
2020, we shattered every record in terms of gun sales in this country.
By the way, is it any wonder why after the absolute shift show and violence breaking out and the anarchy and the, you know, summer of love zone, spaghetti potluck dinner zone, autonomous zone, chazz chop zones and the burning of police and taking over police departments and burning them to the ground in precincts.
Yeah, I wonder why people want to understand and defunding the police.
They want to, you know, protect their families.
So this upsets you a lot.
Okay, so to say it upsets me is probably the understatement of 2020.
I hate 2020 with a vibrant passion that never ceases.
I'm at a 15 at all times.
I used to run at a 10, like a hot 10.
Now I'm at 15.
And then I read today about somebody giving a poor kid a hard time because he wants a Nerf gun.
No, I.
No, no guns.
Nerf gun.
Nope, not even a Nerf gun.
Nope.
If your dad wants to get it for you, that's fine, but I can't bring it to you.
What else would you say?
Lots of other choice.
There's Legos, bicycles, cars and trucks.
What do you think?
It's okay.
We're dead.
Why can't the kid have a Nerf gun?
Just because you're scared of Nerf guns doesn't mean the kid has to be scared of Nerf guns.
And you know what?
Guns are not the problem.
People are the problems.
People do all sorts of dumb things with all sorts of objects, whether it's a knife or a car or whatever.
A Nerf gun, poor kid, Christmas time.
First of all, he's not having play dates.
He's not going to the playground.
He can't go to birthday parties.
Everywhere he goes, he's got his poor face strapped in a mask.
Some of these poor kids are getting infections on their faces because even if you wash it every day, kids are sneezing and coughing.
They can't take it off.
They're trapped in their classrooms.
Their seats are six feet apart.
I mean, it is the worst time to be a little kid.
It absolutely stinks.
So now this mother takes him out to the mall.
You got to wait six feet apart.
The line is even longer than ever.
Then you get up.
You can't sit on Santa's lap, which may not be a bad thing, but you sit across from him at a table and the guy's telling you you can't have what you wish for because you're wishing for the wrong thing.
Oh, daddy will bring it to you.
Let me tell you something.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me tell you something.
If that was me, if that was me, if that was my child, oh, forget about it.
That suit.
What would you do?
Did you beat up Santa?
Oh, what would you do?
No, no, first of all, you can't beat up Santa because there's children there.
That's not right.
You can't do that in front of kids.
Oh, because there are children there.
That's the only thing.
You wouldn't beat up Santa.
I would just turn around to all the children and the parents, and I would say, listen, this Santa is fake news.
Let's talk about a psycho helicopter, mom.
Go ahead.
Okay, first of all, I'm not a psycho helicopter mom, but if you try to take it.
If you're talking about beating up Santa.
I said, I wouldn't beat up Santa in front of the children.
I would never do that.
In front of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I misquoted.
Listen.
Details matter, okay?
They matter.
If you beat Santa up what you'd wait for him to go out.
First of all, he's not Santa.
This is some, you know, Snowflake dressed up like Santa.
I agree with you in principle.
I can't believe I'm even talking about this, but you should talk about it because it's serious.
This guy tried to take a happy moment away from our child in the year of the worst year of all years.
You know, my little guy's five.
He's scared to death of Santa.
If I actually got him to go, and then Santa says, oh, no, you can't have what you want.
You know what?
I give that woman a lot of credit.
But the nice end of the story, first of all, that guy's not going to be Santa anymore.
So bye-bye, Snowflake.
And now- Bye-bye, Snowflake, Santa.
Bye-bye, Snowflake.
Go back to the North Pole, you know?
I'm telling you.
You're fired.
Yeah, exactly.
You're fired.
They had a nice Santa, the real Santa.
The real Santa.
They came and talked to me.
That's right.
Not this guy.
Actually, can we play that, Ethan?
This is the best line of all times.
Who the heck are you?
What are you talking about?
I'm Santa Claus.
No, you're not.
Don't tell him what you want.
He's a liar.
What the kid talk?
You disgust me.
How can you live with yourself?
Just cool it, Zippy.
You sit on a throne of lies.
Look, I'm not kidding.
You're a fake.
I'm a fake.
Yes.
How'd you like to be dead?
Huh?
He's kidding.
You stink.
I think you're going to have a good Christmas, all right?
See, that would have been me.
That's all.
Just picture me in an elf suit, okay?
I would have just had a few words with Santa, would have let him know to lock it up.
Okay, if you don't have something nice to say, say nothing at all.
You don't want to give the kid what he wants to say.
Santa will try his best.
Michael, how are you?
How are you?
Good.
So there was a mistake made yesterday, huh?
Yeah.
Well, we're so sorry about that.
Okay?
Can Santa come in?
Yo, I heard about this off like a north pole.
Yeah, me.
and I rushed down the hill.
It's just a Nerf gun.
Wow, this is Michael.
This is crazy, this thing.
Thanks.
Well, thank you.
Okay, well, I got a little trick to show you.
Man, I see these two balls here?
They're made out of nerf.
Okay?
Yeah.
Can you hold up?
Hold on your hand.
Okay, I need you to take it.
Hold that ball.
Hold your hand tight.
Real tight.
Okay.
Now, I'm going to make this ball disappear.
Blow on it.
Now, open your hand.
Wow.
This is the real Santa.
You believe it.
Yay!
Thank you, Santa.
You can keep them, okay?
Did you get it out of your system?
Do you feel better?
Has this been cathartic for you?
Listen, I don't like any of this.
It's sort of like we can't play dodgeball and we don't keep score.
And, you know, it's, it's, I mean, no trophies.
Everybody's a winner.
Everybody gets a trophy.
It's ridiculous.
I mean, we're just turning our kids into just snowflakes every single day.
And it's like, well, I'm sorry, but that's not real life.
That is not real life.
Real life is you're going to get your hits.
It's going to be hard.
You're going to take some punches in life.
And people actually can't.
Guns are not bad things.
You learn how to use them safely, my advice.
And a little nerf gun or a nerf ball or a dodgeball game.
You know what?
And the kids are going to win and kids are going to lose.
What's so hard?
Now we got, you can't even send your kid to Santa.
I did feel bad for the Staten Island bar owner that we had on Hannity last night.
Did you see this interview with this guy?
I mean, he didn't know that the cops, apparently, even in the report, it says that the cops never identified themselves.
They're chasing him down the street.
He gets in his car.
He's trying to drive away.
They're standing in front of his car.
He kind of moves slowly.
Then one guy jumps on the hood of the car and then he like moves slowly and then stops basically saying, get off my car.
Then he does it again and get off my car.
We didn't get an answer.
Apparently, the lawyer said they didn't break his leg.
And, you know, it's scary.
How does a guy know who's chasing him?
And the problem for all these bar owners and all these restaurant owners, this poor lady crying on Laura Ingram last night broke my heart.
It was horrible to just watch their whole life, their whole future, every bit of business.
And in California, the weather is good enough that you can have outdoor dining.
You put up plexiglass.
And then at some point, we all know what the rules are.
At some point, some people are willing to take more risk in life than others.
You know, and other people, like, you know, I'm just going out of my way to help every restaurant owner that I know right now.
I buy food.
I'm getting fat again.
I mean, because I care about my friends in the restaurant business.
They're all struggling.
By the time you pay your rent, your mortgage, your lights, you hire people, you know, you stock your refrigerator, you hire a cook.
How much can you sell a hamburger for?
Or a steak for?
Or shrimp for?
Whatever people like to eat.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Let's go to Bob in New York.
What's up, Bob?
How are you?
Good.
Thank you, Sean, for taking my call.
First of all, I want to say thank you to the leadership in Texas.
They really stepped up and showed what true leadership is all about.
And the fact that they combined everything together is a game changer in my mind.
I think that everybody's done a great job, Rudy and Jenna and Sidney and Lynn.
They've put everything out there, but nobody's ever tied it together.
And I think that would have given the Supreme Court an opportunity to reject taking the Pennsylvania case because that would have only been the only one on its own.
And they would have said, well, that won't change the election at all.
The fact that you tie the four states together, five states, gives them an opportunity to look at this in total, because I think that's really what the game changer is here, is looking at it as one whole complete package.
And the package is, does it disenfranchise every other state that had an honest voting system by not following the constitutional process and the legal process?
And the answer is obvious to me.
This is not a hard, complicated legal dilemma here or issue.
The only thing hard about it is the fact that they're going to see it and view it through the prism of politics.
That's the only hard part of it.
And which, by the way, should not be a consideration for the court at this point.
Right, I agree.
Now, in order for them to take the case, how many of the justices have to agree?
What, in the Supreme Court?
I think Alito can bring it before the Supreme Court is my understanding.
Oh, just one.
That would be perfect because he's been chomping at the bed.
But ultimately, I think he's got to get four that agree to bring it.
But he gets the first crack at whether or not he thinks it has merit.
If he convinces four others to go along with him, there will be a review.
That's my understanding.
Yeah.
If they follow the law, and this is all law, this isn't politics.
If they follow the law, I think this is a slam dunk.
All right.
Listen, good call.
We're watching it.
If they follow the law, yeah, that would be a nice, refreshing change for once.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Please set your DVR.
We got a great Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern, as we will be joined, and we got a terrific lineup in all this, especially in light of today's news.
We've got Ken Paxson, the AG of Texas, Chris Kolbach, who has played a big role in this.
Analysis from Alan Dershowitz updating all of the individual separate lawsuits with Haley McEnany and Ronna McDaniel.
We'll get Lewandowski, Dave Bossi's take on it.
Leo Torella's back.
Joe Concha.
Nine Eastern, set your DVR.
Hannity, Fox News.
We'll see you tonight.
Back here tomorrow.
As always, thank you for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
