All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
33:05
Harriet Hageman vs. Liz Cheney - January 11th, 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.
And 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 Dell a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Day number one, fifty.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Thanks for being with us.
800-941 Sean on a number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Eric Trump of the Trump Organization is going to join us coming up at the top of the next hour.
Um I've gone over in great detail.
It's pretty amazing that you have Supreme Court justices, and the consensus among lawyers that I've talked to is they will eliminate the unconstitutional vaccine mandate for companies, private companies with 100 or more employees.
But there is a chance they may split the the baby here in the sense that they would keep the mandate for those that work in in medical hospitals, especially government-run hospitals.
So that that's what the anticipation is or the consensus is among the lawyers that I talk to.
Uh what's really amazing is how misinformed Supreme Court justices were.
You know, you have Justice Breyer saying 750 million people just affected uh got infected yesterday.
Well, our population is 350 million people.
That would mean everybody got it twice in a day.
Listen.
You heard what I asked.
I mean, you know, 750 million new cases yesterday, or close to that, is uh a lot.
I don't mean to be facetious.
But that that's why I said uh I I would find it, you know, unbelievable that it could be in the public interest.
To suddenly stop these vaccinations.
And the only answer that was given was a lot of people will quit.
Well, a lot of people will quit.
What about freedom?
What about medical privacy?
What about doctor-patient confidentiality?
What about the arguments that are made about, quote, being pro-choice?
Uh, a constitutional right where the government can not have a say in what people do with their bodies or don't do with their bodies.
Do those arguments not apply or are they only conveniently used?
Then there was Justice Sotomayor talking about 100,000 kids.
Uh no, that wasn't anywhere near the truth either.
More like 3,500 kids.
Omicron is as deadly uh and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did.
The numbers look at the hospitalization rates that are going on.
We have more affected people in the country today than we had a year ago in January.
Um we have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.
We have over a hundred thousand children, which we've never had before in serious condition.
Actually, no, we don't.
You know, I played last night on TV.
I played Joe Biden.
You know, remember Biden and Fauci in the early days, they were saying, oh no, no, no.
If you get the vaccination, you're never gonna get COVID.
We have so many people on record saying, oh no, no, if you get vaccinated, you're never gonna get COVID.
You'll be protected from COVID.
You you will stop COVID right in its tracks between the media mob and Joe Biden and others.
Listen.
We're not in a position where we think that any virus, including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non unvaccinated people.
The vir the the various uh shots that people are getting now cover that.
They're they're you're okay.
You're not going to you're not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations.
You're not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations.
Guess what?
People vaccinated, fully vaccinated, people fully vaccinated with boosters, people fully vaccinated with boosters and even natural immunity are all getting Omicron.
One of the attorneys general, and there are a number of them around the country, have been leading the effort to fight and oppose these vaccine mandates since the first mention of them.
That day on this program, right after Joe Biden said it, I said, get ready.
There's going to be a slew of lawsuits and he's not going to win.
I still stand by that prediction.
And anyway, the attorney general of Louisiana is Jeff Landry.
And by the way, the nationwide injunction for Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.
That was on November 15th, November 4th.
Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi.
You know, it's an unprecedented overreach by the government.
And I think we're going to win this case on the merits and on the law based on the Constitution.
And the attorney general from Louisiana, Jeff Landry, is with us.
I know it's that I know you can't judge based on the questioning of of Supreme Court justices and during oral arguments as you listen to the audio where they're eventually going to come down on an issue.
But it seemed pretty clear, especially on the use of OSHA and threading the needle, even even John Roberts was extremely skeptical.
You know, I think it was Alito that said you're trying to fit an elephant, you know, through a mouse hole.
Yeah, Sean, look, thank you for having me.
I was actually in the courtroom that day for four hours that the court took up these matters.
And I can tell you, you are absolutely right.
If the nine justices look at the merits and look at the law in regards to both of these cases, then the decision should be nine zero.
What's disappointing, you know, I walked out of the Supreme Court probably as a lawyer, as a practitioner, probably one of the most depressed lawyers I've ever been.
I've just never been so depressed because I walked out of the Supreme Court of the United States listening to justices inject their view and political views inside of the highest court in the land.
And I know that, you know, just the chief has done a real tough job of trying to balance that out of the court.
Sometimes to our chagrin, sometimes to the chagrin that other.
But, you know, I'll say this for the for the chief.
He's tried to keep the politics out of it.
But if you look at these cases on a merit, it's a nine zero our way.
I mean, it's just you can't.
There's no way you can you can.
can could twist the Constitution to believe that Congress delegated that type of authority to an agency and then on top of that that we have to decide this now and that if we don't have a trial on the merits we could let people get vaccinated in some kind of way that's not irreparable harm to them.
And so that's where we are and it it's really absolutely ridiculous that we have in this debate we should have been able to come out of that courtroom and within two hours the court should have been able to hand down the decision.
Well, I would expect, and they even recognize this during oral arguments, that we're going to get a decision any day now based on the law going into effect.
So they know they understood the timeliness of their decisions.
So I imagine that one would be forthcoming fairly shortly.
Do you agree with I've talked to many other legal scholars like yourself and the consensus among them is that the mandate will go away for private companies.
might remain in place for hospital workers especially government run hospitals.
Your thoughts well you know interesting yes I've I've heard a lot of uh of the legal scholars and punt pundits say the same thing.
What I do know about the cases and when you look at a deep dive is that the court is going to have to create some gymnastics in order to strike the OSHA case while upholding the CMS case because you gotta remember when we were before the court, the Sixth Circuit dissolved the injunction in the OSHA case, and in the CMS case, the Fifth Circuit upheld it.
And so there's different thresholds that the court, according to its own story decisions in federal procedure, is required to look at.
And so maybe that's what they're really struggling with.
But I can tell you that you know, is that bas if you take a deep dive into the legal ease of the case, it's hard for them to to strike the OSHA while upholding the CMS.
So I don't know, you know, it's it's gonna be interesting.
It's it's gonna be interesting.
We'll see if they split their verdict.
Um overall, if they do, do you think if that's the final say on this, or Democrats gonna find another way to implement it and then force another Supreme Court decision?
Well, you know, I always say the courts love to split babies into punt.
You know, they I mean if they were professional football team, they were nine punters on it.
But but you look, I think that Justice Roberts picked up on that and that and that he asked the government, he said, are y'all just trying to just go agency by agency until you basically cover what he said the shoreline, and what I would say is interpret that as saying institute some nationwide vaccine policy by going agency by agency.
I maybe the court is is is is trying to to send a signal to the government, hopefully in the answer that they'll give us, and they'll answer that once and for all that the federal government has no business in vaccine mandates, absence some direct clear action by Congress, and I would tell you even action by Congress, I think would come come in conflict with some constitutional rights.
Yeah.
Fascinating case.
Uh, you've been in the forefront of this.
We can't thank you enough.
Attorney General Jeff Flandry of Louisiana, thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you for having me, Sean.
Hey.
Hey.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Cassandra's in Texas.
Cassandra, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Um, thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to kind of share my story here.
Um I think it's important that people really understand, you know, the the people that this mandate is really affecting.
Um, I myself, I'm a single mom of two kids, um, and I work for uh one of the major pharmaceutical distributors in the country um as a corporate account manager, and last Friday I was terminated along with um several of my fellow employees because of the mandate.
Um we are remote employees.
Uh there's no return to office at this point, um, and they still went ahead and um terminated us.
The real kicker to the whole thing.
Look, slow down one second.
How many how long have you worked at this place?
Um I have worked for them for two and a half years, and for two years I've been a remote employee in this position.
So why, if you are working successfully remote, why would they fire you over a vaccine mandate?
I mean, did they demand you hand over your vaccination papers or what?
Yeah, they they did.
I went through the whole um appeal the whole process of you know, requesting an accommodation.
Um I myself was requesting a religious accommodation, and as were my peers, um, we were denied.
We were told that they aren't offering any accommodations.
However, we, you know, have friends in the department who did the medical route and they were granted accommodations, and we were asking to either remain remotely or test regularly.
When we do return to the office, it will be one to two days a week that we will be in the office.
Um, and they said they are not handing out any accommodations.
Um it's not an accommodation.
I mean, if they want a safe workforce, there's got to be another way to balance it short of firing you and taking away your income and your benefits and your retirement and everything else in between.
I mean, this is what's so frustrating to me.
You know, and and let me tell you one other thing That's happening with the what with the massive contagious spread of Omicron, which, oh, we we had no idea.
We didn't see this coming of the Biden administration.
They're actually bringing back all of the nurses and medical professionals that they were planning on firing because they've come to realize without them, they can't keep their doors open.
And so many people need help.
So, you know, and the medicine, and obviously everything changes every day, but you know, you got this this never-ending, you know, set of protocols that changes.
But I think you got a lawsuit.
My and and I don't know.
Absolutely.
This is there's a bigger piece to this component, too.
They're actual distribution centers where the employees are there five days a week, face to face handling the medication.
They do not have a vaccine requirement.
They're exempt from this company policy.
Wait, uh who's exempt?
Say that again.
The distribu the distribution centers, the workers at their distribution center that actually handle the medication and ship it to hospitals and um, so the people that actually are in the office touching things, they got an exemption.
They they it doesn't even apply to them.
If you're a where a warehouse worker and you're working the distribution, okay.
Cassandra, I now have enough information.
You're gonna you're gonna sue your company, former company, and you're gonna win.
Because that's called discrimination.
You're not allowed to, you know, uh apply one set of rules to one group of employees and not another group of employees.
So they just set themselves up for a big ass lawsuit that you're gonna win.
Now, here's the problem with lawsuits.
Let me know.
Well, I mean, you probably would be better off having a local attorney where you live in Texas.
Um, and I would just get somebody that's specializing in this field.
The problem for most people with attorneys, and I'm fortunate, uh, you know, my attorney reminds me as I pay these exorbitant bills every month.
Well, it's the cost of doing business.
And I'm like, yeah, I know the cost for me to keep stay in business is high.
Um but I will tell you that that is you know, maybe they'll take it on a contingency basis.
If they do, that's good for you.
But I think you got yourself a lawsuit.
I would not maybe you maybe the other people that got fired, you all go in this together, and that will mitigate the cost for all of you.
Uh, but I think you probably have a big lawsuit and you probably win.
Thank you.
Well, I appreciate um you know letting me share my story because like I said, I'm not sure.
I'm very sorry, I really am people.
Many people for sure.
How stupid is this?
You successfully work from home for two two years.
They don't need you in the office, and yet they're firing you for because of the vaccine mandate.
That that is as dumb as any policy is I've ever heard.
But if you work in a different department and you're in person, uh you the uh the policy doesn't apply to you.
Sorry, that's not how life works.
Yeah, the logic has left our society, I'm afraid.
All right, hang in there, Cassandra, let us know.
Update us.
Quick break right back.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, Eric Trump will join us at the top of the hour.
Um, and uh we'll talk about the lawsuit he's got against the state of New York and much, much more.
Um, so we've been talking a lot about January 6th, and we all now know a lot more than we knew in the beginning about this January 6th Commission.
Uh it was Nancy Pelosi that kicked off the committee.
Kevin McCarthy was participating.
It was it was supposed to be bipartisan, and then Nancy Pelosi came in through Jim Banks and Jim Jordan off the committee.
And Kevin McCarthy rightly said, fine, we're not participating anymore.
Nancy Pelosi then goes and puts on Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, you know, the the two biggest never Trumpers in the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.
That was a Nancy Pelosi decision.
Every single person on this January 6th committee, all of them voted to impeach Donald Trump.
You know, I keep saying that it's a committee with a predetermined outcome.
Um there's no committee looking into the 574 riots in the summer of 2020.
In those riots, dozens of Americans died.
Thousands of police officers were injured, many of them severely.
Billions of dollars in property damage, including, you know, from arson and from looting.
And, you know, on this committee, you you they're trying to make the case.
Well, you know, it's if any Republican uh had any questions or question the integrity of the outcome or or some of the issues involving the 2020 election, that's what caused January 6th.
Well, if that was the case, people Democrats were all saying George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not legitimately elected after the Florida debacle in 2000.
Uh they said the same thing about Donald Trump in 2016.
Stacey Abrams, beloved by all Democrats.
You know, she's still claiming that she was elected governor in 2018.
On this committee is the biggest purveyor of election lies himself, the congenital liar, and that's Adam Schiff, a guy that pushed a false, phony lying narrative based on a a Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian disinformation dossier,
and they used that dirty, unverifiable dossier to violate uh the FISA laws and spy on Donald Trump, the candidate, the transition team of Donald Trump and the president long after they knew that the dossier was phony.
I mean, you can't make this up.
Now, I've been saying that this committee has a predetermined outcome.
Now the problem is the way it works is after the president authorized the use uh the calling up of the guard as required by law.
Well, then the chain of command goes to Nancy Pelosi and and Mayor Muriel Bowser, and both of them rejected the president's authorization.
They wouldn't take the 20,000 guardsmen.
Why not?
Now we learn from Benning Thompson, who is the chairman of this January 6th committee.
We learned that Nancy Pelosi's off limits.
In other words, there'll be no subpoena for Nancy.
She's not been requested to turn over emails, text messages, phone records, uh, nor has the sergeant of arms who she would have been communicating with, uh, nor is Muriel Bowser being brought in as well.
So that's why I keep saying it's a predetermined, you know, outcome.
Anyway, which leads us to the issue of Liz Cheney.
I mean, I've I've I knew the Cheneys well, got along great with them.
I actually was very fond of of the family when I knew them when Dick Cheney was vice president.
Um I thought he was a very serious guy, understood foreign policy really well.
We didn't have the the modern weaponry we we have now available to us, or I think the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts would have been fought very differently.
They need to be going forward.
Um, but you know, when that when Scooter Libby was unfairly attacked, I stood up for him, stood up for Dick Cheney when he was being called a murderer and a war criminal and a crook.
So, you know, it's a bit of a surprise to me, and also many people in the state of Wyoming.
Now, Harriet Hagaman is running against Liz in Wyoming, has President Trump's endorsement, and the latest poll I showed had her up by eighteen points in the primary against Liz Cheney.
She too was a supporter of Liz Cheney.
She joins us now.
Harriet, how are you?
I'm wonderful, Sean.
How are you today?
I'm good.
I'm listening it's a bit of a I I'm trying to wrap my my mind around what has happened to Liz Cheney.
I mean, the very people that attacked her father as a war criminal, a murderer, a crook, went after their friend Scooter Libby, she's now aligned with.
What happened?
Well, I think it's just it can be explained in in large part by the Trump derangement syndrome.
There are certain people who suffer from it, and she and Nancy Pelosi are two of them.
And I I don't know that it's much more complicated than that.
I think that she saw what happened on January 6th as an opening to try to purge Donald Trump from the party, and that's what she's doing.
That's what her agenda is.
It's not the agenda of Wyoming.
It's not what we want.
He won Wyoming by 70% of the vote, and I think if the election were held tomorrow, he would probably receive even more than that after what we've seen over the last year and what we've learned about the some of the other issues you raised uh before you brought me on to the show.
The dirty Russian opposition research that was used to spy on a presidential campaign and then later used to try to destroy his administration.
There are just so many examples of people in Washington, D.C., And it's worse than just a swamp.
What you have is you have people who are very, very corrupt.
They didn't like an outsider being Donald Trump and they want to destroy him.
And I think that's a good one.
Well, let me ask you this camp.
Did Liz Cheney ever stand up and and speak out loudly against the the witch hunt, the Russia hoax, the the missed the Russian disinformation dossier, because I don't recall that she was involved and she keeps saying that she, you know, everybody needs a fidelity to the Constitution.
Well, I can't think of anything more unconstitutional than what happened.
Well, I agree with you.
I'm a constitutional attorney.
That's actually what I do for a living.
I've been a trial attorney for almost 33 years.
So I actually understand what the Constitution means and and the provisions that are important in terms of these discussions.
I'm not sure that Liz Cheney does.
I don't remember her coming out and attacking that.
I do know that one of the the the pieces of misinformation that was put out there uh was in the summer of 2020 when President Trump was attacked with the alleged Russian bounties on our soldiers had in Afghanistan.
If you remember Liz Cheney was one of the very first ones who came out and attacked him over that, we now know that that was again a hoax.
That was not in that was not accurate information.
And I think that that's when a lot of people in Wyoming really started questioning her judgment because she started attacking President Trump long before January 6th.
I think she was doing it more strategically.
Now it's just a you know a a a scorched earth type approach of she wants to banish him and anyone associated with him or anyone who supports he or his policy, she wants to banish them from the Republican Party.
In fact, it's a very good thing.
Well, I think there's evidence of that.
Liz Cheney was all over the Sunday programs last week, and and let me just play what she said about Donald Trump.
Any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten uh as as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States is clearly unfit for future office.
Uh clearly can never be anywhere near the Oval Office uh ever again.
All right, that sounds to me like a predetermined outcome.
Now my question is, and and I I actually from that day forward said we need an investigation so this never happens again, just like we need a committee to investigate the summer of 2020 rioting, so that never happens again.
Uh I've been very clear, uh, Harriet, that we've got to protect our institutions and every elected official, and I don't care if you have a D or an I or an R next to your name, it doesn't matter.
We've got to protect our elected officials.
If you really want to achieve that, and this committee had that as its goal, then why would Nancy Pelosi be off limits?
Why would the sergeant of arms be off limits?
Why would Mayor Bowser be off limits?
Why would their correspondence of of that day and the days leading up to this be off limits?
Well, it wouldn't be.
And any a trial attorney worth her salt knows that discovery is what goes before you actually have the trial and the and the outcome of and and the decision made.
And the fact that they're identifying particular areas of of information and evidence that they claim is off ev off limits tells you that it's not only a predetermined outcome, but they've already written the report, they know what the answer is, and they're going to do it to try to destroy an awful lot of people.
We have we have discovery rules, uh, whether you're in a court of law or you're in a situation like this, and you indicated that our elected officials should be protected.
I agree, but all citizens in the United States should be protected.
One of the things that we're talking about.
Well, that's another that's a great point.
Why is this one riot?
You had all these people killed, all these businesses taken over, burned to the ground, looted and destroyed, and all these cops injured, and uh we don't hear a word or peep out of them.
Is it only is it only the riots that impact Washington that matter?
Well, that's that's what it starts to appear for those of us out here in flyover country and that actually make this country work.
For those of us, it appears that we have a two-tier a double-tiered or triple-tiered system of justice, and that if you are a a connected uh po po politician in Washington, DC, there's a different set of rules and protections that apply to you than the rest of us.
What about the business owners in Kenosha in Minneapolis?
Weren't they decided weren't weren't weren't they entitled to protection as well?
As I was going to say a moment ago, what has always set up set the United States apart is we believe in the rule of law and we believe that the law applies to everyone equally.
That's why we have an equal protection clause in our Fifth Amendment and our 14th Amendment.
The law should apply equally regardless of who you are.
We don't we don't have aristocracy in this country.
We don't have our politicians are nothing but representatives.
They work for us.
That's very clear in our Constitution.
It's very clear in our founding documents.
They are our employees, we are not theirs.
And so when you have this attitude of what happened that day is worse than anything else, what my first reaction is is you're trying to say that they're important than more important than than the police officers at the federal agents in in in uh uh Portland, Oregon.
We should prosecute the people who broke the law.
But what Liz Cheney's doing is as you said, this is a report and an outcome that we already know what it is because we know the politics of what they're attempting to do with it.
She said it on Sunday.
The purpose of this is to make sure that President Trump never comes near office again.
That isn't her job.
It isn't her role.
It isn't why we in Wyoming sent her to Washington DC.
That would be the decision of the American people, Harriet, in my view.
Let me ask you this, because because you not only endorse, but you actively campaigned for and supported Liz Cheney in any way.
Was this was as painful to you?
I mean, did you go through a process of trying to understand what happened?
I'm I knew them well.
I I supported her in 2016.
And uh in this last election in 2020, she won 69% of the vote in Wyoming.
So a lot of people obviously supported Liz Cheney.
What we've been watching, though, over a period of time, starting in January, and I I I started thinking about running against her last spring, uh, and then that developed over time and then do and then put together my campaign, and we made the announcement in September after I received the endorsement of President Trump.
But it has been shocking to understand number one, her ignorance of the people in Wyoming, her lack of understanding where we are in Wyoming, and her lack of understanding of why we sent her to Washington, DC.
And it wasn't to go on a witch hunt.
It wasn't to align with Nancy Pelosi, and it wasn't to receive the endorsement of Kamala Harris.
So we have a situation where Kamala Harris is a doggone uh unpopular in her own party.
There are probably an awful lot of Democrats that don't want her endorsement.
Quick break, we'll come back.
We'll talk more with Harriet Hagerman, who is running against Liz Cheney in Wyoming in the Republican primary.
She's endorsed by Donald Trump.
Uh more with her, and then your calls and Eric Trump on the other side, straight ahead.
800-941 Sean, our number.
Listen, you don't only vote in November.
Look, every month.
Music.
Music.
All right, as we continue with Harriet Hagerman, she's running against Liz Cheney for the Republican primary in Wyoming.
Don't you think she probably knows she'll lose the primary?
And don't and is isn't there probably a bigger play at work here, like like partnering with say like the Lincoln Project and running for president.
You know, I'm not going to get into Liz Cheney's mind in that regard because I'm not going to speculate what she's doing or why.
What I will tell you is what I see and what I hear her say and where she's spending her time.
That's why I'm running against her.
Uh we we we do not want Liz Cheney representing Wyoming.
We don't want her using our speech uh to further an agenda, whatever that may be, whether it is to work with the Lincoln project or the Democrats or whomever it is.
She's not doing her job, so she needs to be fired.
And this is how we do it.
We have elections every two years to hold people accountable.
You asked me about her previous support.
Of course, that's the way politics work.
At some point you may support someone and then they do something politically that you disagree with, and you realize that they need that you don't want to support them anymore.
And that's this circumstance.
We're holding Liz Cheney accountable.
And I'm not only holding her accountable by voting against her, I'm running against her.
Because I'm going to give this people of Wyoming an alternative of someone who's actually from Wyoming, understands Wyoming, under has it Wyoming values, and is willing to further what Wyoming needs in terms of our lone congressional representative.
You know, it's ironically I've been to Wyoming and I went there.
They there was a charity that her father was involved in, which I like a lot, Rivers of Recovery.
And um for that's what PTSD and injuries, etc.
Um, although fly fishing is not for me because I don't have the patience to learn.
But um I will tell you that it's a beautiful place.
It is an incredible state, and the people were amazing uh when I was there, and I went in town and I had a chance to meet a lot of people.
But I appreciate you being on the program.
We're gonna follow this race, this this uh this primary very closely.
Uh Harriet Hageman, thank you so much for being with us.
Sean, just one thing.
For anybody who wants to learn more about my campaign, you can go to Hagman for Wyoming.com, and there is a lot of information about me, my background, our campaign, my agenda, my philosophy, and what I've done in terms of protecting Wyoming for the last thirty plus years.
So I appreciate the opportunity.
Keep up the good work on your end, and I love the opportunity to visit with you again.
We'll have you on again and we'll have you on TV.
Thank you for being with us, 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, when we come back, Eric Trump joins us, then your calls.
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 down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection