All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show
34:12
Closing Arguments for Rittenhouse - November 16th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
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.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-Sean.
Our number, you want to be a part of the program still awaiting a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
Crowds now gathered outside of the courtroom.
If Kenosha don't get it, well, we're going to shut it down.
Listen.
That, of course, right outside the courtroom where the jury is deliberating.
Does that put a weight on the jury that they otherwise wouldn't have?
I think the answer is absolutely positively yes, because they know that there might be reaction to whatever decision they come up with.
The media has not helped it.
Joe Biden, I mean, to have the judge have to say, don't listen to what Joe Biden said as he rushed to judgment during the campaign in 2020.
The most corrupt part of this is the same predictable people, Democrats, media mob, rush to judgment, no due process, no presumption of innocence.
Here's the mob in the media.
Chaotic situation with somebody who's untrained with a weapon, going to the middle of civilians and just looking for trouble.
And it is trouble that he found.
Acting job of the crime.
I can't even look at it.
That is one of the worst acting dogs I've ever seen.
I mean, the stupidity of this.
The idiot stupidity comment came from Jeffrey Toobin.
We know all about him in Zoom calls.
Want to talk about untrained with a firearm?
You have the prosecutor picking up in the closing arguments the AR-15 rifle that was Kyle Rittenhouse's and points the rifle at people in the courtroom, which is, by the way, safety 101 in firearms.
You know, then, of course, he, you know, why would he bring a gun to a fistfight?
And then using an image from Patrick Swayze's movie, Roadhouse, some of the dumber moments that we've had from a prosecutor.
There, of course, their lead, their star witness admitting on the stand under oath that he aimed a loaded firearm right at Kyle Rittenhouse before Kyle fired at him.
We have videotape of another person that was shot, in this case, killed, about to pounce his foot in his head on Rittenhouse's head right into the pavement, which would obviously cause severe bodily harm, which then brings into play this whole issue of the self-defense and the law is very clear in Wisconsin on all of this.
You know, the never-ending narrative about white supremacy, not sure where that came from.
The three people were shot happen to be white.
The judge now has to warn everybody, yeah, be careful.
Don't listen to the opinions of all these people in the media and Joe Biden.
Anyway, and the prosecutor said, let me tell you all the awful things that Joseph Rosenbaum did, goes over and he tipped over a porter potty.
Why didn't he talk about the five kids that he was convicted of molesting?
Or the fact that he was in a mental institution or the fact that, you know, we have one instance where Kyle Rittenhouse is defending himself when he's being hit with a skateboard.
That is a weapon.
That was being used as a weapon.
Or in the case of somebody grabbing the barrel of his gun and trying to rip it out of his hands.
Then you have, of course, the witnesses.
We have three big factors here.
You have videotaped evidence, which is dramatic and shows him running and racing away from what looks like a mob of people that are out to get him.
They finally catch him.
He's on the ground.
A guy's about to stomp on his face and push his face right into the pavement.
You know, then you have the defense making their final arguments yesterday, pointing out that a police detective seemed to agree that this guy came out of hiding to chase Rittenhouse, meaning this guy Rosenbaum, and that the exchange took place within four feet, meaning that Kyle Rittenhouse's story, as corroborated also by others, in fact, is accurate and true because he wasn't far away as the prosecution tried to contend here.
One member of Rittenhouse's group testifying she never saw Rittenhouse act inappropriately toward anybody.
Another witness saying that he's trying to de-escalate the entire time.
I mean, the defense ripping the prosecution's case of using this enlarged photo taken from a drone video.
It literally took them 20 hours to produce, which means it is deceptive.
And they only took one separate image that was cloudy at best.
Anyway, here to weigh in on where we are with this, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, legal counsel, and also David Schoen, Civil Liberties Attorney.
By the way, he's now representing Steve Bannon in his case.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
Thank you.
Good to be here.
Greg, your take on closing arguments and where we are today.
The defense did a fine job of taking the jurors back to the scene in August of 2020 when Rittenhouse is being hunted down by thugs who yell, get him, kill him, pelted with rocks, kicked in the head, attacked and assaulted.
One man tries to bludgeon him with a heavy skateboard.
And you're right, Sean, that his instrumentality is used at someone's head.
Great force.
Another man admits on the witness stand he advanced and took aim at Rittenhouse with his loaded pistol.
All of this is on videotape.
It's corroborated by the witness testimony.
This is a case of self-defense.
I think it's going to take the jurors a while.
They asked for the judge this morning to provide 11 more copies of the jury instructions, which are 40 pages, very complicated.
They've got five counts to go through.
Not an easy verdict to reach on all five counts.
It's going to take time.
Sounds to me like if they're asking for jury instructions that they want to follow the law, David Schoen, but I am very hesitant to ever predict an outcome.
I think the outcome, based on my, if I was on that jury, would be not guilty on every count.
Yeah, no, you're right.
Nobody should be able to predict an outcome, unfortunately.
We've learned that over the years.
But I've done self-defense cases before.
I hate to see anybody die ever in any of these cases.
But if I ever had to pick the facts of a self-defense case to defend, this would probably be just about it.
It's a quintessential self-defense case.
You have a gun pointed, you have threats made, you have clear, reasonable, imminent fear, a fear of imminent death.
The facts are all there.
If they apply the law, he has to be found not guilty, quite frankly.
You know, we've been talking, Greg, at length about this, the prosecutors clinging to this provocation lifeline after really muddying the facts in the case.
But in Wisconsin, the law of provocation states that if a defendant is the initial aggressor, that they would lose the right to self-defense, which is understandable, as long as there was credible evidence that, in fact, he engaged in any clear act of aggression.
Video cited by prosecutors was anything but clear.
And as a matter of fact, if he's running away, he's no longer the provocateur, and he would then again regain his right to self-defense, as you have been pointing out day after day.
That's right.
The videotape, the single frame that they spent 20 hours, so blurry that even the judge said, I can't make anything out.
But he gave the benefit of the doubt to the prosecutor and allowed the requested provocation instruction.
And that's what prompted Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, to stand up in front of the jury, a grandstanding, melodramatic event, holding up the AR-15 and aiming it toward the jurors.
You should never do that.
Bad move, finger on the trigger, bad move.
But what he was trying to do was imitate what Rittenhouse was doing in that single frame.
The problem is, the single frame shows Rittenhouse raising his left arm.
And the prosecutor raised his right arm and braced the AR-15 against his shoulder.
So he lied about the videotape frame, as the defense attorney was quick to point out.
But then Binger was even worse than that.
He plays a videotape of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse for nearly two blocks.
And he says, there you see Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse.
Well, under the law, because of that, Rittenhouse has regained his right to self-defense and was entitled to defend himself.
Your take, David Schoen, on this, I think, is a very important part.
I mean, the prosecution really was clinging to this provocation lifeline, and I thought they did a very poor job, as Craig just pointed out.
You and Greg are 100% right.
And I'll tell you, though, the fact that you raised it at the beginning of this show, these lynch mobs outside the courthouse, we just cannot continue to condone this kind of thing.
It can't be that, you know, it's okay if a particular kind of defendant is there, but not another one.
You know, people used to be offended when we saw these things many, many decades ago in the South, lynch mobs literally outside the courtroom where the juries could hear them.
It's an unbelievably destructive force in the system.
It's just not okay to threaten violence if you don't get the result that you want.
Well, that's true.
I got to change topics on you a little bit here, David.
We've had people, for example, before be held in contempt of Congress for not fully participating with what Congress wants.
Some people would argue, well, Eric Holder did turn, at least turned over a couple of documents.
Okay.
What about Lois Lerner?
Wasn't she held in contempt?
How many other cases have there been where people refused to testify or provide information to Congress and nothing happens?
I can name two that were referred, and that would be for lying to Congress, and that would be, for example, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, and nothing ever happened to them.
The last time this law that they're using against Bannon was applied, according to my records, was 1983.
Yeah.
And you've got four cases with 2008 Lois Lerner, Harriet Myers, Josh Bolton, and Eric Holder.
So it goes across the board in which they were referred for lying to sorry, they were referred for refusing to comply based on a privilege claim.
Not one of them was prosecuted.
In three of those four cases, the Justice Department, sorry, the Congress initiated civil enforcement action.
This is a legitimate dispute over whether privilege applies to documents.
The idea that in that kind of court, it's treated like a discovery dispute, and a judge weighs in on it and decides what's privilege and what isn't, or whether privilege applies.
That's what Mr. Bannon, through his counsel, asked for here.
He told the committee quite clearly that if the privilege issue is resolved with Mr. Trump, former President Trump, or a court orders him to comply, he would comply.
The idea that you take a layperson, citizen, who's relying on the advice of counsel, who got a letter from a purported privilege holder telling him, do not turn over the documents, do not testify, where you have office of legal counsel opinions decade after decade saying that this isn't appropriate.
The idea that you then it isn't appropriate to force them to testify, or many of the other things that were relevant here, the idea that you charge that person then with a crime is absolutely outrageous.
And by the way, what Mr. Bannon's lawyer asked for with the committee was simply to appear and have a representative of the privilege holder, privilege invoker, present so that that person could then invoke the privilege where he or she thought it was appropriate.
That's a reasonable practice.
It happens in litigation all the time.
It's not a crime.
It's outrageous.
Let me get Greg Jarrett's opinion on this.
I mean, if we really want to take it back a little further, you got Henry Kissinger, Janet Reno, Harriet Myers, Josh Bolton, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Brian Pagliano, there's a name from the past.
Let's see, Bill Bard, Chad Wolfe, all held in contempt of Congress.
Nothing happens to them.
Why is Bannon being singled out?
Is this just yet the latest case of we have one set of laws for conservatives and another set of laws for liberal Democrats?
That's right, because it's Trump and Bannon.
That's the obvious answer.
But Bannon did the right thing by hiring one of the best defense attorneys I know, my friend David Schoen.
So he's got a huge advantage there.
I've always believed that executive privilege applies to a situation like this.
Executive privilege is when a president seeks and receives private advice.
The law doesn't say that, oh, it can only be private advice within the administration.
That's nonsense.
Vernon Jordan, the great lawyer and advisor to presidents, made a career out of giving advice to presidents when he wasn't serving in their administrations.
That was protected executive privilege.
The same principle applies here with any advice that Bannon may or may not have given to President Trump.
The fact that Trump's out of office does not negate the privilege, it extends beyond his presidency and it applies to people who are not within the administration.
So the law, to me, is squarely on the side of Steve Bannon.
100% correct.
And how is Mr. Bannon supposed to disseminate which is privileged, which isn't privileged, whether it applies or doesn't apply?
He did the right thing by asking a court to weigh in if that's what it's going to take.
But you asked why in this case are they doing it this way?
That's what's making me comment on this case.
It's a pending case.
Because Attorney General Garland issued a press release on Friday saying this case is upholding the principle of equal justice under the law for all people.
That's simply not true.
It's absolutely discriminatory justice.
It's selective prosecution.
It's pretty unbelievable.
Quick break.
We'll come back more with our legal analyst, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen on the other side.
We'll get to your calls in the next half hour, 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program?
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Ham.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple 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.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
All right, Thanksgiving.
Breaking news straight from the source.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour.
All right, we're just holding over for a second.
We'll get to your calls here in a minute.
800-941-Sean, our legal analyst, Greg Jarrett, and David Schoen.
I wanted to get final predictions from both of them.
Let's go back to Kenosha for a minute here and let's make predictions.
Prediction one is how long do both of you think or anticipate this is going to take?
And number two, where does this, what's the outcome in your minds?
We'll start with you, Greg Jarrett.
It's folly to predict how a jury will view things.
I see them as a lawyer, so maybe my point of view is skewed.
But you got 40 pages of jury instructions, five counts, going to take time.
What I worry about are the angry demonstrators using amplified megaphones just on the courthouse steps.
Our producer there inside the courtroom says the jurors can easily and clearly hear their rants.
The judge should issue an order to have them cleared and moved away.
They can protest further away, but this is intimidation and threats on the part of the protesters to try to get the jury to convict.
It is a miscarriage of justice if it influences their decision.
Well, I mean, they must hear these people outside chanting, and I'm sure that adds pressure to the situation that they know the nation is watching.
Your predictions, David Schoen.
As usual, I have to say I agree with everything Greg Jarrett said.
It's impossible to predict.
It's a long jury instruction.
I worry about a compromise.
I worry about that lynch mob.
I think on all of the evidence that I've heard, the decision is clear, self-defense.
You cannot convict somebody under these circumstances with the threats that he's faced and reasonably felt.
The only vulnerability I thought he had was dispensed with yesterday, and that was the gun charge.
You would think that the prosecution would know the law before they charge him.
A long gun, which is what he had, is not covered under the law that they charged him with.
You know, count that as another screw-up for, I think, this idiotic prosecutor that overcharged him, desperately also wanting to offer more options to the jury in terms of ways they can convict Kyle Rittenhouse, considering that that shows to me a lack of competence in the case that they presented.
But we'll be waiting, watching, and seeing.
We thank you, as always, David Shoan and Greg Jarrett.
Thanks for being with us.
Thank you very much, Elizabeth.
Now, before we get to your calls here, let's go back to the prosecutor Binger yesterday and, you know, saying you lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun.
A lot of people had guns at that night.
And by the way, it was Kyle Rittenhouse racing away from a crowd, a mob chasing him.
He was the one that was being attacked with a skateboard.
Unbelievable.
Eyewitness testimony.
You have video testimony.
You've got the star witness of the prosecution.
Then this idiot Binger mocks Kyle Rittenhouse.
Not sure what the purpose of that is.
Calls Kenosha rioters a crowd full of heroes.
Are you serious?
Did you not see what was happening in Kenosha that night?
Listen to what he said.
You lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun, when you're the one creating the danger, when you're the one provoking other people.
So how do we evaluate the defendant's performance as a medic that night?
Well, on one hand, he wrapped up an ankle and I think to maybe help somebody who got a cut on their hand.
Yay.
On the other hand, he killed two people, blew off Gage Gross Kurtz's arm, and put two more lives in jeopardy.
So, you know, when we balance your role as a medic that night, I don't give you any credit.
And every day we read about heroes that stop active shooters.
That's what was going on here.
And that crowd was right.
And that crowd was full of heroes.
That crowd did something that, honestly, I'm not sure I would have had the courage to do.
All right, Sean is in Louisiana.
Sean, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
What's going on, my friend?
Glad you called.
Hi, Mr. Sean.
Longtime listener, first time caller.
Well, welcome aboard, my friend.
How are you?
I'm wonderful, sir.
I'm loading some flowers on my trailer right now for landscaping this fall.
Very cool.
You know what?
Making the world look more beautiful.
I love it.
Yes, sir.
I'm just glad to see people spending money during these tough times.
Well, you know what?
If it keeps food on your table, keeps gas in your car or truck, I'll take it.
I'm with you.
Yes, sir.
I'll get right to the point, Mr. Hannity.
The reason I called, I'm an eight-year law enforcement veteran here in Southeast Louisiana.
I've been trained on just about all different sorts of weapons platforms.
And I know that as of late, you know, the AR-15 has been considered assault rifle and a weapon of mass destruction when most people don't really understand that AR stands for Omalite, just like AKA stands for Kalushnikov.
It's not assault rifle.
It's a weapon of defense.
And this young man went in to support and protect these people and was attacked and used a defensive weapon to take care of himself and the people around him and the businesses he was protecting.
So I feel strongly that the reason this has been brought mainstream is simply for the fact he was using an AR-15 and not a Glock.
You know, I could tell you because I think most people know that I'm a Second Amendment supporter, very strong Second Amendment supporter.
Yes, sir.
The modifications that New York demands for what they quote call an AR-15, I could tell you firsthand that they're all cosmetic.
They're all mostly meaningless, but they make them anyway.
You know, that's why you have people that, you know, their great cause of late seems to be, well, well, let's uh let's prevent people from buying ammunition.
I don't have you tried to get ammunition lately, it's not easy to get.
You can buy it in bulk, Mr. Hannity, but I just want to make one other point real quick, and I don't want to keep you too long.
Um, during my tenure as a police officer, I carried a Glock Model 23 40-caliber pistol on my hip.
I got the same one, just I got the same pistol, and I can tell you that I can do just as much damage with this pistol because I'm a marksman and been fully trained with it than someone with an Armalite 15 weapon.
By the way, I own that exact same pistol, and you're absolutely right.
And like you, I'm a pistol.
Well, I was a pistol marksman, I can't see anymore, and I can't get ringing in my ears no matter how many earmuffs I put on, so I don't shoot often anymore.
Mr. Hannity, I'm not going to say this for advertising purposes, but there are products made by Mantis that you can set up little targets in your home with your smartphone, and you can practice with a laser cartridge in your firearm without firing a single shot.
You don't have to spend 300 bucks at the range, and it's extremely accurate.
You know, a buddy of mine told me about this, and I got to get a hold of this.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to put you on hold, and I want you to give this information to my team, okay?
Yes, sir.
Thank you for that.
I'll have internal earmuffs on and external, and I still can get ringing in my ears.
I can't explain.
It's inexplicable.
So I don't go shooting very often anymore.
You know, it does bring up the listen, I do not have any financial stake in this company, and I say that every time.
I am a customer.
I pay for every single one, I buy them for gifts for people.
And it's called a burner gun, B-Y-R-N-A.
And depending on what state you live in, unfortunately, I can't get the most powerful, what they've got of projectiles.
And I can accurately, from 40 feet away, fire this projectile, and when it hits a target, it explodes.
And then by exploding, it releases two pepper sprays and tear gas and incapacitates a perpetrator.
I would like to see every police department look into it as a non-lethal alternative for them that they can use on their job.
If they make a mistake, the worst case is that somebody's going to have irritated eyes and not be able to see.
And it does not do permanent damage, so I am told.
You'll have to research that yourself.
But it's like what police use already to disperse crowds: tear gas.
Police already use pepper spray.
Yes, it hurts.
It burns your eyes.
Okay, but it incapacitates somebody.
And maybe you're a homeowner that wants an alternative.
Maybe you're afraid of a gun.
I know many people are afraid to have a gun in the house.
I have mine strategically placed and I have fingerprint open safes all over the place.
And I honestly think it's a great alternative.
It's also, if you've never shot before, they have inert projectiles.
You can just take it outside.
And I usually shoot it at my tree, one of the trees in my backyard.
Doesn't hurt the tree for you tree huggers out there.
And I like it.
And it's a great alternative.
And they keep improving it, which I love even more.
And I keep getting their new version.
And anyway, if you're interested, it's non-lethal.
I have no financial ties to the company.
It's a great weapon.
We'll put it up.
As a matter of fact, we'll put up some videos on Hannity.com.
I've played them on TV before.
B-Y-R-N-A.
And, you know, I was offered an opportunity to invest, and I purposely did not because I wanted to keep, you know, I want to just be a customer, is what I told them.
I want to be a customer.
And I am.
I'm a customer.
I'm happy with the product.
Quick break, right back to the phones, 800-941-Sean as we continue.
Senator Tom Cotton at the top of the hour.
Sean Hannity.
All right, as we continue with your calls, then we'll check in with Senator Tom Cotton at the top of the hour as we continue.
Let's say hi to let's see.
Diana is in Missouri.
Hey, Diana, how are you?
I'm fine.
How are you?
I'm good.
I'm glad you called.
I'm glad to.
You know, I was just kind of thinking about the cancel culture, and it's always like, who is in charge of that?
It's like Black Life Matters, and there's somebody who's in charge.
I know it's like all through the social media, but like, who is the person that makes people cancel stuff is my answer, I guess.
Well, I mean, you've got all these different groups out there, all these people that have their, you know, different agendas.
It's sad, actually.
You know, for example, you had this recent.
I don't know anybody that, I mean, that it's crazy.
I don't know if you saw the Dave Chappelle special on Netflix that created such an outcry.
If I don't understand this part of it, and I've been the subject of getting the crap kicked out of me by late-night comedy hosts so many times, it doesn't bother me.
I could care less.
But, you know, the worst part is if they're trying to make fun of me and they're not funny.
And a lot of these guys have become so political, they're unwatchable.
You know, I look at Colbert, Fallon, or Jimmy Kimmel.
It just, their ratings are so low.
It's like 70% lower than when Letterman was battling Jay Leno.
That's how low they've gotten.
And in large part, because they're just not funny anymore.
And they're so political and they're so triggered by the name Donald Trump.
I like to watch Chris Rock.
I like to watch Dave Chappelle.
Do they say outrageous things?
Yeah, they do.
And if that's going to offend you, you don't have to watch the show.
And usually they're equal opportunity comedians.
They go after everybody.
They're not going after people.
They're going for the laugh.
They're going to make you crack up.
They're saying things on purpose to shock the audience and make the audience laugh.
If we can't do it with humor, we're just done.
Freedom of speech is finished.
And do I think Dave Chappelle should be canceled?
No.
If you don't like his show, turn it off.
It's that simple.
You don't have to watch it.
Everybody knows he's a comedian and a very gifted and talented comedian, just like Chris Rock is.
You know, I want comedians to have the freedom to go there, go anywhere.
And if I'm the target of it, go for it.
I just, you know, I don't want to live in a country where you can't go, you know, just say fun, outrageous, crazy things.
Oh, but it hurts people's feelings.
Then don't go.
It's just like, you know, I've never supported a boycott.
I never will.
I've never supported canceling shows.
I never will.
I'm not doing it because I don't have to watch or listen to anything.
And neither does anybody else.
There are more options, more choices than we've ever had as a country in terms of what you want to watch, the programs you want to watch, what you want to listen to.
Does that make sense?
I'll give you the last word.
I don't think it's happening right now.
I mean, what is right now making it such a, you know, what's going on?
Well, I think there's an effort to, like, look, for example, look at the case in Loudoun County, Virginia.
You know, look at the memo of the Department of Justice.
You know, the willingness to use the FBI to look into parents yelling at school board members.
As far as I know, that's been happening for decades.
And that is something obviously that local police can handle.
You know, what they did to this father apparently turned out that his daughter was raped, according to reports, in a bathroom.
And then the superintendent denying any knowledge of it, but the police corroborating, there was a full-fledged investigation.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, good call, Dan.
Appreciate it.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Quick break, right back.
2203 CordellCordell.com 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.
▲
Export Selection