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.
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.
Day number 150.
All right, hour to Sean Hannity Show.
Thanks for being with us, 800-941-Sean on 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.
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 baby here in the sense that they would keep the mandate for those that work in medical hospitals, especially government-run hospitals.
So that's what the anticipation is or the consensus is among the lawyers that I talk to.
What's really amazing is how misinformed Supreme Court justices were.
You know, you have Justice Breyer saying 750 million people just affected, 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 a lot.
I don't mean to be facetious, but that's why I said 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, 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 Soda Mayor talking about 100,000 kids.
No, that wasn't anywhere near the truth either.
More like 3,500 kids.
Omicron is as deadly 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.
We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators.
We have over 100,000 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 going to get COVID.
We have so many people on record saying, oh, no, no, if you get vaccinated, you're never going to get COVID.
You'll be protected from COVID.
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 various shots that people are getting now cover that.
You're okay.
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 you can't judge based on the questioning of Supreme Court justices 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 John Roberts was extremely skeptical.
I think it was Alito that said you're trying to fit an elephant through a mousehole.
Yeah, Sean, look, thank you for having me.
I was actually in the courtroom that day for the 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 9-0.
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, 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 of the other.
But, you know, I'll say this for the chief.
He's tried to keep the politics out of it.
But if you look at these cases on the merit, it's a 9-0 our way.
I mean, it's just, you can't, there's no way you can 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's really absolutely ridiculous that we're having 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 recognized this during oral arguments, that we're going to get a decision any day now based on the law going into effect.
So, they understood the timeliness of their decision.
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, but might remain in place for hospital workers, especially government-run hospitals.
Your thoughts?
Well, you know, interesting, yes, I've heard a lot of the legal scholars and 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've got to 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 decises 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 if you take a deep dive into the legalese of the case, it's hard for them to strike the OSHA while upholding the CMS.
So, I don't know.
You know, it's going to be interesting.
It's going to be interesting.
We'll see if they split their verdict.
Overall, if they do, do you think that's the final say on this are Democrats going to 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, I mean, if they were a professional football team, they were nine punners on it.
But, look, I think that Justice Roberts picked up on that in 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 then, what I would say is interpret that as saying institute some nationwide vaccine policy by going agency by agency.
Maybe the court is trying 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, absent some direct, clear action by Congress.
And I would tell you, even action by Congress, I think, would come in conflict with some constitutional rights.
Yeah, fascinating case.
You've been in the forefront of this.
We can't thank you enough.
Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana, thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you for having me, Sean.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Cassandra's in Texas.
Cassandra, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to kind of share my story here.
I think it's important that people really understand, you know, the people that this mandate is really affecting.
I myself, I'm a single mom of two kids, and I work for one of the major pharmaceutical distributors in the country as a corporate account manager.
And last Friday, I was terminated along with several of my fellow employees because of the mandate.
We are remote employees.
There's no return to office at this point, and they still went ahead and terminated us.
The real kicker to the whole situation...
Slow down one second.
How many...
How long have you worked at this place?
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 did.
I went through the whole appeal, the whole process of, you know, requesting an accommodation.
I myself was requesting a religious accommodation, and as were my peers.
We were denied.
We were told that they aren't offering any accommodations.
However, we 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.
And they said they are not handing out any accommodations.
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 let me tell you one other thing that's happening with the massive contagious spread of Omicron, which, oh, 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 got this never-ending, you know, set of protocols that changes.
But I think you got a lawsuit.
And I don't know.
Absolutely.
There's a bigger piece to this component, too.
There are 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, who's exempt?
Say that again?
The distribution centers.
The workers at their distribution center that actually handle the medication and ship it to hospitals.
So wait a minute.
So the people that actually are in the office touching things, they got an exemption?
It doesn't even apply to them.
If you're a warehouse worker and you're working the distribution.
Okay, Cassandra, I now have enough information.
You're going to sue your company, former company, and you're going to win because that's called discrimination.
You're not allowed to 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 going to win.
Now, here's the problem with lawsuits.
Well, I mean, you probably would be better off having a local attorney where you live in Texas.
And I would just get somebody that's specializing in this field.
The problem for most people with attorneys, and I'm fortunate, you know, my attorney reminds me as I pay these exorbitant bills every month.
Well, it's the cost of doing business.
I'm like, yeah, I know.
The cost for me to stay in business is high.
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.
But I think you probably have a big lawsuit, and you probably win.
Thank you.
Well, I appreciate letting me share my story because, like I said, I'm very sorry.
I really am.
Many people, for sure.
How stupid is this?
You successfully worked from home for two years.
They don't need you in the office, and yet they're firing you because of the vaccine mandate.
That is as dumb as any policy as I've ever heard.
But if you work in a different department and you're in person, 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.
And we'll talk about the lawsuit he's got against the state of New York and much, much more.
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.
It was Nancy Pelosi that kicked off the committee.
Kevin McCarthy was participating.
It was supposed to be bipartisan.
And then Nancy Pelosi came in, threw 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 two biggest never-Trumpers in the Republican Party and 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 it's a committee with a predetermined outcome.
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 from arson and from looting.
And on this committee, they're trying to make the case.
Well, if any Republican had any questions or questioned the integrity of the outcome 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.
They said the same thing about Donald Trump in 2016.
Stacey Abrams, beloved by all Democrats, 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 Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian disinformation dossier.
And they used that dirty, unverifiable dossier to violate 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 that the way it works is after the president authorized the use, the calling up of the guard as required by law, well, then the chain of command goes to Nancy Pelosi 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 Benny Thompson, who is the chairman of this January 6th committee.
We learn that Nancy Pelosi is 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, nor has the sergeant-of-arms who she would have been communicating with, nor is Muriel Bowser being brought in as well.
So that's why I keep saying it's a predetermined outcome.
Anyway, which leads us to the issue of Liz Cheney.
I mean, I knew the Cheneys well, got along great with them.
I actually was very fond of the family when I knew them, when Dick Cheney was vice president.
I thought he was a very serious guy, understood foreign policy really well.
We didn't have the modern weaponry 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.
But, you know, 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 Hageman is running against Liz in Wyoming, has President Trump's endorsement, and the latest poll I showed had her up by 18 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.
Listen, it's a bit of a I'm trying to wrap 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 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 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 some of the other issues you raised before you brought me onto 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 they're all in that camp.
Did Liz Cheney ever stand up and speak out loudly against the witch hunt, the Russia hoax, the Russian disinformation dossier?
Because I don't recall that she was involved.
And she keeps saying that 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 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 pieces of misinformation that was put out there was in the summer of 2020 when President Trump was attacked with the alleged Russian bounties on our soldiers' head 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 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 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, well, I think there's evidence of that.
Liz Cheney was all over the Sunday programs last week, 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 as his supporters were invading the capital of the United States is clearly unfit for future office, clearly can never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again.
All right, that sounds to me like a predetermined outcome.
Now, my question is, and 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.
I've been very clear, 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 that day and the days leading up to this be off limits?
Well, it wouldn't be.
And any trial attorney Worth or Salt knows that discovery is what goes before you actually have the trial and the outcome and the decision made.
And the fact that they're identifying particular areas of information and evidence that they claim is 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 discovery rules, 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 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 we don't hear a word or peep out of them.
Is it only the riots that impact Washington that matter?
Well, 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 connected politician in Washington, D.C., 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 and Minneapolis?
Weren't they entitled to protection as well?
As I was going to say a moment ago, what has always 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 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 the police officers at the federal agents in 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, D.C.
That would be the decision of the American people, Harriet, in my view.
Let me ask you this, because you not only endorsed, but you actively campaigned for and supported Liz Cheney.
In any way, was this painful to you?
I mean, did you go through a process of trying to understand what happened?
Because I did.
I knew them well.
I supported her in 2016.
And 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 started thinking about running against her last spring, and then that developed over time 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, D.C.
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 doggone unpopular in her own party.
There are probably an awful lot of Democrats that don't want her endorsement.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll talk more with Harriet Hageman, who is running against Liz Cheney in Wyoming in the Republican primary.
She's endorsed by Donald Trump.
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.
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 isn't there probably a bigger play at work here, like partnering, would 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.
We do not want Liz Cheney representing Wyoming.
We don't want her using our speech 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 the 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, has 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.
There was a charity that her father was involved in, which I like a lot, Rivers of Recovery.
And for vets with PTSD and injuries, et cetera.
Although fly fishing is not for me because I don't have the patience to learn.
But I will tell you that it's a beautiful place.
It is an incredible state.
And the people were amazing 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 going to follow this race, this primary very closely.
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 hegmanforwyoming.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 30 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.
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 iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection