All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
34:34
Roe vs. Wade - July 5th, Hour 3

In this "Best Of" Attorney Alan Dershowitz breaks down the legal arguments around Roe. vs. Wade! It was a legendary few weeks for the Supreme Court and it was a win for the rule of law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| 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.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
All right, news roundup, information overload hour, 800-941-Sean is our number.
We're going to get reaction to Roe v.
Wade being overturned today.
We'll get it from Professor Alan Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett will join us.
First, let me play the media mob reaction to this.
And by the way, they're just not telling people the truth.
They're not telling people.
Abortion has not been outlawed.
States will now decide individually what their restrictions, if any, will be on abortion.
Some states will be very liberal.
They'll allow abortion up until the moment of birth, as we have been discussing and arguing for a long time now.
Other states will have restrictions.
Some states may not allow it at all.
Time will tell.
Anyway, here's the media reaction.
Yeah, it's listen, it's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country.
Sorry, I'm getting, you know, watching the women there.
It's emotional.
It's a real problem.
And people are talking about privacy issues.
You know, can states who are trying to criminalize abortion, not just of the women getting them, but of doctors providing them, of people driving them to the clinic, are they going to be able to search your apps?
You know, there's apps that track menstrual cycles.
You know, how far are these states going to try to go?
We are here not because of law, but because of politics.
This is a six to three conservative supermajority that has overruled a right that's been in place for almost 50 years.
What we have here is a naked political grab because they can, because they have the numbers to do so.
All right, joining us now, Greg Jarrett, Fox News contributor, author of two number one best-selling books.
He hosts his own podcast, The Brief.
Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and former, I guess, professor emeritus at Harvard University, Havid.
I don't think they'd ever take me at Harvard, Professor.
I don't know why.
I just, you know, I don't think I qualify.
I would take you in a minute.
I would love to have you in my class.
I would love to go just because I find you so fascinating and we've become good friends.
I wouldn't have to be the devil's advocate.
You would be the devil personified in my class.
I could argue with you the way I argued with Ted Cruz when he was in my class.
By the way, you have said that.
You said Ted Cruz was one of your best students ever.
Yeah, he was because he made every argument that his students hated.
And if he hadn't been in class, I would have to make those arguments, but he made them more authentically from the heart.
So I loved having him as a student.
He was one of my favorite students and one of my very best.
All right, last question before we move on to today's Supreme Court decision.
Were you a tough, are you a tough grader or are you, is an A, really hard to get in your class?
Very hard to get.
I'm a very tough grader.
What did Cruz get?
Can you tell us?
What did Ted Cruz get?
I know what he got, but I can't tell you.
I'm not allowed.
Right to privacy.
Here we go, right?
All right.
We have two decisions back to back.
And the way I look at it, Professor, we'll start with you.
Greg, we're not ignoring you, I promise.
And we had the Supreme Court decision on the New York gun law yesterday.
And now we have the Supreme Court decision on overturning Roe today.
Now, the way I see it, Professor, and Andrew, I think you're going to disagree with me.
Maybe that's fine.
Is that we have an enumerated right in our Constitution.
It's the Second Amendment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Last night you talked about a well-regulated militia, and I pointed out that our own government at the time defined that as the whole of people, meaning every individual.
But that's an enumerated specific right spelled out in the Constitution.
As it relates to abortion, and even Ruth Beta Ginsburg recognized the fallacy of Roe v.
Wade on numerous occasions, not quite saying it's bad law, but saying she had problems with it, is that it is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.
It was an inferred right or a right made up by Supreme Court justices in 1973.
And then I would argue constitutionally, if we're going to be purist here, that at that point, the Constitution does provide the outlet for such decisions to be made, and that would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
No, you're 100% right.
The two decisions on the surface look like they go in opposite directions.
The gun decision says states do not have the right to regulate guns, and the abortion decision says states do have the right to regulate and indeed ban abortions.
But you're right.
One of them is based on the Second Amendment, the gun, although the Second Amendment is a little ambiguous.
It doesn't just say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It talks about a well-regulated militia.
And the abortion case, although abortion is not mentioned, neither is birth control.
But the right of privacy is implicit in the Fourth Amendment.
It says the right of the people to be secure in their bodies.
But the difference is that abortion is a conflict of rights.
You have the right of the fetus.
Obviously, a fetus is not an appendix.
It's a real thing.
It's a potential person versus the right of the woman.
Whereas in gun control, I don't think you have the same kind of conflicting rights.
But look, the Supreme Court made its decision.
It's the law of the land.
And now people who want to grant women the right to have reasonable abortions during a reasonable time of the pregnancy have to opt for legislation.
They have to go democratic.
I don't mean democratic with the big D, with a small D.
They have to use democracy to try to win and prevail in legislatures.
That's what we're doing.
Would anything prevent people from crossing over state lines?
For example, if a state has more restrictive laws on abortion, would anything prevent them from going to New Mexico, California, New York, or New Jersey, Professor?
I don't think so.
There will be some states that will try to pass statutes saying you can't cross state lines for purposes of getting an abortion.
That will be held unconstitutional even by this court.
I agree with you.
Freedom to travel allows people to cross state lines.
People do it all the time with guns.
If you buy guns, now they can prevent you from bringing it into the state, but they can't prevent you from going to a different state and buying a gun which may have less restrictive ownership.
So I think we're in the middle of a changing world on abortion.
This is not.
I agree with you, but I think the American people will figure out by Election Day that abortion is still legal in America, Greg Jarrett, in spite of all the hype and hyperbole and demagoguery going on.
Yeah, the predictable anger and hysteria is overwrought, as you point out, Sean.
Abortion is not now outlawed nationwide.
In some states, abortion will be permitted with few or no restrictions.
Elsewhere, the opposite.
And if citizens dislike the rules in their respective states, they're free to change them by voicing their discontent at the ballot box.
They can elect new representatives.
That is how democracy functions in a constitutional republic.
But, you know, looking purely at the Constitution as a lawyer, today's abortion reversal restores constitutional principles.
For 49 years, the Supreme Court has struggled to justify its decision in Roe versus Wade.
And it was, frankly, it was difficult to defend the indefensible.
And as you point out, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed serious misgivings because nowhere in the text or the structure or the meaning of the Constitution can a privacy right to abortion be found.
It's neither explicit nor implicit.
In Roe, the justices, I believe, simply invented a right that does not exist.
This was a regrettable mistake.
And in the Dobbs case today, the Supreme Court, courageously, I think, in the face of threats and intimidation, decided to reverse the wrongful ruling handed down back then.
You know, Professor, let me go back to you.
Let me ask a question, Jarrett.
Does that mean that you believe that states could totally ban birth control?
Because there's no mention of birth control in the Constitution.
It's only implicit in the right of privacy, and there's no fetus involved.
There's just nobody has the right to be conceived and be born.
Do you think this opinion means that a state could ban birth control the way Connecticut tried to do when I was a young married man in New Haven and Griswold versus Connecticut was decided based on privacy, which gave married couples the right to use birth control?
To its credit, the majority opinion foreclosed that legitimate concern, Professor, that you're expressing concerns of many that fear the opinion will impact other valued rights.
The justices made it very clear in their language that this ruling applies only to abortion.
Nothing in the decision, they said, affects other rights, such as contraception and same-sex marriage.
There are inherently different rights derived from and protected by the Constitution.
But Justice Thomas says it does involve those rights.
And your interpretation of the opinion.
But he's the sole person that said that.
If you look at Alito's opinion and you look at the comments of Kavanaugh, they contradict that.
There's no question.
Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice contradict it.
The opinion itself, the opinion of Alito, is a little ambiguous, but look, that's the fight we're going to have.
There's no question that birth control laws are going to be challenged, miscegenation laws are going to be challenged, gay rights laws are going to be challenged.
They're all going to be challenged.
But I think I agree with you.
I think the Supreme Court will stop at the same time.
Professor, if I may, they explicitly said that this decision does not make the interpretation.
This will be a precedent for these other cases.
I think they were signaling very strongly that that is not the case.
Did you not interpret it that way?
No, I interpreted it that way.
It said this decision didn't do that.
But you're going to get people who say that the underlying approach that says you have to have an explicit right addressed in the Constitution will be seen by litigants and by some lower courts to raise questions about some of these other rights.
I think the Supreme Court will stick by its guns.
Look, I think there's a big difference.
Abortion involves a victim.
The fetus is not an appendix.
It's a real potential life.
Whereas gay marriage, nobody's damn business who marries who.
It's nobody's damn business if a black man marries a white woman.
It's nobody's business if anybody uses birth control.
There's no countervailing right.
Whereas in abortion, there is a countervailing right of the fetus.
So I think that's the distinction.
Well, Professor, I agree with everything you just said, and I'm pretty certain Greg Jarrett does as well, Greg?
True?
I 100%, even though I think the professor were his student would probably give me a C or a D.
But by the way, I probably get an F. Don't worry about it.
I think it took courage for the members of the court to stand firm in the threat in the face of threatened violence, the harassment that escalated.
I'm disappointed that Attorney General Merrick Garland took no action to enforce the law that makes it a crime to obstruct an ongoing judicial proceeding.
This was an unlawful attempt by protesters to try to unduly influence with intimidation the forthcoming decision.
And I think it's a huge difference.
Well, we all better be concerned, Greg.
Because, you know, there are groups out there like Jane's Revenge that are pledging unrest and what sounds like more when you read what they've been sending out and different flyers that have been all over Washington, D.C.
And you see, you know, we've had big crowds at the Supreme Court all day.
Right.
And the same rules have to apply to right-wing demonstrations, left-wing demonstrations.
You can't have a rule for what happened on January 6th and a rule that would happen if, God forbid, James.
Professor, I condemned it in real time on this program, as you know.
I just remember, of course.
And I said it that night on TV.
What I don't understand is why we ignored the 574 riots in the summer of 2020 that the media and the left told us were mostly peaceful and thousands of cops injured, billions of property damaged, and a couple of dozen dead Americans in that process.
I've said the same thing.
You and I completely agree on that.
One standard rule: the First Amendment doesn't recognize whether you agree or disagree with what people are protesting.
The same standard has to apply to right and left, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans.
Oh, I agree with you on that part.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back more with Professor Alan Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett on the other side.
Then we'll get to your calls, 800-941-SHAWN, our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Sean Hannity is on the radio right now.
All right, we continue our analysis.
Roe v.
Wade overturned today.
We continue with Professor Alan Dershowitz and Greg Jarrett with us for analysis.
Let me ask you from an intellectual honesty part, and I also believe, first of all, you're not a real rigid ideologue.
I see you almost more as libertarian.
In a way, isn't it better that in the sense that the states now get to decide this?
Isn't there a part of you that says, you know what, the federal government has really no business if we believe in the concept of federalism involving itself in a broad sweeping decision like this, that it really should be up to the states.
Is there a part of you that believes that?
There definitely is.
And I said it back in 1973.
I do think that when you had a decision that's been on the books for 50 years, you should wait till it's absolutely imperative to decide the case.
This case wasn't that case.
In this case, the only real issue was whether the 15 weeks of Mississippi was constitutional.
The court did not have to reach out and overruler over versus wade in this opinion.
It would have done it in another opinion, a year from now or two years from now.
It just moved a little bit too quickly.
And I do think that this decision, and you may disagree with me, is going to help the Democrats at the polls.
I think people who are on the line on the fence, who have daughters and nieces and granddaughters, who might want to have abortions in states where they would otherwise vote Republican, might vote Democrat if they think that the Democrats will give their grandchildren the right to have an abortion in the first seven weeks or eight weeks.
So I don't know.
It's unpredictable, but it conceivably could be.
I think the high cost of gasoline and inflation is going to also play a big impact.
And once people find out, oh, abortion is still legal in America, I think they'll realize whatever the hyperbole and demagoguery comes out of the left's mouth in the days and weeks ahead won't be as relevant in November.
That's my guess.
We'll see.
Professor, thank you.
Greg Jarrett, thank you.
Love having you both on the program, as always.
Quick break right back.
Your calls on the other side, straight ahead.
Hey, there's still a lot more ahead on the best of the Sean Hannity Show.
Stay tuned for more right after news on this station.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Howe.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
So with the biggest month ever in history in terms of illegal immigrants crossing into the country illegally, but remember, they get preferential treatment.
There's no background check.
There's no COVID testing.
There's no vaccine mandate.
You get a free Biden phone and free transportation on a chartered aircraft to one of the 48 states in the continental U.S. Anyway, Greg Abbott, after the death of these 53 migrants in the back of this 18-wheeler, said Joe Biden has blood on his hands.
And he also said they're dying.
People are dying because Biden doesn't enforce the laws.
Here's what he said.
Every year there are many reports about migrants who lose their lives in the heat.
I was visiting with the sheriff moments ago, and he was telling me reports about how there have been multiple people in just the past week who had lost their lives, mostly from heat exhaustion.
There may have been, in addition to that, one or two who lost their lives in the river.
This is harsh terrain and harsh weather.
And because of the way that the Biden administration is not enforcing the immigration laws, it's attracting people and enticing people to make this very dangerous trek, causing them to lose their lives.
I urge the president, stop the loss of lives.
You have the ability to stop people from losing their lives if you make it clear that no one can come across illegally.
There's a perfectly legal way that people can immigrate to the United States of America.
So, what does our borders are do?
Does she step up, take responsibility, beyond going to Latin America to deal with the root causes of illegal immigration, as she calls it?
No, she lashes out at Governor Abbott for pointing out the obvious.
She didn't lash out at the Mexican president, but pretty much Abbott and the Mexican president said the same thing.
So she just lashes out at Governor Abbott.
Listen.
Really highlights part of the problem because his response, where there are 50 dead bodies in his state, is to go straight to politics instead of dealing with the realities of the issue.
We also need to take seriously the fact that we have a broken immigration system that was decimated by the last administration.
And we've been trying to, and we are on the path doing it, to fix that broken system.
How could she say any of that with a straight face?
Our giggling at all inappropriate moments, Vice President.
I mean, it's insane.
We had Stay in Mexico.
That policy was in place.
President Trump built the border wall, some 500-plus miles of it.
We ended the insanity of catch and release.
Now, Joe Biden and she have both doubled down on process and release.
They're releasing anybody into the country.
It's pretty unbelievable.
And she hasn't lifted a finger to fix the problem at the border.
And what she says about Governor Abbott's just a lie.
He's down there almost on a weekly basis at a minimum.
Mark Morgan, former acting CBP commissioner, heritage visiting fellow, Tom Holman, former acting ICE director, also a heritage visiting fellow.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
Mark Morgan, I'll ask you: you know, they're blaming Donald Trump and Donald Trump had the border under control.
Donald, you know, the stay in Mexico policy, this goes to the heart of the Supreme Court case today.
That was the one big case that didn't go our way.
That policy worked wonders during the Trump administration.
Sean, everything you said, I couldn't have said better myself.
You're spot on.
Look, I'll steal Tom Holman's line.
With this administration, it had the most secure border in our lifetime, and they intentionally unsecured the border.
It's not real complicated.
If you have a system of deterrence and consequences, you're going to stop illegal immigration.
You're going to stop death and destruction.
By February of 2020, we had reduced illegal immigration by 85%.
Think about that.
Look, we're just talking about the 53, the track for trailer incident, the worst single smuggling incident in our history.
But look, Sean, we haven't even talked about the 700-plus dead migrants that have been recovered at our border, the thousands, untold numbers that have become victims of trafficking, and those that have been victimized on their journey up here.
Those are also untold numbers.
Everything that this president and the Secretary of America and Vice President has just been saying is an absolute abject lie.
And the last thing I'll say, Sean, when is enough enough?
How many more Americans and migrants have to die before we say we must secure a border and save lives?
Governor Abbott is right.
The blood of these 53 human beings are in the hands of Secretary America and President Biden.
Tom Holman, we'll get your take.
Well, look, I agree with everything Mark said, but she makes a statement that the immigration system is broken.
They broke it.
And I'm sick and tired.
The Secretary goes on TV.
Well, you know, the fire administration dismantled the system.
No, the prior administration developed a system that gave us an 85% decrease in illegal immigration at a 40-year low.
And we come to these deaths.
I got an argument reporter yesterday, the moron.
He says, well, we had track and travel deaths during the Bush administration, Mr. Holman, because you're the one that investigated it.
You've been TV talking about it.
I said, well, here's the difference.
Under last few years of the Trump administration, when he successfully got immigration down at 85%, do the map.
If we took 85% of the cars off the highway, would we have less highway deaths?
Of course.
I says, and Dr. Lee Border says 31% of women that make the journey get sexually assaulted by the cartels.
When illegal immigration is at a 40-year low, when it's down 85%, less people come.
Less people put themselves in the hands of criminal cartels who don't give a damn about them.
So more people die.
This administration broke a lot of records.
As Mark said, they got the record of migrant deaths under Joe Biden.
Tell me that that's humane.
They got the record on illegal immigration.
They got the record on Americans dying of overdose death.
And they got the record a few days ago.
This is the most tragic incident of migrant deaths in the history of this nation.
This administration failed.
The only one that dismantled the system is the Biden administration.
He does have blood on his hands.
These people would not have crossed under the last two years of Donald Trump because immigration was so low.
We detained people, we removed people.
There wasn't catch or release.
When you make the promise, cross our border, you won't be detained, and ICE can't arrest you because you're just simply here illegally.
The most vulnerable people in the world are going to take that risk.
And they didn't do it under President Trump.
What do we know about this new caravan that has formed?
We're told there are reports the largest caravan to date, Mark Morgan.
Yeah, look, this is something Tom and I and others, Sean, have been talking about.
This is very predictable.
We know all the players.
It's the same organizers that have been there in the past.
Now they feel more empowered and more involved than ever.
And this latest Supreme Court decision that says now the administration can absolutely get rid of Title 42.
It's just another message among many.
It's not the only one, but it's one message among many that right now sends a message to the entire world, Sean, that if you come to our borders, you enter illegally, there will be no consequences.
In fact, we will help facilitate your entry and we will reward you from illegally entering.
And it goes back to what Tom said.
Think about it.
Who's not going to come?
I mean, it's not complicated.
If there's no deterrence, they're going to come.
And Secretary Marika, Sean, I know you and I've talked about this before.
One of his taglines is that they're developing a safe, orderly, and humane system.
It's a crock.
It's an absolute lie.
There is no such thing as a safe, orderly, and humane, illegal immigration process.
It's an oxymoron, and he knows it.
And this caravan that is forming multiple caravans is just another indication of how the tsunami is going to continue to come.
Migrants are going to continue to literally risk and lose their lives because this administration's policies and they're rolling out the welcome map to the entire world.
And we may not see the full consequences of open borders for maybe even years to come.
We know that we have had encounters with people that have radical associations.
And, you know, to me, Tom Holman, it's very simple.
I support legal immigration.
I don't really care what country you come from.
Just do it legally, work within the system.
Then you have to have a background check to make sure you don't have radical associations.
In the middle of a pandemic, I think you need a health check.
That would mean, yes, you need to be tested for COVID, et cetera.
Then I would also say that you have to prove your ability to take care of yourself, that you won't be a financial burden on the American people.
To me, all of those things are common sense.
None of those things are happening.
And then you add to this, you know, preferential treatment with free phones and free transportation.
Most Americans, they're not getting free phones.
They're not getting free transportation.
Everything you just said was in President Trump's immigration plan that he's sent to.
And the first two years didn't support him.
Everything you said was in his plan.
Me and Mark weren't the right house.
We worked in that plan.
So it makes perfect sense.
But here's something important that no one's talking about.
And I want your listeners to understand this.
Why did President Trump put the Remain a Metro program?
Because he knew two data points.
Number one data point: the immigration court data says nine out of ten Central Americans who claim asylum at the border never get released from the U.S. courts because they either don't show up, they don't qualify.
And what happens that nine out of ten that gets ordered removed by a federal judge?
According to the Homeland Security Life Cycle Report, if you're an AUAC and ailing child, you leave 3% of the time.
If you're a family unit, you leave 6% of the time.
If you're a single adult, you leave 22% of the time.
President Trump said, what the hell are we doing?
If 90% lose their case or committing fraud and only 3% to 6% leave when they're ordered, why the hell we keep doing it?
So these people, now that Remain Metro's off the table now, 90% more people commit fraud.
They don't qualify.
They lose their case and they go nowhere because ICE is not allowed to even look for them now.
So the 3% and 6%, consider that a good number because it's going to be 0.30% now.
This is a part of their plan of open borders.
And now that we open borders, let's stop interior enforcement so they never leave.
Well, they're never going to leave.
And I think Democrats then will hold out something of great value and hope that in exchange for citizenship, oh, maybe you'll like us better than these other guys.
I do think there's a political component to it.
Historically, I know there's been Republicans that want cheap labor and Democrats that want to give amnesty in the hopes that they will get votes in return.
So everyone's got their own agenda to that.
Quick break, we'll come back.
We'll continue.
800-941-SHAWN is our number.
More with Tom Homan and Mark Morgan on the Supreme Court ruling.
America listens to Sean Hannity.
And he's on, on, on, on, on, right now.
All right, we continue with Mark Morgan, former CBP commissioner, and Tom Holman, former acting ICE director, based on today's Supreme Court decision.
Well, sadly, not keeping the Remain in Mexico policy adopted by Donald Trump.
I don't care, again, where you come from, Mark Morgan.
I just want you to do it legally like my grandparents did when they came to Ellis Island from Ireland at the turn of the last century.
Yeah, Sean, it's that simple.
Tom and I have had to discuss that 100 times as well.
We're all for legal immigration.
And look, we're all for even having discussion of how we can improve our legal immigration system.
We're all in.
But this is about illegal immigration.
But, Sean, more importantly, I know you know this, is that this is first and foremost about border security.
And what a lot of people, what this administration continues to lie to American people about is somehow you could support and be for border security while at the same time support illegal immigration.
It doesn't work that way.
They're mutually connected.
They're not mutually exclusive.
As illegal immigration goes up, our ability to secure our border goes down.
Why?
Because 80, 90% of our border tour resources are pulled off their front line and they're fulfilling administrative duty, hospital watch, detention assignments, as well as processing.
What happens?
Large areas of border are wide open, unmonitored, unsecure.
What's happened?
Drugs are pouring in, killing Americans, the highest record we ever had, as Tom said.
We've got criminals, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members that are pouring in, and a national security threat.
I mean, Sean, how much more do we need?
I mean, we just recently.
I got more.
There's an article on the Free Beacon that says the Homeland Security Department and the State Department last week amended federal immigration laws to allow foreigners who provided insignificant material support to designated terror groups to receive immigration benefits or other status according to the policy published in the Federal Register.
And examples of these individuals would fall into a new category according to the announcement, including individuals who provided humanitarian assistance or routine commercial transaction to terror groups.
And most believe this is part of the Iranian negotiation the Biden administration is involved in because they won't get domestic energy here.
So they're begging the Iranians.
That would mean individuals that work for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard that has killed hundreds of Americans would now have access to our borders.
Last word, Tom Holman.
This is exactly right.
Look, the Board Patrol has already admitted they arrested 50 people on Terror Screen Database.
We got over 800,000 gotaways, recorded gotaways on camera, drone, and central traffic.
800,000.
Board Patrols arrested people from 161 countries.
Many of this country sponsored terrorism.
If you don't think a single one of the 800,000 gotaways came here to do us harm as a terrorist, then you're ignorant of the data.
And I'll say one more thing: that the Board of Patrols have been pushed so hard to process people and release them quickly because they don't want overcrowding.
Nothing to see here.
No overcrowding.
They've even released no suspected terrorists.
Bill Malusha broke a story two weeks ago.
They processed a guy that couldn't wait for his vending to clear and heard him release him.
Two days later, he's hot and they had to go find him.
How many more cases like that?
So we have to have Betty there to release him quicker than they get the vetting back.
I appreciate both of you.
Thanks for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
▲
Export Selection