All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2021 - Sean Hannity Show
35:36
Defending the 2nd Amendment - December 6th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
When news broke earlier this year that Baby KJ, a newborn in Philadelphia, had successfully received the world's first personalized gene editing treatment.
It represented a milestone for both researchers and patients.
But there's a gripping tale of discovery behind this accomplishment and its creators.
I'm Evan Ratliff, and together with biographer Walter Isaacson, we're delving into the story of Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Dowdnut, the woman who's helped change the trajectory of humanity.
Listen to Aunt Crisper, the story of Jennifer Dowdna with Walter Isaacson on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right.
Hour two, Sean Hannity show, 800-941-SEAN.
If you want to be a part of the program, it's amazing the discussion that now has ensued.
Since the criminal charges have gone up against the parents of this Michigan school shooter, um, as to whether or not you can blame somebody else for the actions of their child, but there are a lot of details here that a lot of people don't know.
Um anyway, so you have these two parents, and in other words, that there are criminal charges that are available to prosecutors, in this case against the parents of a school shooter, and their conduct is described by prosecutors as reckless, recklessness, carelessness resulting in death under Michigan law that would fit the definition or or would constitute involuntary murder.
Evidence shows that the parents ignored the ominous warnings that their son, Ethan, was psychologically unstable and poised to commit violence.
They refused demands by his school that Ethan received professional counseling.
They concealed from the administrators that they had purchased him a deadly weapon and had taken him to a firing range to practice shooting it.
They knew or should have known as the argument of the prosecutors that their son was dangerous and posed a threat to others.
Uh, that is the near equivalent of eighting and abetting, even some are suggesting.
Uh absent evidence that they intended the killing of others, which would otherwise qualify as an accessory to murder.
The issue is can they justifiably be charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter for contributing to the deaths?
Um, this is not a common charge by prosecutors.
Um, but it seems if if ever there's a case, there might be some applicability here.
This might be it.
The parents were told that their son was drawing pictures in class of killing people and laughing about it.
They were warned that their son was searching the internet for ammunition while at school.
His mother's response in a text message was seemingly cold and indifferent.
Uh, as reported by our friend Greg Jarrett, uh, LOL just next time, don't get caught.
And it goes on from there.
Uh now Karen McDonald is the Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor announcing these charges against the parents, and then saying that the mother, you know, wrote to her son to not get caught when he was searching for ammunition in class.
No other parent or community should have to live through this nightmare.
I have shared previously, and I will reiterate today that gun ownership is a right.
And with that right comes great responsibility.
Based on the information and evidence I've received today, I'm announcing charges against the shooter's parents.
Jennifer and James Crumbly.
The charges are as follows.
James Crumbley is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Jennifer Crumbley is also charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter.
The investigation into the school shooting incident at Oxford High School, which occurred on November 30th, 2021, has revealed that James Crumbly purchased a Sigsour 9mm model SP 2022 from ACME shooting goods in Oxford, Michigan, on November 26, 2021.
A store employee confirms that Ethan Crumbley was present with James at the time of the purchase.
First statute, James Crumbly completed ATF form 300-9A, 5300-9A.
Honor about November 26, 21, Ethan Crumbly's social media posts revealed photos of the semi-automatic handgun, along with the caption, just got my new beauty today, including an emoji with hearts.
Any questions I will answer, end quote.
Subsequent to the purchase of that weapon, one of Jennifer Crumbley's social media posts on about 1127-21 read, quote, Mom and Sunday testing out his new Christmas present, end quote.
On November 21st, 21, a teacher at the Oxford High School observed Ethan Crumbly searching ammunition on his cell phone during class and reported the same to school officials.
Jennifer Crumbley was contacted via voicemail by school personnel regarding that son's inappropriate internet search.
School personnel indicate they follow that voicemail up with an email, but received no response from either parent.
Thereafter, Jennifer Crumbly exchanged text messages about the incident with her son on that day, stating, quote, L O L, I'm not mad at you.
You have to learn not to get caught, end quote.
All right, joining us now to weigh in on the legal side of this.
Leo 2.0 Terrell Fox News contributor, uh Civil Liberties attorney, and David Schoen, uh Civil Liberties attorney, and uh much more.
Uh, thank you both for being with us.
Leo, let's start with you.
Do the parents bear legal responsibility in this case.
John, thanks for having me, and thanks for asking that question.
Let me be as clear as I can.
You laid out a fact pattern of the of the parents probably negligence and conduct towards basically condoning their child's activity.
I want to be very clear.
What you didn't play was the Michigan Attorney General trying to make this a second amendment key.
She stated that same press conference, Michigan gun law laws are woefully inadequate.
There is no chow access prevention law in Michigan.
So if she's going to rely on the fact that the gun was purchased and there was some assessive access to the gun, that's not going to fly.
But if she's going to rely on the knowledge of the parent and how they responded, and basically they had a disregard towards the child having the gun and using it and failure to take appropriate action, she might have a case not to rely on the second amendment.
Also, let me be very clear about this.
The school district has a responsibility.
Shaw, besides being a lawyer, I'm a school teacher.
I still have my license.
That kid should have been suspended.
There was no way in the world that kid should have gone back to class.
And if the DA is going to be consistent, she might as well look at the school officials as to what liability rests with them as well.
David Schoen, uh, do you support the prosecutor in this case?
Uh unfortunately I don't, actually.
Uh uh, my view generally, you know, and it's applies in this case is the criminal case is a very inefficient tool to deal with these things.
The situation is tragic, it's reckless, it's irresponsible, it's horrendous parenting, it's all of those things.
But, like Leo just said, if the threat was so obvious and so imminent, then the school officials had a duty to call police, and they should be charged too.
Part of the problem here is this statute, there's no statute that defines manslaughter in Michigan.
Uh the case law defines it, and very vague.
And they treat voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter the same way, both up to 15 years in prison, 7500.
And basically where this would fit in is when death results from criminal negligence or by the negligent omission to perform a legal duty under their case law.
But you know, the facts become much clearer after a tragedy, unfortunately.
And so if the kids looking up ammunition and the family's into guns a bit for sport or otherwise, and the mother said don't get caught next time, from her perspective, It could have been fine, the kid was looking up ammunition for later sporting event.
That sounds silly now because we know the tragic event that happened, but it's it's just uh the criminal law is not the way to go.
They could bear civil responsibility because I think they were negligent.
All right.
But what about, let's go through this.
They refused demands by the school that he get professional counseling.
Now, at it it's interesting because the school wants to push all of this off on the parents, but the school saw the signs and were more adamant about trying to get the parents to take action.
Meanwhile, they themselves took no action that I can see.
You know, that they concealed from administrators, you know that for example, the parents that they had purchased him the weapon, okay, so the school didn't know that part.
Um but the question legally now is Leo, should they have known that their son was dangerous and posed a threat to others, which would be the equivalent almost the equivalent as Greg Jarrett says of aiding and abetting.
However, absent evidence that he intended to kill people, you know, it could could they justifiably can they be justifiably charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter for contributing to the deaths.
I think this is a very hard case to prove, and one has to wonder if the same charges and the same arguments can't be made for the school officials that were alarmed by all of this and took no actions themselves.
I think you just said that you just you just articulated the conflict.
Look, let's be very clear.
They gave the the school gave the parents 48 hours, Sean, to have the kid get psychological help.
But yet they felt comfortable enough to bring him back to class.
That's crazy.
You can't say, here, take 48 hours, we're gonna send him back to class.
Oh, by the way, he just shot it up.
You should have done something you should have told us.
No, there's a inherent conflict in that.
And I guarantee you the defense attorney or those parents are going to make that argument over and over again.
That's the big problem.
The key here is this also whether or not there was any evidence prior to the day of the shooting where the parents knew the parents had some knowledge that the kid had a propensity to engage in deadly violence with that gun.
That's going to be a tall stretch for the prosecutor to make to show involuntary manslaughter, gross negligence.
But if the school is making the warning that they caught Ethan searching the internet for immun ammunition, um, then at what point, you know, are they as culpable and at what point do they get charged like the parents if we're going to be consistent in the application of the law, David Show?
You're exactly right.
And what the law provides in Michigan is you can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter by the negligent omission to perform a legal duty.
As Leo said and as you said, if the school officials thought it was so clear that this was an imminent threat, they had an absolute legal duty to contact the police officials, not just the parents.
And to report this situation to take action.
So they may be just as guilty of the negligent omission to perform a legal duty.
The standard's very vague and very broad.
They certainly can get a conviction of the parents.
Question is that the right way to go to deal with the situation, but again, then the school officials are just as liable to be charged.
Well, you know, did they inform school officials that they had bought him a gun, that they have an obligation to do that?
Because they didn't, Leo.
I'll tell you right now, if you're asking me whether or not these parents had an obligation to tell the school that they purchased a gun, I don't think so.
The question is whether or not the parents had knowledge, knowledge of any information that would lead them to believe that this that their son was going to take that gun and shoot school children.
That's going to be a burden of proof upon the prosecutor to prove.
And I'll tell you right now, that's, in my opinion, negated by the fact when the school said, hey, go back to class, take 48 hours, take two days to have your kid go see a site, and they felt comfortable, Sean not calling the police.
The burden of proof is going to be on the prosecutor.
She has a big mountain to climb.0 Torrell and David Schoen on the other side than your calls 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, as we continue with Leo 2.0 Terrell and our David Schoen on this Michigan case...
So the mountain is were they so grossly negligent in their conduct, meaning the parents, that it would qualify as criminal negligence or criminally negligent homicide, or better known uh as manslaughter.
And should the parents be held accountable for not taking actions when the signs were were you know right before their very eyes, David.
That's the question exactly.
You've crystallized it.
What I'm afraid of, and this is why I say uh the criminal law is just not an efficient tool.
These folks are facing 15 years in prison.
Um I'm afraid that a jury sits and looks at this and says this is such bad parenting.
They're gonna have parents on the jury, they're gonna say, I wouldn't have responded that way if the school reported this thing, therefore they must be guilty.
And again, the standard is just so broad and vague.
I I think there's a good chance they'll be convicted in the case.
But you you asked the important question earlier, and Leo asked it.
How about the school officials?
How far do we go with this that people are supposed to be able to predict a crisis tragic situation like this?
But there is a common thing that we now know with all these school shootings, and and both of you can weigh in on this, is that in almost every case when we go back and we look at social media postings, when we talk to friends, when we talk to teachers, when we talk to others that had any involvement in the lives of these school shooters, we find that you know every indicator was out there, especially on social media.
I mean, uh it makes me wonder two things.
One, I've always supported having retired military, retired police, uh on school campuses, so you have an emergency SWAT team available at the ready if something, God forbid, happens.
I think there's a way to do it inexpensively, and that is to remove any and all tax liability if they if they were to volunteer X number of hours every year.
Um and and I think secondary secondarily, I think that you know, schools have gotta have a better system to help kids with mental health issues.
Leo.
Well, I'll I'll tell you right now, Sean, by the way, if they get convicted, uh it's gonna be appealed because the law of Soul Vegas David pointed out, it'll be appeal.
But let me tell you right now, I think that school had a school resource officer.
I think the situation is very difficult.
When you have kids at this time of their age, their growth, they're not going to be upfront and honest with what they know.
They can feel things.
I was a school teacher.
I know these kids have a tendency not to be upfront and honest and report on their fellow students, classmates.
And then parents, Sean, you're asking parents to be objective when it comes to their own kids.
Uh-uh.
The signs may be out there, the evidence may be out there, the warning signs, but the ability to relay that to the appropriate authority, because of objectivity, the lack thereof, the parent-child relationship, it's hard.
Last word, David Schoen.
Yeah, it's it's it's a very difficult call.
Uh, listen, what you pointed out is right about the history of school shootings.
The school officials are in a better position to know there could be an emergency.
The other flip side of this is overreporting.
It happened to a kid here.
He just showed a picture of himself posted to his friends with a gun, his family had bought him.
It didn't mean any harm, not a violent kid.
He was booted out of school because of it.
He lost his school college scholarship because of it, and so on.
And it was innocuous picture.
But I suppose schools have to err on the side of caution, but look at the consequences sometimes with that.
I mean, times have changed, because my parents took me to a shooting range at 11 because they had guns in the house and they didn't want a curious, you know, a 10 or 11-year-old kid putting his hands on it and not understanding gun safety.
Uh, anyway, appreciate both of you.
Thank you.
800 941 Sean.
When we get back, we'll get to your calls.
When news broke earlier this year that baby KJ, a newborn in Philadelphia, had successfully received the world's first personalized gene editing treatment.
It represented a milestone for both researchers and patients.
But there's a gripping tale of discovery behind this accomplishment and its creators.
I'm Evan Ratliff, and together with biographer Walter Isaacson, we're delving into the story of Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Dowdna, the woman who's helped change the trajectory of humanity.
Listen to Aunt Crisper, the story of Jennifer Dowdna with Walter Isaacson on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hale.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started normally a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the Issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
You know, even with Hulu and Prime Video and Netflix and a million channels.
We talk about this all the time.
I'm always having a hard time finding stuff to watch.
You find that, Linda?
You watch cartoons.
My whole life is cartoons, your show, and then more cartoons.
And then more cartoons.
Um every once in a while, I'll tune into Joe Rogan's podcast, which is videotape, and I I do like his show.
It's very interesting.
It's long, long form.
I mean, some of his interviews can go on for for hours.
And rightly, he was pissed off, and I don't I don't know if he's gonna take legal action.
I he I think on the merits, he would have every right to take legal action against fake news CNN.
Um, but he and it was an interesting moment when he confronted Dr. Gupta, well, I guess he's the medical expert over at fake news CNN.
Um, and he said something about CNN, and I think he was talking about it in the context of Chris Cuomo being fired.
Um, and my one of my major points is all of these people that are on CNN say that they're journalists.
They're not journalists.
And and the problem is is they refuse to be honest about it.
Because I uh the the whole issue involving Chris Cuomo and his brother putting aside this new allegation that came up over the weekend is is a whole different equation because it it's if you're viewing it through the prism of a journalist, that's one prism because journalists claim to be fair and objective, etc.
etc.
I for example, I claim no such thing on this program.
This is a show that where I admit I am a talk show host, and in the as my role as a radio and TV talk show host, I I wear many hats.
I can produce thousands of hours of straight news coverage for radio and TV that we've done over the years.
I can produce thousands of hours of investigative reporting that we have done.
Barack Obama, his radical associations, Trump Russia collusion, uh the deep state, see visa applications based on a dirty Russian dossier.
We've been vindicated on all of our reporting.
We're never gonna get credit for it.
Where's our polled surprise, right?
Um, like the New York Times gets it for getting things wrong.
And but we also do opinion.
And I'm not shy about expressing the fact that I am a conservative.
I'm a registered conservative.
I'm not a registered Republican, end up supporting Republican candidates because they are as close to my values, much closer to my values than say the Democratic Party, but I want Republicans, I can't stand weak Republicans, and there are a ton of them, and people that say one thing and don't stand up for what they believe in, they don't fight for the things that they said they'd fight for, and that's infuriating to me.
Um, if you don't like, and then we do sports and we do culture.
In other words, I would describe what we do as an entire newspaper.
I'm a member of the media, I'm a member of the press, as is Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan also is a talk show host.
He has opinions, he doesn't hide it.
And these other hosts, these other networks claim that they're unbiased.
They're not, they're anything but they're full of it.
They have an agenda, and that but they tell us otherwise.
And and it's and the difference in Chris Cuomo's case is d would have been dramatic.
If he's giving advice based on the as a talk show host that has an opinion that both privately and publicly, it's don't Don't you agree, Linda?
It's a whole different ballgame now.
Well, I mean, I also just to go back to one other thing you were saying.
I mean, we've kind of always been ahead of the curve in taking the hits and getting no credit.
But the one thing that we did get was we got slammed by everybody.
I mean, going back to the first interview about Reverend Wright, going back to the first interview with Stephanopoulos, going back to when we were covering, you know, the connections to to the church and talking about what he wrote in his book liberation theology, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dorn, um, you know, we with the Choom gang, uh, Frank Marshall Davis, Acorn, community organizing.
I mean, we did a deep dive into all of this when nobody would touch it and prominent exactly right.
And then we got smashed for it.
Oh, yeah.
The interesting thing about Rogan is Rogan has been somebody that everybody loves.
He's been part of that other side.
And now he's stepping out and saying, actually, you know what, guys, I think for myself, whatever side that you want to put me on, that's fine.
I consider this my opinion.
It's my thought.
And I've had it.
And I think a lot of people feel like that.
I sense he's waking up to something that we have discussed at length.
The m I think he's waking up to the group think and the mob that is the media, the mob that is big tech, and they all regurgitate the same crap, and they're almost always wrong.
And then they portray themselves as holier than thou, fair and balanced and objective and and as straight news, and they're not what they say they are.
And remember, it happened to him.
What do we always talk about?
Yeah, oh, it's fine if it's happening to somebody else.
Now it's happening to you.
Yeah.
Now I think he does a good show and he gives opinion.
You know, and some of his opinions I agree with, some of them I disagree with.
I love his passion for martial arts, mixed martial arts, obviously.
Um he's the real deal.
Uh I probably would disagree with him on not the freedom of people to do stupid stuff like you know, use drugs, but the choice of people.
Uh it's that that chip is sailed.
I just worry about young kids and gateway issues, but that's a separate issue.
Anyway, let's listen to Rogan, and this is what he said about fake news news CNN.
He called it dog shift.
I think CNN is realizing that their ratings are dog.
Yeah.
And that having these highly polarizing editorial personalities like Stelter and Don Lemon and But it's like these guy, they it's I I personally, maybe maybe this is just my bias.
I want the news.
I want objective news.
I want someone to tell me what are the facts of what's going on and what's happening.
I don't want your ideological slant.
I don't want this left-wing propaganda network, which is what CNN's become.
The way I look at CNN now is so differently than the way I looked at CNN of 15, 20 years ago.
Yeah.
I used to look at them as like, this is how I get the news.
This is unbiased professional news.
They're gonna tell me what's happening in Pakistan and what's happening in you know, Mogadishu.
This these are this is these are the real journalists that are telling you the news.
Now I look at them, I go, you f propagandists.
Like what do you the right arm of Pfizer?
Like, what are you doing?
Yeah, you know?
It's just uh I think there's a market for real news.
And it's really hard to find that now.
It's really hard, especially outside of independent sources.
Now remember, he's he's dealt with this now personally because CN and he and then that pissed him off.
And he mentioned a lawsuit.
He's not yet said whether he's gonna actually follow through on it, but you know, listen, for example, to how they reported when he got COVID, and uh I believe his public comments is we threw everything we had at it, and I think that included monoclonal antibodies and and other therapeutics, et cetera.
I'm just glad the guy's okay.
I don't care what your political opinion is.
I don't want anyone anyone else dying from this thing.
And if something you use work, good, keep using it.
And if uh if it's gonna help other people, my attitude is good, but check with your doctor, I'm not a doctor.
Listen.
It blows my mind that Joe Rogan just yesterday admitted to taking ivermectin.
Ivermectin is something more often used to deworm horses.
CNN is saying I'm taking horse dewormer.
Rogan telling his 13 million Instagram followers that he was treated with several drugs, and he included ivermectin on the list, a drug used for livestock.
Rogan said the word ivermectin, yes, that's the deworming medicine made to kill parasites and farm animals.
Why would they lie and say that's horse dewymer?
So things are clearly bad, but they're being made even worse by people who have refused to take the vaccine and instead are swallowing horse paste.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a second.
He he said that he got better because hey, he said he's kitty wormer.
They must know that that's a lie.
You have individuals like Joe Rogan, for example, who uh who don't want to take an experimental vaccine but will take horse dewormer.
Well, well, well.
It is an old horseworm robot.
Ivermectin is often used to deworm livestock.
Ivermectin, apparently given to deworm animals.
It's a lie on a news network and it's a lie that's a willing that's that's a lie that they're conscious of.
It's not a mistake.
Yeah.
They're unfavorably framing it as veterinary medicine.
Joe Rogan, uh, he came down with COVID.
He says, he says he's been taking the uh livestock dewormer uh ivermectin.
They lied when they said I was taking horse dewormer.
Ivermectin is a drug that is commonly used as a horse dewormer.
They keep saying I'm taking horse dewormer.
I literally got it from a doctor.
You know, doctors say it.
Doctors say you could take it for humans.
Yeah, but not for coronavirus.
He may not have gotten it from the feed supply store, but it's the same compound.
When you have a horse deworming medication that's discouraged by the government, that actually causes some people in this crazed environment we're in to actually want to try it.
That's the upside down where we're in with figures like Joe Rogan.
Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
He also acknowledged taking uh controversial treatment design for animals.
Does it bother you that the news network you work for out and out lied, was outright lied about me taking horse dewormer.
They they they shouldn't have said that.
Why did they do that?
I don't know.
Now, as it turns out, uh, yeah, there's a version that is used in animals to kill parasites.
But um the actual ivermectin for humans that his doctor prescribed for him, although, and I've I've got to be completely honest, Merck, the producer says the manufacturer says they do not support off label use in in the particular case of COVID.
That's what they're saying.
But anyway, William C. Campbell delivered the Nobel lecture on uh in Stockholm.
He was introduced by a professor, and Ivormectin actually got the Nobel Prize for humans in in their sp specific use.
But that's neither here nor there.
What I don't understand is he he also said he threw everything they had at it.
And I believe he said, correct me, Linda, if I'm wrong that he used monoclonal antibodies, which I happen to think is the best.
He did of all that I have read.
But I don't care.
I'm just glad he's okay.
And it's like, okay, he's giving his one experience.
It's anecdotal.
People are smart enough to talk to their doctors before they they go about any treatment, I would assume.
I mean, that's why.
Isn't he allowed to do that as a private citizen?
Isn't he allowed to try something?
Yeah, but they're also not allowed to slander and libel the guy either.
But they're acting like this is only a horse medicine.
That's not true.
It did win the Nobel Prize in 2015.
Now, the company does not support the use off label.
They've designed this for their specific use.
They're working on other medications, actually, that are for COVID that are pretty interesting to me.
quick break we'll come back we continue our discussion about how pretty much everybody in the media lies and says and out And they're out there saying they're journalists.
No, they're not.
They have an agenda.
They're just not honest about it.
This is now your modern media, blue check mark, you know, Twitter, you know, media cult.
What it's and that's why I call him a mob.
It's like a mob mentality out there.
How about did anyone over there ever say, I'm glad I'm glad he's okay?
I'm glad he's feeling better.
What tell us more about the other thing?
Tell us about monoclonal antibodies.
Why did you choose the full course of this and that?
I you know, I'm I'm urging people to study as much as they can and learn from people, whether they agree with them or don't agree with them.
Take that information, and then you can ask your doctor really smart questions.
Instead of going into the doctor's office, what do I do?
How about I have a breakthrough case?
I was fully vaccinated, and I just got a COVID positive result.
Should I go get monoclonal antibodies?
Now, if you ask your doctor that question, your doctor's gonna be like, this person's smart.
This person's keeping up on the news.
This person knows this is in existence.
You be sh I mean it's shocking to me how many people a day, you know, contact us.
What's that treatment you guys keep mentioning on the air that has shown a lot of success?
And we tell them and we tell them, but first check with your doctor.
I'm I'm what would go ahead.
What do you want to say?
No, I just, you know, one of the things that I don't think we can say enough is if the government really wants you to be healthy, if the government really wants you to get better, they would say whatever we have to do to get them better.
They would not ration Regeneron, they would not ration any other medicine or say that you weren't allowed to try it.
You know, that was the whole idea behind what Trump did with Right to Try.
You know, giving people the opportunity to save their own lives.
This is a little different.
Some of these medicines have been in the medicinal circuit for 60 plus years, used in different ways.
It's not unusual for a doctor to say, oh, you know, such and such lowers high blood pressure, but it also helps to regrow hair.
And you're like, wait, what?
And look, for example, uh we we are read the letter by Dr. Daniel Wallace from Cedar Cyanai, the foremost expert in HCQ, largest lupus rheumatoid arthritis practice in the country.
You know, 250 plus peer-reviewed articles he put out, and he said the risk of taking HCQ is nil.
Now we've since come up with studies taken early, it mitigates symptoms.
I don't, I personally don't believe it's as effective based on my reading, but ask your doctor as, for example, monoclonal antibodies.
You know, with all the push.
Well, what if people did everything that Joe Biden and the government wants?
They got they got the shot, they got their booster, they got it all.
Then they still get a positive COVID test.
Now what?
Well, that's why why did he only mention monoclonal antibodies one time?
Because it does he not support monoclonal antibodies?
Because I would guarantee you that they probably would throw pretty much everything at at Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, any high-ranking politician, if in fact they get COVID.
I would I would I would imagine the the infusion would begin instantaneously, to be honest.
Anyway, 800-941 Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
How about let's be happy that people are well and let's not lie about people and tell a little bit of truth.
And if you're going to be opinion, then stayed up front.
I'm a talk show host.
So there's no pretense here.
All these people pretend to be journalists, they're not.
800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
When news broke earlier this year that baby KJ, a newborn in Philadelphia, had successfully received the world's first personalized gene editing treatment.
It represented a milestone for both researchers and patients.
But there's a gripping tale of discovery behind this accomplishment and its creators.
I'm Evan Ratliff, and together with biographer Walter Isaacson, we're delving into the story of Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Dowdna, the woman who's helped change the trajectory of humanity.
Listen to Aunt Crisper, the story of Jennifer Dowdna with Walter Isaacson on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
Now I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Delaware, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection