All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show
33:36
Sen. Tom Cotton - November 16th, Hour 3
| 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.
All right, News Roundup Information Overload, our 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, we went into great depth and lengths discussing the raid of Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, founder, CEO of Project Veritas and his home as it relates to this diary of Joe Biden's daughter.
Now, what's so fascinating about this case is that James O'Keefe never went with the story because he was never able to authenticate the story.
If you work in the news industry in any capacity, you have sources.
Sources brought this to him.
He has now said publicly that he was told that it was obtained legally.
They did all their background checking and they could not corroborate the authenticity of it.
And about a year ago, James O'Keefe on his own voluntarily went to the police and handed it over to the police in case maybe it might have been stolen.
Maybe they could corroborate it and did the right thing.
A year later, then it doesn't justify his home and his office being raided, but that's exactly what happened.
He's only done one interview and it's with me.
And let me remind you part of what he said here.
He describes the pre-dawn raid on his house.
They confiscated my phone.
They raided my apartment.
On my phone were many of my reporters' notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to this story, and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization, Sean.
So I've heard the phrase, the process is the punishment.
I didn't really understand what that meant until this weekend.
And Sean, I wouldn't wish this on any journalist.
Now, a judge has since ordered the FBI to stop looking into the materials that they confiscated here.
It's going to make its way through the legal process.
But then James went on to describe how this is an attack.
And of course, nobody in the news media likes James O'Keeve because maybe he doesn't share their left-wing liberal leftist status point of view, but they consider themselves members of the press.
And I think beyond this show and a few other conservative radio hosts and a couple of us on TV, most everybody else didn't utter a word in defense of the First Amendment and a free press.
And this was James' take on that.
At what point then did you go to law enforcement on your own unsolicited and tell them that you had this in your possession and it might be somebody else's?
Well, Sean, I mean, we get sources come to us all the time.
We have thousands of sources come to Project Veritas.
It's a routine nature of journalism to be shown information from a variety of sources.
But this is an attack on the First Amendment by the Department of Justice.
We didn't publish the story.
We couldn't authenticate the story, so our journalists looked into it.
We couldn't publish the story because we could not authenticate it.
Then we now have it's now been taken to another level thanks to Senator Tom Cotton from the great state of Arkansas, who will join us in a minute.
And he is demanding answers, rightly so, from Merrick Garland, after the DOJ raided Project Veritas CEO James O'Keefe's home.
And he wrote in part, the Department of Justice follows rules and regulations when investigating members of the news media.
The regulations state the Department of Justice views the use of certain law enforcement tools, including search warrants, to seek information from or records of non-consenting members of the news media as an extraordinary measure, not standard investigatory practices.
Given the execution of these search warrants were not standard practices, I have great concern about the origins of the investigations, the motivations of the investigators and tactics of your department.
I share Senator Cotton's passion in the fact that we need answers here.
Senator Cotton, welcome back to the program.
Hey, Sean, it's good to be back on with you talking about this very important matter where it would appear at first blush that the Department of Justice violated its own regulations against using extraordinary investigative measures against members of the media in no small smart because they believe that Representative of the Media James O'Keefe of Project Veritas was both a conservative and might have done something to embarrass the president.
Well, okay, so he didn't he never published the information.
Certainly, if he didn't publish it, that means he didn't have any way to authenticate whether or not it was real.
He voluntarily brought it to the police.
A year later, this raid happened, supposedly because of this reason.
Can you explain that to me?
No, I can't explain it at all, Sean.
And let's just assume the very worst case scenario, the very worst case scenario, that someone from Project Veritas did, in fact, steal this diary, and James O'Keefe knew that.
I have no reason to believe that's true.
But let's assume that's the case.
Since when is it a federal crime?
When is it a matter of federal concern that a diary was taken?
I mean, really?
Does the FBI and the Department of Justice not have something more important to be doing?
That's one of the reasons why I asked in my letter that they give over examples of when they've been charging people with transporting stolen goods or why they think Ashley Biden's diary might have a market value of greater than $5,000 as the National Stolen Property Act requires or how this is consistent with the First Amendment protections as articulated by the Supreme Court.
Because at first blush, it appears they don't have any good answers for those questions.
Well, you raised a number of questions in your letter to Merrick Garland.
Among them, please provide the search warrants for any cell phones collected from O'Keefe and his associates, as well as supporting applications.
Now, by the time the court order came down, Senator, I've got to believe they probably did a complete deep dive into that phone and those computers already.
So the court order at that point would probably be meaningless, and they probably found what they were looking for or learned things that they never had a right to learn.
Yeah, and Sean, the way this search warrant was executed as well appears to be an abuse of power at first blush.
As we just heard from James O'Keefe, 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning, they had a battering ram, blinding white lights.
They pulled him out half-dressed.
I would point out something that he didn't mention, that they had searched associates' homes in the two days prior, which meant they could no longer argue in good faith that somehow they had to do this lest evidence be destroyed.
It appears they did this solely because they wanted to harass James O'Keefe, and they wanted to send a message that any reporting about embarrassing family matters of Joe Biden will bring the full wrath of the FBI and the Department of Justice down upon you.
That's why I sent this letter to Merrick Garland, and I promise you I won't let this matter go until we get answers from him and from the FBI.
Well, we already know the Department of Justice has been politicized by Merrick Garland, don't we?
Because let's, for example, look at the new voting law in Georgia that allows for 17 days of in-person early voting.
In Joe Biden's state of Delaware, there are zero days of in-person early voting.
In every precinct in Georgia, they allow, it's a matter of law to have a drop box for people to drop off their ballots.
There are zero drop boxes in the state of Delaware.
At no time in the 5,000 years that Joe Biden represented the state of Delaware, did he lift a finger to make voting more accessible for the people in the state of Delaware?
But Merrick Garland chooses to go after the state of Georgia and the state of Texas, both states which offer far more accessibility to voting than Joe's state of Delaware.
That tells me that the Justice Department is being politicized yet again.
Yeah, Sean, Merrick Garland and the radicals working for him have deeply politicized the Department of Justice.
As you pointed out, they have hauled Georgia and Texas for the grave crime, the grave crime that those state's legislatures made it easier to vote there than it is in Joe Biden's Delaware or Chuck Schumer's New York.
Or how about the fact, Sean, that Merrick Garland sicked the feds on parents who want to go to school boards to protest that their kids aren't learning in person or stealing.
You were great when you challenged him on all of this.
Go ahead.
Yeah, and that's so these are just one more example of the Department of Justice being politicized.
This perhaps is the most chilling example, though, that the department in apparent violation of its own regulations would execute a search warrant in such an aggressive fashion with no apparent justification to pursue a crime that I cannot imagine the feds have ever pursued again.
I mean, when was the last time you heard someone making it a stolen diary a crime, Sean?
This is not exactly.
By the way, it wasn't even steal it.
And he's the one that turned it over to law enforcement.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Let's go to the last point, though.
And this was a moment where you confronted Merrick Garland on his abuse of power directly.
And this is what you said.
She was raped in a bathroom by a boy wearing girls' clothes.
And the Loudon County School Board covered it up because it would have interfered with their transgender policy during Pride Month.
And that man, Scott Smith, because he went to a school board and tried to defend his daughter's rights, was condemned internationally.
Do you apologize to Scott Smith and his 15-year-old daughter, Judge?
Senator.
Anyone whose child was raped is the most horrific crime I can imagine and is certainly entitled and protected by the First Amendment to protest to their school board about this.
But he was cited by the School Board Association as a domestic terrorist, which we now know that letter and those reports were the basis for yourself.
This is wrong.
Judge, this is shameful.
This testimony, your directive, your performance is shameful.
Thank God you are not on the Supreme Court.
You should resign and disgrace, Judge.
I agree with that, as do many other people.
There are multiple examples now where he's politicized the Department of Justice.
Yeah, well, thank God he's not in the Supreme Court.
I mean, maybe Merrick Garland was good at his job when it involved sitting up in his ivory tower in the courthouse and reading and writing about the law, but he is plainly overmatched by events at the Department of Justice.
He's got a bunch of radicals working for him in the key positions.
They're doing things like executing these search warrants on members of the media on a Saturday morning in violation of their own regulations over a purportedly stolen diary, which, as you said, Sean, we don't even know if it was stolen.
And even if it was, whoever heard of a stolen diary being a federal case?
Like almost any other theft, it's a matter of state and local law.
But it just happened that it's the diary of the president's daughter.
And as we know, that Joe Biden's extremely prickly if you say anything negative about his son Hunter, and apparently if the diary of his daughter gets exposed as well.
You know, I've actually spoken to people that have copies of Hunter Biden's hard drive.
My attorneys have forbidden me from getting a copy of it because based on what my sources tell me are in it, I could be charged with a crime because apparently some of the materials that they have described to me, I've not seen it myself, that that material is illegal.
And if I have illegal materials in my possession, even as a journalist, that I would be in legal jeopardy.
Do you agree with that analysis?
My lawyers know that under Judge Garland's Department of Justice, perhaps so.
Or Sean, even if it's not illegal in its own right, based on the theory of the case that appears to be applied to James O'Keefe, maybe Merritt Garland would sick the feds on you for the receipt of stolen goods.
In this case, Hunter Biden's hard drive.
In that case, Ashley Biden's diary.
Which, again, we don't even know that was stolen.
Especially we don't know that James O'Keefe or anyone associated with Project Veritas did anything other than the white thing.
They had a source that handed them a diary that they said was Ashley Biden's.
They couldn't corroborate the authenticity of it.
And Sean, we haven't even talked about yet the fact that this was reported in the New York Times just moments after it happened.
The New York Times is obviously serving as a conduit for leakers inside the Department of Justice to embarrass the president's political critics.
I mean, if you want to talk about the receipt of stolen information or violation of our laws regarding classification and espionage, the New York Times is one of the worst offenders in America.
Quick break.
We'll come right back more with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on the other side.
The New York Call is 800-941-Sean.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Howe.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
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 continue now with Senator Tom Cotton, great state of Arkansas.
But isn't one of the biggest problems we now have is that even though the Horowitz report made specific referrals, for example, lying to Congress, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, then you can bring in the issues of Strzok and Page and others.
Now that the Washington Post has now retracted every single mention of the dossier that Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier, where's the rest of the media, number one?
I guess I should give them some credit.
They're only four years behind this program, but I give them some credit for at least acknowledging their mistake.
But that dossier was then used on four separate occasions as a FISA application.
Without the dossier, there would be no FISA warrant given.
Andrew McCabe told us that.
And it was used to spy on a presidential candidate, his transition team, and then a president.
And yet nothing seems to happen, Senator.
Yeah, all examples, Sean, of misconduct inside the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Just another example of the politicization of the Department of Justice.
Look at Steve Bannon's indictment.
Look, Steve Bannon has claimed an executive privilege at the direction of the former president.
I don't know the legal merits of that case.
It's a novel question.
But when you have a novel question of law like that, you don't jump immediately to criminal indictments.
You file a motion to compel the testimony.
Well, I can give you a long list of people held in contempt of Congress that weren't arrested, starting with Henry Kissinger, Janet Reno, Harriet Myers, Josh Bolton, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Brian Pagliano, Bill Barr, and Chad Wolf.
There you go.
Yeah.
Or how about, yeah, Eric Holder, when Eric Holder was held in contempt?
I mean, again, the fact that they would immediately jump straight to criminal contempt charges as opposed to going through their more ordinary procedures is just another example of how deeply politicized Merrick Garland's Department of Justice is.
Let me say this.
Anyone in the Department of Justice or the FBI who's taking these actions ought to be very mindful that in about 14 months, Republicans are going to have subpoena power in the Congress.
Senator, you're doing a phenomenal job.
And I don't say that very often about many politicians.
Thanks for all you're doing, and thanks for being with us.
Thank you, Sean.
Great to be on with you.
800-941-Sean, our number.
You want to be a part of the program?
Quick break, right back.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour on jury watch.
They've been asking for different things throughout the day, including copies of the jury instructions, specifically even pages one through six.
Very complicated.
40-some-odd pages.
A lot for a jury to go through.
Anyway, let's get to our busy telephones here.
Many of you have been wanting to weigh in on this and everything else we've been talking about.
Let's say hi to Gary's in the great state of Alabama.
How are you, Gary?
What part of Alabama are you in?
I used to be in Huntsville.
Well, actually, Athens officially, but what's going on?
Down here on Mobile on the coast, some of the best seafood in the world.
I bet you bet it was Bam once or twice.
I'm just guessing.
Well, a few times.
It's a great question.
Love you.
And, oh, yeah.
I love your show.
You know, I don't drink the Kool-Aid.
I don't always 100% agree with you, but a lot of the stuff you say I do line up with.
And one of those being, you know, you look as far as at the evidence and draw your own conclusion.
When all this happened with the Ritter House, you know, I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention.
I'm not going to be called to be on the jury or whatever.
Well, when the trial came up and you had a guy call yesterday and he was, you know, what was he even doing down there?
Why was he even in there?
There was, I got searching for the video to see so I can make my own decision.
They, which the site that I came across, they said that the defense had done this slick video trying to taint it.
But no, they just showed what was going on.
And they showed where you had the protesters were taking dumpsters, catching them on fire and running them into businesses.
I mean, it's almost like something out of the Middle Ages, you know, like running up to the castle and hitting it with the fire.
And you had the guys who were there to protect the businesses running up and shooting them with fire extinguishers to put the fire out.
And that's what Ritterhouse was doing.
That's what a lot of these guys were doing.
We're trying to keep these places from catching on fire.
You know, the police can't be everywhere.
The fire department was taxed.
You had all these people out in the street trying to, like I say, just random dumpsters into buildings.
You know, they were on fire.
So he was there actually.
You know, he honestly looks like he was trying to be there to help out and stop and do something that, you know, they couldn't do.
Listen, if it was my kids and they wanted to do that, would I advise them to do it?
I would not.
I have talked a lot on this, but if we're going to follow the law in this case, the law is clear.
You have a specific right to self-defense if, in fact, you believe your life is in jeopardy or that serious, significant, a reasonable person would determine serious, significant bodily harm will occur.
Okay, let's go through three cases.
You got this kid hit with a skateboard.
That's a weapon.
You got a guy about to stomp on his head and pound his head into the pavement.
That would be something that could cause great bodily harm and even death.
Then you've got the one key witness of the prosecution, their star witness, admitting he aimed a loaded gun at Kyle Rittenhouse before he shot him.
Those are the facts.
If you follow the law, the law is clear.
They should acquit.
Now, I can't predict what a jury's going to do, but if they come back with the verdict based on the law, that would be the verdict of not guilty, in my opinion.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, the skateboard alone, you're talking about a three-quarter-inch thick board or fiberglass.
I can beat the crap out of somebody with something like that.
I mean, you know, that's a weapon, and he's hitting them over the head.
You know, if that's me, you know, and he only shot one time.
He didn't just unload on the guy.
He shot one time.
And when he shot the guy in the arm, he shot him and then he stopped.
He did not continue on firing.
He was trying to just protect himself and get out of there.
If anybody points a gun at me, I'm going to, your life's on the line.
Your life right at that moment is on the line.
Well, I didn't mean to aim it at him.
Well, we got the picture.
You're aiming it at him.
We also have the videotape of Kyle Rittenhouse not running, racing as fast as he can away from a crowd of people chasing him.
That would be called the mob where I grew up.
And they caught up to him.
And then he was on the ground.
And then he was about to have his head pounded into the pavement.
At that point, his life is in jeopardy.
He's at risk of serious bodily harm.
And the law cannot be any more clear than it is.
And if the again, if the jury follows the law as written and looks at the videotape evidence, looks at the testimony of eyewitnesses and the star witness for the prosecution, I would think that they very easily acquit.
I don't know, though.
I can't tell you what the jury's going to do.
Now, the jury is outside the courtroom, even as we speak.
And what is the jury hearing at this time?
They're hearing if Kenosha don't get it, shut it down.
Well, I would assume that probably the jury's hearing those chants.
They know that this is a high-profile case.
They weren't sequestered.
They're very aware that their verdict could have consequences.
That puts undue pressure, in my opinion, on them.
I think we ought to have more cases where you have a change of venue.
I really do.
For the very reason, and I know a jury of your peers, you can define that a lot of different ways.
If you're an American, I would argue you're a jury of peers.
But I do think that we should have trials, high-profile like this, sent to other jurisdictions.
That's my own humble opinion.
I totally agree with you on that.
I could not, from what I've seen in good faith, convict this boy.
What I saw, he was defending himself.
The first group of police officers he ran up to, and they were in vehicles.
They were heading to where the first shooting were, and they were hollering to him to leave out because they didn't know that he was the one who had shot.
So he leaves from them running to a second group of police officers when he got caught.
He was trying to get away.
Everything I've seen as far as on this, there's no way I could convict him.
I couldn't.
I couldn't either.
Savannah in Texas.
Thank you, Gary, in Alabama.
Savannah, how are you?
Hey, how are you, Sean?
I'm good.
Glad you called.
Thanks.
I appreciate you taking my call.
I'll just say real quick.
I'm going to try to get straight to it.
So I know that recently the mandate has come out by OSHA and CMS, who regulates Medicare and Medicaid facilities.
I work in the medical field, been in the medical field for 15 years, currently in the process of going back to school for my nursing and my NP license, hopefully.
By the way, congratulations on that.
Good for you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So my question is, if, because I am terrified of getting this vaccine, there have been, there's no scientific proof, in my opinion.
There's so many just contraindications and possible side effects and things like that that I don't want to get this vaccine.
And with CMS and OSHA now mandating it, do the lawsuits that have been filed, will those apply to OSHA and CMS as well?
Or should I be looking for another job?
I don't know the answer.
I would put in for an exemption.
I'm assuming you never got COVID.
You don't have to answer that question.
I believe in medical privacy, but I'm assuming that.
So look, the best advice I can give you, I don't know how much research you've done, but by research, I'm not talking about putting on a lab coat as these idiots in the media claim that Hannity's telling people to go put on a lab coat and do research.
I'm like, are you really that dumb?
But the media really is that dumb.
But I'm saying to research, for example, the vaccines.
You have the mRNA vaccines.
We actually had the creator of the technology that made this technology available that allowed for the creation of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Then you can look at the Johnson ⁇ Johnson vaccine.
Then you could look into the therapeutic known as the therapeutics known as monoclonal antibodies.
If you do get it, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Only you know your unique medical history, your current medical condition.
You couple that with the right amount of research.
And then I urge you strongly to have a serious conversation with your doctor, your doctors, and medical professionals you trust.
And then you're going to have to make the decision from there.
Now, I understand vaccine hesitancy.
You know, if you look at the CDC, every other day, something is changing.
Their standards change, you know, by the hour at times.
I understand why people feel the way you do.
I also believe in freedom.
I also believe in medical privacy.
I believe in doctor-patient confidentiality.
And I believe in science too.
And I believe in vaccination science.
I can't offer you that advice.
I'm just urging you to take it seriously.
And I'll tell you why, because I know people that have died from this thing.
I know people that have been on ventilators and didn't survive.
And I know people that have been on ventilators as long as 40 days and barely survived.
And I just want you and your family to be safe.
Now that we have breakthrough cases, something they didn't anticipate, you know, it's a game changer.
That's why I think Governor DeSantis created these monoclonal antibody centers in Florida that were very successful.
I know that doesn't answer your question because I don't know where they're going to go, but I hope it helps clarify what I would highly recommend you do.
If you get a positive COVID test, your first call needs to be to your doctor.
And you need to say, what are your thoughts on monoclonal antibodies?
Because if you get COVID, and I know this from people older and unvaccinated that got it within 24 hours of a positive test and breakthrough cases, people fully vaccinated and got monoclonal antibodies, and they all have done well.
This is anecdotally, I'm speaking.
So I would just, you know, keep that word that nobody seems to want to talk about in your head.
God forbid you catch this thing.
Does that help at all?
A little.
I was more looking for it because I believe in all that.
Like you said, I haven't had COVID this whole time.
I've been working in it, around it.
My son's had it.
I was his caregiver.
Never have I tested positive once.
I've been tested eight to ten times.
And I'm young.
I have no comorbidities.
And so that's what's frustrating me is the fact that now, in order for me to keep doing what I love and to continue on, which I know you've spoken with several people and you're very, you know, I'm particularly angry.
You work in the medical field.
Everybody, all these nurses, there's a nursing shortage.
A big article in today's New York Daily News about all the nurses that were diving on COVID grenades every day, many of whom got COVID in the worst moments of this pandemic, they're being fired.
And now we have a nursing shortage all over New York.
Now we have situations where, you know, 20% of 25% of fire houses have been closed in New York.
Now we have a situation where EMTs, you call 911, it's 20 minutes longer.
That means you might die if you're in the middle of a heart attack or you might have permanent damage if you're in the middle of a stroke.
So it's frustrating because, you know, those of you in the medical field were the heroes in this.
And now we're going to say thanks, but no thanks.
You're fired because you don't agree with their mandate.
What happened to the option that Joe offered, which was testing?
Would your hospital, would your medical facility allow for you to be tested?
That I don't know.
I haven't gotten that far with them.
Would that be an option for you?
Would you feel comfortable getting a test on a regular basis?
No, because that test is horrible.
Like I said, I've been tested eight to ten times because I've been tested probably a hundred times.
So I don't the test doesn't bother me.
I'm not going to lie.
You know, I don't care.
Shove it up my nose.
Take whatever you want, and I'll wait the 10 minutes and get my result.
All right.
And so I guess my main question is legally.
You know, just like they can, I file a lawsuit if I felt like I was discriminated against.
Oh, I think there's going to be a lot of lawsuits.
There already are, and a lot of, there's going to be a lot of legal issues that come out of this.
And I would definitely consider hiring a lawyer in your case.
Okay.
All right.
Well, thank you so much for your help, Sean.
You have a great day.
I appreciate your call.
I wish you all the best.
Dan is in North Carolina.
Hey, Dan.
Sean, how are you doing?
I'm good, my friend.
Glad you called.
I've been following the Rittenhouse case, particularly the prosecution.
And I know there's been some theories espoused about whether or not they were trying to throw this because the prosecution was going so poorly and they wanted to retry.
I actually think they've tried to sandbag their case and throw it, hoping that the judge would dismiss it with prejudice because by the way, that could still happen.
The judge is not given his ruling on the motion by the defense for a mistrial with prejudice.
I think the prosecution really wants that to happen because, like Greg Jarrett said, the jury can hear what's going on outside.
So can the prosecutors.
And I think they're scared to death of the public backlash if they lose this case.
I noticed in their articles all over the place today that Kenosha and even other cities are bracing for this verdict.
And that's a sad commentary.
By the way, where's Liz Cheney's commission on that?
We had 500-plus riots, dozens of dead Americans, thousands of injured police, billions of dollars of theft and arson property damage.
Where's Liz Cheney?
She only cares about one riot.
If you don't think a skateboard is a lethal weapon, ask the commission looking into January 6th, where they're deeming flagpoles and sticks and canes as lethal weapons.
You know, look, a skateboard can be used as a lethal weapon, a tire iron, and a knife, anything can be, if that's your intention.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program, you can see people, by the way, we've been watching it all afternoon.
Obviously looking for trouble, clearly, you know, out there speaking on different sides of this.
I'm not looking forward when this verdict comes out.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right, full coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse jury.
Greg Jared is going to join us.
Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Carter is live in Kenosha.
Senator Ted Cruz, Leo 2.0 Terrell, David Schoen, Pete Hagseth, Joe Concha, 9 Eastern, Set Ya DVR, news you will never get from the mob.
Hannity on Fox, thanks for being with us.
Back here tomorrow as well.
And we always remember you make this show possible.
We'll never thank you enough.
See you tonight.
See you back here tomorrow.
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.
▲
Export Selection