All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show
34:43
GOP Wave Coming - November 15th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
What's smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally it's 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 iHeart Radio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
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.
Hour two, Sean Hannity show toll free.
It's 800-941-SEAN.
You want to be a part of the program.
If you look at the history of the media and how wrong they are, at some point there needs to be some accountability.
And I'm very specific here.
Because go back, look at how the media, the mob treated Richard Jewell.
Oh, he fits the characteristics of a lone bomber uh because he lives with his mother.
Little did I know I was the only person in the media saying just because he lives with his mom doesn't make him a terrorist.
Um the list of the media mob being wrong, it is long, it is consistent.
You know, look at, for example, three plus years, finally the Washington Post admitting their reporting on the steel dossier was absolutely inaccurate.
Where where's the New York Times, ABC, MBC?
You know, where's Rachel Mattout today?
You know, the great champion of of all conspiracy theories.
You know, look at how they defame the the the that Nicholas Sandman and the Covington High School High School kids.
Look at all the other big issues that they have been wrong on.
Right?
You know, look at the rush to judgment with this Kyle Rittenhouse case.
Look at the rush to judgment in the UVA case, or the rush to judgment in the Duke La Crosse case, or Ferguson, Missouri, or Cambridge Police, or you can go on and and in every single instance, they rush to judgment.
Remember the same people that told us the lab leak theory of COVID was a conspiracy theory.
The very same people that told us a woman was brutally gang raped, the the UVA case, that these kids at Duke La Crosse were responsible.
They had to prove their innocence in that case.
We were told vaccines would end the COVID pandemic.
Now we have breakthrough cases, and their answer is booster shots.
Nobody wants to talk about therapeutics that are showing great promise, like monoclonal antibodies.
And I and I and I can go on.
You know, there's a lot of talk about the possibility National Guard troops are being brought into Kenosha.
Other cities are threatening violence if the verdict that is anticipated or that was sold to people without any due process, presumption of innocence, doesn't come back the way people in the media and the Democratic Party leadership have rushed to judgments once again.
And there are consequences.
I'll never forget Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House.
And before he ever got sworn into office as Speaker, it was the Gingrich that stole Christmas on the cover of Time Magazine.
And Newsweek had a similar cover.
Anyway, he joins us now.
It's it the media is as bad as it was when you were speaker, and it was bad because I was there.
I watched it all.
I covered it all.
It's now worse than it's ever been.
And God forbid you mention the name Donald Trump.
Yeah, I think I think this is a long trajectory of getting steadily worse.
A little bit like watching uh a cancer take over a body.
Ironically, it's first described in um 1968, making the president 1968 by Theodore White.
He says, Here's how the media is getting worse and worse.
This is literally over 50 years ago.
Uh, and it is and if you think of it as a cancer, it just gradually kept spreading Until you now have newsrooms like the New York Times or the Washington Post where you can't be a reasonable, rational conservative and survive.
They'll just they'll drive you out of the newsroom.
Yeah.
And they and they don't cover Joe Biden.
It's basically the media mob protection program.
And it's, I mean, one of the most fascinating things that's developing is that the head of Discovery, who now has CNN as part of their world, has announced that they're going to replace many of the people at CNN and they're going to revert to being a news program.
And you may have noticed that they did that CNN broke a long, well research story on the fight between Kamala Harris and her staff versus President Biden and his staff.
I think that may have been the harbinger of what's coming.
If CNN actually starts covering the news, that will be a revolutionary event.
I I I I'll believe it when I see it.
I read the same article that you did.
I'm not convinced any of it's true.
But there really seems to be two areas where well, three, if you include some podcasts and and and a few online publications, but most of the media is dominated by the hard left.
Absolutely.
They they allowed Joe Biden to hide the entire campaign in his basement bunker and rarely, very rarely pop his head out and never getting tough questions.
How's that possible?
You can you can create a boundary.
Wall Street Journal, Fox News, talk radio, and some key podcasts, and virtually everything else, not everything else, but virtually everything else, is simply the left.
And then they're not we we use the wrong word when we describe them as news.
This is the propaganda arm of the left.
They have no relationship to facts, no relationship to normal reality.
Uh and I think you have to start from that perspective.
When the Washington Post acknowledged that the dossier that they reported on, they can no longer stand by it.
Um I've been pointing this out for three and a half years.
How come so late?
And my next question is where's everybody else that lied to the American people day after day and night after night?
Well, you know, a good I mean, a good challenge to the post would be to have an in to have an investigative report on themselves.
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Now, let me ask you a question.
By the way, you'll notice I didn't suggest the New York Times, because that is beyond hopeless.
Okay, so there was a subpoena for Eric Holder to to testify before Congress.
I didn't see him get arrested.
Same with if you remember in the case of Lois Lerner, she didn't show up either.
She didn't get arrested.
Uh why then did Steve Bannon get arrested?
Well, because the left controls the Justice Department.
And if you're on the left, they protect you.
And if you're I mean, the whole way they have treated consider the difference in treatment between people who were burning down buildings and in some cases have killed people, and what we're seeing uh with with uh the people who were there on January 6th, which which is I think now political imprisonment.
I mean it it makes no sense at all to have these people locked up this long without having been tried for anything.
But it even goes deeper than that, because we had 530 some odd riots in the summer of 2020.
We had dozens of Americans killed, we had thousands of police officers injured, we had police precincts burned to the ground.
We had looting and arson and financial losses in the billions of dollars.
Kamala Harris advertises for a bail fund to get people out of jail that are involved in these activities.
Uh, where's the commission looking into the 500 plus riots in the summer of 2020?
Where's Lilith Cheney done that?
Well, and to the degree that they were crossing state lines, where's the FBI involvement?
I mean, how how can you have an American city like Portland under siege for well over a year with Antifa rioting every night and increasing and getting increasingly violent, um, and now being to move out into the suburbs and have no response from the federal government in a situation where clearly domestic safety is being endangered by violent people.
I mean, beyond fascinating times, as you put your political hat on, and you look at, for example, Joe Biden's low approval ratings, Kamala Harris, even lower than him, Joe Biden in the mid-thirties, and and Kamala at twenty-eight percent.
And then you look at every issue, you you look at Russia now as showing aggression towards Ukraine, China's showing aggress aggression towards Taiwan.
Joe doesn't lift a finger.
Joe gives up energy independence and is begging OPEC.
They keep rejecting him to increase production of oil.
Uh he doesn't have to beg Texas, they'd be glad to help.
Um abandons energy independence, inflation, the poor, the middle class being impacted the most.
Then you look at Afghanistan, then you look at the disaster at the border.
How does somebody ever get re-elected with with that record, and that's only ten months in?
Well, I don't I don't think he will get in fact I don't think he'll be the Democratic nominee.
I don't think so either.
But I don't think Camel is going to do much better, do you?
Well, she she won't be the nominee either.
I mean, what what you're watching, when when when you have and I lived through this as you'll remember, uh I was a sophomore congressman in nineteen eighty-one when we had the largest generic ballot advantage we've ever had, which was ten points, which by the way disappeared the next year because the recession got worse.
So we actually lost twenty-nine seats a year after we had a ten point advantage, just to reminder that you know, this business you this is a very dynamic business, and you can't take anything for granted.
But if I if as I look at the Democrats, I don't see any evidence.
I mean, we just we just looked at Buddha Judge is gonna be in charge of the infrastructure implementation.
His he was he was known in uh in the in the town that he was um the mayor of South Bendis.
In South Bend they had a crisis of potholes.
They had a ten million dollar total budget and he couldn't manage it.
That that was their budget for for highways and bridges, and he couldn't manage it.
They had a crisis of potholes that was very famous in the in the area.
He's now the guy gonna be in charge of of a trillion dollar infrastructure bill.
You know, this this is an invitation to a disaster.
And and not just ideologically, but just sheer competence.
There's no possibility Buddha judge can manage stuff on that scale.
He has no experience at all.
I would have said that.
But he by the way, he that people are talking about him more than anyone else as the possible replacement for Joe, not Kamala.
Well, I I think everybody's agreed now that Kamala's hopeless.
You know, somebody's done this website that has ten hours of her laughing.
Oh my gosh.
They have literally clipped uh I'll try to send it to you new.
You may want to post it just for people who want to be abused.
They literally have gone around to all her interviews and clipped together ten hours of her laughing.
And I noticed the other day when they asked the Secretary of Energy what her plan was to bring down the price of gasoline, she laughed as though she was Kamala Harris's understudy.
That was Jennifer Granholm.
We played it and I'm like, what's so funny about a buck fifty more a gallon?
You know, that's 25, 30 bucks more to fill up your tank.
If you're riding in a government limousine and flying with government costs on an airplane, and you don't pay for anything, uh what do you care?
Oh, that's um I yeah, I I I again, but they claim to have a monopoly of compassion, don't they, when it comes to the poor?
Well, they claim a lot of things, but they're mostly lies.
But you know, it what was the headline at one was the Gingrich that stole Christmas.
That was in December.
It's before I was sworn in.
You weren't even speaker yet, right?
No, I wasn't even speaker.
It was in early December, and I got um Time magazine had me as Scrooge holding Tiny Tim's broken crutch.
I didn't just steal his crutch, I broke it.
And the title was How Mean Will Gingrich's America be to the poor.
The following week, newsweek caught up, and I was a Dr. Zeus figure, and I was the Grinch that stole Christmas.
Um what that signaled to the middle class was I was for welfare reform, which was wildly popular.
And nobody at the nobody on the left understood that attacking me for because I was for welfare reform was a huge advantage to me because people wanted welfare reform.
Quick break, more with New Gingrich on the other side.
It is just released new book uh Beyond Biden is um at bookstores everywhere on Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
If More with New King Ritch, he just released his new book, Beyond Biden.
It's in bookstores everywhere.
Amazon dot com, Hannity dot com.
You You end up doing something that's not been done since and hadn't been done for decades before, and that's balance the budget.
And Bill Clinton did something that I don't think Joe Biden is capable of, especially with the radical new Green Deal socialists that run his party.
And that is, you know, Clinton learned from that massive electoral loss and your massive victory in 1994.
And then he changed course with the era of big government, he said, being over and the end of welfare as we know it.
And you guys actually did lead to a balanced budget for multiple years, and we've never balanced it really before and since.
In fact, I would argue if we do a contract with America next year, which I now lean towards, I would argue that balancing the budget should be one of the commitments, because it forces you to set priorities.
It forces you to clean out the corruption and the waste.
It gets you to think differently.
And it ends all this fighting over raising the debt ceiling, because during the four years that we had balanced the budget, we actually were lowering the debt.
And that's what you want to do.
You want to save your children and grandchildren from paying hundreds of billions of dollars of interest on the debt for nothing.
I mean, then they get nothing out of this except paying the debt.
I'd love your idea of bringing the contract back for 2022.
And frankly, I'd do it again in 2024.
Um these two elections are critical for the country.
Uh, you've now just released your brand new book.
It's called Beyond Biden.
And and basically it is the outline on how to win and how to systematically go about it.
And Congress is broken, as you rightly say, and and you know, the people in Washington are prioritizing their political careers over what's the in the best interest of the American people.
And they're just out lying to us outright, and I think people now are beginning to see it.
I think that's right.
And I think that's why you're likely to see an amazing election next year.
Um it's called Beyond Biden.
We put a link up on Hannity.com.
There's one on Amazon.com.
It's in bookstores now everywhere, just released.
Uh New King Rischer's new book, and and it's a roadmap towards getting the country on the right track.
And a lot of it will depend on everybody listening to this program, doing their part, going out and voting.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
And helping recruit candidates.
We need candidates everywhere.
All hands on deck.
And by the way, that means uh on the school board.
Although you might be viewed as a domestic terrorist.
We'll see.
Uh Mr. Speaker, congratulations on the new book and the its release.
800-941 Shauna's on number.
You want to be a part of the program.
When we come back, Greg Jarrett will weigh in on the closing arguments and the Rittenhouse case and the false expectations that were set by the media and the Democrats straight ahead.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
We'll be right back.
The politics of D.C. He's your watchdog on Big Brother.
Every day, Hannity is on right now.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Uh, we have gone into great specificity and depth into how often the media mob, the Democratic Party rush to judgment, and as a result, there are often horrific consequences.
Now we're reading that the National Guard is is has been called up for Kenosha, Wisconsin uh in anticipation of possible unrest, which I hope doesn't happen after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict comes in as closing arguments have gone on today.
And it is sad that what should be so fundamental to every American, and that is due process and the presumption of innocence.
And then I can also add to that equal justice under the law and equal application of our laws.
That's that that's not how it works.
If you're Eric Holder and you don't show up, you're subpoenaed to speak before Congress, you don't show up, you don't get an arrest like Steve Bannon.
Or if you name his Lois Lerner, you don't get the same treatment.
If you get referred for lying to Congress like Comey and McCabe, nothing happens.
But for the very same crime, alleged crime in the Roger Stone case, you get a pre-dawn raid, guns drawn, 30 guys in tactical gear, frogmen, and fake news CNN cameras capturing the whole thing on video.
And that and that to me is is as scary a scenario as we can ever have.
Now I hope and I pray that reason will prevail, but there's always agitators out there.
You know, one thing that frustrates me, we we condemn what happened on January 6th, but we also condemn the riots that happened all throughout the summer of 2020, where dozens of people were killed, thousands of cops were injured with you know bricks and bottles and rocks and Molotov cocktails and worse.
Um prosecuting the people involved in those riots.
Why is one riot why does one of the riots have a full you know commission, which by the way, with a predetermined outcome, because the only people that would have been objective, they threw off the committee and they bring on two of the biggest Trump haters.
But this this is it's so obvious it's a predetermined outcome.
But if they really cared about truth, why didn't they allow Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on those on those commit in the committee slots that they were originally going to be on?
And now we're getting more pressure, more pressure.
What about the riots of 2020?
Are they not important?
What about the lives that were lost?
What about the police officers that were injured?
What about the billions of dollars in stolen merchandise and the billions of dollars caused by arson?
How about getting to the bottom of, you know, taking over city blocks where innocent people died in the Chaz Chop Autonomous Summer of Love Spaghetti Potlug Dinner Zone?
How is that possible?
How is that equal justice?
Listen to the media first attacking Kyle Rittenhouse and then attacking the Rittenhouse judge because they don't think this is going well for the prosecution either.
Listen.
What the right is saying about Kyle Rittenhouse is that, well, the government didn't do its job, so it took a 17-year-old kid to come in and do what was right.
That's vigilanteism.
That's not what people are not supposed to be vigilantes.
That acting job of the crying.
That is one of the worst act of the dogs I've ever seen.
He committed a murder or two murders and attempted to murder someone else.
What kind of idiot, 17-year-old, gets a giant gun and goes to a riot.
He has no license, he has no training.
He thinks he's going to scrub graffiti off with his AR-15.
I mean, the stupidity of this.
When Rittenhouse got emotional, it may have come across to the jury as a genuine expression of remorse.
Or on the other hand, maybe it was crocodile tears designed to elicit sympathy.
This is white privilege on Steroids.
The judge's actions during the trial so far now coming under scrutiny and raising questions about his behavior and demeanor.
Let's talk about the judge.
Actually, let's let's play this because I've never seen anything like this before, or a judge yelled quite like this.
Oh, we don't have it.
But you saw the judge going bonkers.
This judge yelling at a prosecutor or anyone in the courtroom is treating anyone the way that he treats.
I think it's problematic.
And I don't think it's normal.
He is he has made a series of decisions.
Each one perhaps may be individually defensible, but in totality lead to the impression of a biased racist judge.
It appears that this judge is auditioning for the cameras and looking for his next gig on Fox News or or Owen or whatever, OAN or whatever it is.
I mean, this judge is going beyond the pill.
This judge is an absolute joke.
He's been a joke from the very beginning there.
He's obviously playing uh playing for the audience, a certain audience.
Anyway, joining us now to break down the closing arguments from earlier today, a lot happened in the courtroom uh is Craig Jarrett.
Uh what are your observations up to this point?
Well, the prosecution uh knew that their own witnesses audio tape, videotape, and photographs had helped establish the case of self-defense.
So they pulled a fast one, Sean.
They actually convinced the judge to give what's known as a provocation jury instruction, which basically says that uh if the defendant is the initial aggressor, if he provokes the encounter, he loses the right to self-defense.
And they convince the judge based on blurry video tape, which at best uh shows the defendant not pointing the gun at Joseph Rosenbaum, uh who he later uh shot, but rather at somebody else, a guy to the name of Joshua Zaminsky, uh uh that that Rosenbaum didn't even know.
So I think the judge made a mistake, uh, but you know, he was trying to hit the.
But go into this in a little more detail, the the provocation um instruction.
If you provoke an encounter, you lose the right of self-defense.
The flaw in that is you regain your right to self-defense if you retreat.
So obviously, and the prosecutor in the closing arguments showed uh the defendant retreating, running away is being as he's being chased down uh by Rosenbaum.
So what the prosecutor didn't tell the jury, but the defense attorney surely will when it's his time, is let's assume he's he provoked uh the encounter with Rosenbaum.
Um he regains his right to self-defense when he starts running away, and Rosenbaum starts chasing it.
I was a little shocked when he was instructing the jury.
Was he genuinely interested in helping people?
Quote, he ran around with an AR-15 all night and lied about being an EMT.
Does that suggest to you that he was genuinely there to help?
It seemed at that moment when he said that, I said, Oh boy, you know, he seems to be helping the prosecution, which the you know, their case literally collapsed before everybody's eyes.
The defense will counter when it's their chance, Sean, to say, look, uh, you can question the wisdom of a seventeen-year-old's decision to go there to help people protect their property, to protect themselves, uh, with a gun.
Uh, but that doesn't matter.
It's largely irrelevant.
What's important is the moment surrounding the shooting of the individuals.
Did the defendant fear for his life?
And was that fear reasonable under the circumstances?
That's the critical issue that the jurors must decide.
But I agree with you that about what about when the judge questioned uh the issue of Rosenbaum, one of the people shot and killed here, that there is an alleged threat that Mr. Rosenbaum made earlier in the evening to kill the defendant.
I will debunk that that did not happen.
It is the one fact in the case the defendant wants you to believe there's no video of.
And in fact, I have video of the entire incident.
I played it for you and I'll show it to you again.
There is no threat.
Well, look, uh, it depends on the credibility of the accused.
Uh The jurors heard in very clear and vivid uh words, uh the accused on the witness stand saying he threatened to kill me, and other people were yelling, catch him, kill him.
And you see on the videotape played by the prosecution that Rosenbaum is chasing him and attempts to grab his weapon.
Put yourself in, you know, the Rittenhouse's shoes, and that's what the jurors are asked to do.
If a guy is chasing you down, and if they believe that he had threatened to kill him, uh is it reasonable there, therefore to uh for self-protection to defend yourself when a guy attempts to grab your gun.
I think uh the answer, at least in my mind, is yes.
That entitles you to defend yourself with lethal force.
The jurors, who knows what they'll say.
What about the the prosecution arguing the jurors should be instructed to consider the lesser charge and the prosecution saying he's leery of the instructions deviating from what was agreed upon?
The judge argued the instructions were already too complicated, ruling the jurors should not consider the lesser charge if they find Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.
Well, uh as you saw the mind-numbing recitation of the jury instructions, which are taken from uh a book of standard jury instructions, they they are complex, uh way too much so.
Uh they should have been simplified.
Um, and you know, I do think that you know the even the judge was confused at one point, dismissed the jurors and held a conference with the lawyers, which we all watched on television.
Yeah, my goodness, if the judge is confused with the jury instruction, imagine what lay people uh are gonna have to wrestle with when you've got, you know, up to five counts here and jury instructions that are written out on forty pages that even the judge was confused by.
So, you know, what did you think of the judge announcing that Rittenhouse's defense team has officially fired filed for a mistrial with prejudice?
Quote, the state has repeatedly violated instructions from the court and acted in bad faith and intentionally intentionally provided uh technological evidence which was different from theirs, the motion reads.
For those reasons, the defendant respectfully requests the court find prosecutorial overreaching existed.
That overreaching was intentional and in bad faith, and thereby grant the defendant's motion for a mistrial with pres prejudice.
What does that mean?
Well, the judge could declare a mistrial based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct, violating the defendant's constitutional rights not once but twice.
And why would you say that?
Why wouldn't he do it now, though, indicating that that's where he's leaning?
He wants to see what the jury does.
I mean, no judge wants to step in and get rid of a case, dismiss charges with prejudice unless he c unless the jury can do it for him, right?
He's loath to intervene.
But the the judge is taking it under submission.
So let's assume for the sake of argument the jury does convict.
The judge could do one of two things, declare a mistrial, saying prosecutors intentionally tried to throw the case and violated uh knowingly the defendant's constitutional rights.
I therefore dismiss with prejudice uh written house can't be tried again.
The judge could also decide uh to set aside the conviction uh in the interests of justice, declaring that this uh conviction is a miscarriage of justice.
We've seen it in other cases, the famous nanny case, uh, the murder trial of the Louise Woodward in Massachusetts.
So there the judge has a couple of options, but I think he wants to see what the jurors do first.
It's it's pretty interesting.
Quick break, more with Greg Jarrett on the other side, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Your calls in our final hour straight ahead.
Also, we'll get an update from Chris Kobach suing as a result of the, quote, vaccine mandate.
Music.
We continue our analysis of closing arguments in the Kyle Rittenhouse case with Greg Jarrett, legal analyst for Fox News.
If the law as written is followed, based on testimony in the in the trial, based on videotape in the trial, uh, I believe he should be acquitted of all cases.
Now, the judge, by the way, did throw out the gun charge, which was the one charge that I thought that had a possibility of a conviction, and that was the issue of a short barrel gun, which in fact was never established during the trial, interestingly enough.
Yeah, that uh statute was clear as mud.
Even the judge didn't understand it, which is why he threw it out, uh, which was the right thing to do.
Um I I think a strong case for self-defense has been made through uh the key witness to the prosecution, as well as the videotape and photographs and the compelling testimony of Kyle Rittenhouse.
He was pelted with rocks, chased down, kick in the head, uh attacked and assaulted.
One man tried to bludgeon him with a heavy skateboard.
Uh, another man took aim at him with his loaded pistol and admitted he did it.
Uh, all of it's on videotape and corroborated by other eyewitness testimony.
I I think in the end you will see the defense in closing arguments emphasize all of that, and it'll then be up to the jury.
All right, Greg Jarrett, we'll be watching.
Um this could get to the jury as early as today.
Uh, if it does, we will bring you results when they occur, both on radio and TV.
800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program, take a quick break.
We're gonna get an update from Chris uh Colbach when we get back.
Uh, general counsel for the Alliance for Free Citizens, candidate for AG, by the way, in in Kansas, leading the charge on a lawsuit just filed against the Biden administration over the vaccine mandate for business businesses with a hundred employees or more.
Uh, will that hold up?
We'll get to that uh in a minute.
Quick break.
Right back.
Quick break.
Quick break.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
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 Dell, a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection