All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
32:24
President Trump's "Trumponomics" - July 26th, Hour2
| 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 Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Katherine 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.
Hour two, Sean Hannity's show, toll-free.
It's 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, we have an update involving Joe Biden and Zero Experience Hunter.
Now, the laptop from hell has shown us a lot of things, not the least of which is Joe Biden lied repeatedly when he said he didn't have discussions with his son not one single time about his foreign business dealings.
I mean, clearly that was obvious when he leveraged a billion taxpayer dollars to get a prosecutor in Ukraine fired, or else they weren't going to get the billion.
Son of a bee, they did it.
They fired him in six hours.
Just let you know that something's going on.
He knew his son was being investigated by that prosecutor.
We have a dual system of justice in America.
We don't have equal justice under the law anymore.
We don't have equal application of our laws anymore.
I've said this over and over again.
Just to refresh your memory, Joe Biden said over and over again, not one time.
Now, remember, we have pictures now of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and foreign business associates.
We have pictures of them.
Sounds like the family, the Biden syndicate, might be compromised.
But Joe said he never knew a thing.
But yet Hunter complains bitterly about paying all of his father's bills, complains bitterly about putting aside all the money for the big guy.
It's all there.
Tony Bobolinski was in on those meetings.
Nobody wants to talk to Tony Bobolinski.
Why not?
Anyway, just to refresh your memory.
Hey, President, how many times have you ever spoken to your son about his overseas business dealings?
I've never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.
I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else anything having to do with their businesses.
Period.
And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration.
There will be an absolute wall between personal and private and the government.
Do you stand by your statement that you did not discuss any of your son's overseas business deals?
Yes, I stand by that statement.
Yes, I stand by that statement.
Now, remember, you know, why did he get paid billion?
Why did he make millions from Russia?
Why did he get a $1.5 billion deal with the Bank of China?
Why are they all these concessions to all these hostile regimes?
Why would you import oil from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, OPEC, when you can produce it all domestically?
You know, Putin has now cut back to 20% of the normal gas supplies that he was providing Germany in retaliation.
You would think we'd learn the lesson from that, but apparently not.
Anyway, we now have a big story breaking.
Senator Charles Grassley, as well as Senator Ron Johnson, saying there's a cover-up that the FBI and DOJ tried to bury damning evidence against Hunter.
You know, it's been obvious since 2016.
The FBI is politicized.
Now, under Merrick Garland, the DOJ is politicized.
You know, the FBI's attempts to sabotage Trump's presidential election and his presidency.
It's over three plus years of never-ending lies.
You know, just the fact they abused FISA laws is one massive example.
But anyway, it looks like Grassley has developed several sources within the FBI, whistleblowers, that are telling him things that probably the FBI doesn't want public, that the FBI and the Justice Department have been accused of highly credible whistleblowers of burying verified and verifiable dirt on President Biden's troubled son, Hunter, by correctly dismissing the intelligence as disinformation.
In other words, they're saying it's being done on purpose.
Grassley actually said the information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI's receipt and use of derogatory information related to Hunter Biden, the FBI's false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation.
He wrote this to Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wright.
You have an obligation to the country to take these allegations seriously.
Well, you would have taken it seriously years ago when Hunter went on GMA and admitted he had no experience, but yet he's being paid millions for his, what, portraits of a crack addict.
He makes money on art.
You know, here you have a crack addict and a guy that likes prostitutes with no experience in energy, oil, gas, or Ukraine, but he's getting paid millions.
Who else would want this deal?
This is what he said to GMA.
When he said, I hope you know what you're doing, what did he think you were doing?
Well, he read the press reports that I joined the board of Burisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company.
And there's been a lot of misinformation about me, not about my dad.
Nobody buys that, but it buys this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.
What were your qualifications to be on the board of Burisma?
Well, I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years.
I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Program.
I was a lawyer for Boyce Schiller-Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.
You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though.
No.
But I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board, if not more.
Oh, no good.
But why do you think you got all that money?
I don't know.
Maybe because your father's in charge.
Yeah, that's it.
David Schoon is with us.
By the way, he's also representing Steve Bannon in his most recent case.
We'll ask him about that in a second.
So now you've got whistleblowers.
It sounds like from within the FBI saying that the Biden, FBI, and DOJ are burying damning evidence on Hunter.
Yeah, it's really pretty shocking stuff.
But, you know, it's what results when we have no checks and balances anymore.
You have Congress working hand in hand to cover up these stories.
They're perfectly happy with it happening.
Remember, there are no policy initiatives from the Democratic side right now.
So you have things like January 6th Committee is their policy initiative and covering up any bad news.
But you have to take a step back, I think.
You know, we talked about the investigation that President Donald Trump called for into the Ukraine situation with Hunter Biden years ago.
That got him impeached, asking for an investigation.
That tells you how seriously the Democratic side takes these things.
And you covered it back then, and you exposed all these things back then.
But we have a bad institutional memory.
It's all coming around now, full circle.
And now we see, fortunately, we have people like Senators Grassley and Johnson who are going to point it out.
To me, Merrick Garland is one of the biggest disappointments.
I know many people felt when the Supreme Court nomination came up, you know, he wasn't qualified and so on.
I had a case in front of him, thought he was a very legitimate judge and all that.
He's been completely politicized now in this Justice Department.
Some of the comments he's made, it's shocking to me, but there seems to be no end to it.
I think that, you know, Jerry Nather summed this all up a long time ago when he said, we can't trust the voters.
I think that was sort of a green light for all of this kind of corruption that goes on.
I have no doubt while all these people that lied to the FISA court know, why do I believe if I lied to a FISA court and I told the court that information is verified when it's completely unverifiable and demonstrably false, which it became, which everybody knew, and then they still continue to file the new FISA warrants or extensions to the original FISA application.
And if I lied to a court, why do I think I'd probably be in jail whether I had you, a great attorney that you are, or an army of great attorneys?
I don't think any of you can keep me out of prison.
So we've seen that double standard with everything.
I mean, how many Enron was prosecuted for obstruction of justice by Andrew Weissman and Lisa Monaco, the current deputy attorney general.
But Hillary Clinton destroyed all of those emails.
Nothing happened.
We've seen this double standard, I mean, in shocking terms all across the board.
And you're 100% right to keep focusing on the FISA applications because these were lies to get the most intrusive surveillance on American citizens and others that our technology allows.
If you would lie there, you're going to continue to lie.
You have no credibility.
All right.
Let's talk about the case.
And I've known you for many, many years.
And I watched pretty closely the case involving Steve Bannon being held in contempt by the January 6th Committee.
And it looked like even before you walked into the courtroom, every avenue that you would pursue in terms of a legal defense was shut down by the judge right from the get-go.
So you really didn't have the ability to put on the defense you would have liked to have put on.
And I heard your comments after the verdict.
You didn't put on a defense in that case.
I think I know why, because I think you basically figured that it's already a foregone conclusion on terms of the verdict because you couldn't put the defense forward that you wanted, and you were planning on an appeal at that point.
Am I wrong?
You're 100% right.
You know, one week before the trial started, the judge ruled on our motions to dismiss and barred every defense in the case.
I made a decision at that point, and I said to the judge, by doing this, you will require me to provide ineffective assistance of counsel.
I made a decision that I would not participate.
I was hired as leg counsel in the case.
I made a decision I would not participate in opening or closing or in the examination of witnesses under those circumstances with all defenses barred.
I raised the legal issues, and I continue to do that.
And we will win the appeal in the case.
But yes, the judge, listen, Steve Bannon got the subpoena.
His lawyer wrote a letter saying he wants to comply.
Executive privilege has been invoked.
If you'll take us before a judge and the judge orders the privilege is not valid or not so broad, I will testify.
I will give you the documents, period.
They chose not to do that.
That's the normal course of things.
Go to a civil enforcement proceeding.
By the way, people need to know the history of this.
This has not happened since 1974.
And G. Gordon Liddy, just so people understand, historically, this doesn't happen.
Eric Holder was never charged in the case when he was held in contempt at Congress.
There's a whole host of Democrats that were held in contempt of Congress, and nothing ever happens to them.
And before this administration, the Justice Department has had a policy for at least six decades, back to the 50s, that when executive privilege is invoked, this criminal statute will not apply, and Congress may not pursue it.
Executive privilege is entitled to a presumption of validity.
It's not for Congress to decide whether it applies or how broadly it applies.
But yeah, so that's the background.
President Trump invoked executive privilege.
Here's the question, though, that I think would be relevant, considering that Steve Bannon had been out of the administration.
I've known Steve Bannon for years, and we usually get along, not always, but we usually get along.
I have a lot of respect for him.
He could have walked in.
He could have pled the fifth, walked out, and they couldn't lay a hand on him.
He chose not to do that, which means he was willing to go to the mat for what he believes here.
And I got, you know, I respect people that stand on their principles.
I really do.
So he could have had an easy out here.
He chose not to.
Why?
100% right.
He said he would never take the fifth.
He said he wanted to testify.
They don't want to hear Steve Bannon's testimony.
That's clear because even now, when President Trump removed privilege on July 9th, Bannon's lawyer wrote another letter saying he wants to testify.
He wants to comply with the subpoena now.
But he'd like to do it publicly.
They said, oh, no, no, you don't set the rules.
You'll come in.
You'll do it privately just with us.
We'll decide if it goes public.
The last thing they want to freeze.
And then they'll cut dice and slice it like they did with everybody else's.
Now, I've called for them to release all of the interviews in full from all the people that they brought in and let the public see it that way rather than filtered through a committee of people, all of whom hate Donald Trump and voted to impeach him.
That's right.
And not just a committee.
Remember, we have a television executive who is hired specifically to produce this circus of the hearings going on.
So the American public is seeing fully edited snippets that this committee of complete Trump haters wants to show them.
What I say is the committee, unfortunately, is illegitimate from the start.
You cannot pick an entire committee of all one political mindset.
Let me stay on the law issue, though, for just a second here, because I think this is an important question because he had left the administration, and this is post-his time in the administration.
Does executive privilege in that circumstance still apply?
I just don't know the legal aspect of it.
There's no question executive privilege applies, and the Justice Department has an opinion directly on that, an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.
The question is whether this sort of immunity or whether the obligation to appear before the committee doesn't apply because the Justice Department has said if you're a former executive branch member or current executive branch member, you cannot be forced to appear and the criminal statute doesn't apply.
Quick break more with attorney David Schoen on the other side.
Then we'll get to your calls, 800-941-Sean.
Our number, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll update you more in this horrific economic news.
Today's just bad day one of the bad news.
is on right now.
We continue with David Schoen, former counsel for President Trump and civil liberties attorney, now the counsel for Steve Bannon.
What is the next step in this?
Obviously, it's an appeal.
Where do you appeal to, and how high up can you possibly take this?
Would it maybe make it to the Supreme Court, which I think would be a fascinating case?
Yeah, many scholars have said that it will go to the Supreme Court.
Alan Dershowitz has said you'll absolutely win the appeal.
The question is whether you get a good panel at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where we go next, or you have to do the Supreme Court.
By the way, I don't wish you a lot of luck in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
I understand, but listen, we have a remarkable situation in this case.
This judge, the question turns on willfully.
The statute requires you to willfully violate it.
This judge said that he's bound by a 1961 decision that says willfully in this case only means did you get a subpoena and did you not go?
It doesn't matter your reasons.
So this jury was instructed, you may not consider Steve Bannon's reasons, advice of counsel, executive privilege.
You can't consider any of those things.
But here's what the judge said.
Because he obviously, you know, he had a conscience.
He's a bright guy.
He said, as I've stressed many times, I have serious reservations that the Court of Appeals interpretation of willfully is consistent with the modern understanding of the word.
It's not consistent with modern case law surrounding the use of that term, let alone the traditional definition of the word.
That's a focus of the appeal.
Every criminal statute we have requires, thank God, that for any American citizen to be convicted of a crime in this country, you have to at least believe or known or had reason to know you were doing something unlawful or wrong.
Steve Bannon thought he was complying with the law.
His lawyer told him, you may not comply with this subpoena.
Your hands are tied.
This is a fight between Trump and Congress.
He followed what he understood to be the law.
We don't allow people to go to prison under those circumstances, but that's what this jury was told.
So that's going to be the fundamental question.
And that's why you chose not to put on a defense and just go to the next level.
I got it.
Yes, sir.
Anyway, David Shoan, friend of the program, a great lawyer in his own right.
We watched him during the second impeachment.
Thank you, sir, for being with us.
We always learn something when you're on.
Appreciate you being with us.
Keep up the great work.
Thank you so much.
Quick break right back.
Your calls on the other side.
straight ahead.
Get your dose of independence and liberty every weekday right here on The Sean Hannity Show.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
We'll hit the phones in a second here.
We got some Kamala Harris cuts.
You know, the first time I ever heard that, you know, how would you like to be addressed?
What pronouns do you prefer we use for you?
It actually came from a friend of mine.
Well, actually, my kids, a friend of my kids.
And this person got accepted to Brown University, Ivy League University.
Brown is in Rhode Island.
I know it well.
I used to work on Benefit Street doing house painting and construction in the early 80s.
Anyway, so and so this person comes back from school and explains when you have the opening day, whatever, I guess, orientation, and then you go to meet people and you go around and how would you like to be addressed?
What pronouns would you like to be used?
And I'm like, can you explain that to me again?
Not something most of you probably are even aware would happen, but this is going back five years now.
This person's been out of school a year.
And anyway, Kamala Harris did it.
Here's what she said.
Good afternoon.
I want to welcome these leaders for coming in to have this very important discussion about some of the most pressing issues of our time.
I am Kamala Harris.
My pronouns are she and her.
I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit.
I don't know if this means down the road.
If you don't do this, whether or not you're going to be considered transphobic.
I have no idea.
I knew Caitlin Jenner when Caitlin Jenner was Bruce Jenner.
Had a conversation kind of like the day after she did the interview with Diane Sawyer that was pretty blockbuster, got huge ratings.
A lot of people watched.
And we just had a long talk about it, but I'm fairly libertarian and I'm like, whatever, you know, whatever is going to make you happy in life at this point.
And I remember saying to her, I said, if you think I understand it, I don't.
And to her credit, she said, I wouldn't expect you would.
And then I started joking around.
I said, well, now if I call you Bruce, you're not going to get pissed off at me, are you?
And she started laughing.
And then she made the point.
She said, you're not going to believe this, Hannity.
I said, what?
The most shocking thing after all I said to Diane Sawyer was when I told her I was a conservative and a Republican.
She couldn't believe it.
So I started laughing.
It was pretty funny.
But at the end of the day, I think most people are pretty damn busy with their own lives to give a hoot what other people think or do in their own private personal life as adults.
You know, now the issues come into, you know, when people are saying the law in Florida, the don't say gay, it wasn't a don't say gay bill.
The word gay wasn't even in it.
It was age appropriateness and schools focusing in on their mission to educate our kids.
We pay more per capita for education for every student in this country with the worst results.
We pay the most money and we come in anywhere between 37th and 45th in terms of industrialized countries and proficiency in reading, math, science.
And my argument is that we need to focus on the basics, offer choice in education, reading, writing, math, science, computers.
Let these kids get the education because that's the ladder to success.
Now, some parents have issues because parents have value systems.
Their values ought not be contradicted in schools.
And age appropriateness certainly doesn't factor in the minds of many school districts and teachers that we've learned.
Are you a boy or you're a girl?
You know, sometimes doctors make mistakes when a baby is born and things like that that we're teaching kids in first grade.
First graders don't need to know this.
Let them learn how to read and write first.
And frankly, that should be all throughout school.
Now, if schools want to use their facilities and offer after-school sex ed classes, transgender classes, whatever, that's fine.
Give the curriculum to the parents.
Let the parents opt their children in because maybe they have a discomfort level and they don't have the ability to talk about these issues with their kids.
I have no such problem.
I'll talk to my kids pretty much about anything and everything, and I don't mince words, period.
Anyway, then yesterday, Kamala made this brilliant statement.
Women are getting pregnant every day in America.
Listen to this.
To put it in law, there may be litigation, but we will be in a much better position than to not do that.
And, you know, listen, women are getting pregnant every day in America.
And this is a real issue.
And we need to act with a sense of haste about what is at play, what is at stake.
And codifying Roe will be an important moment in terms of putting back in place protections for the folks who are at risk right now because of what the court did in Dodds just weeks ago.
Abortion is not outlawed in America.
The states will decide whether they want any restrictions, no restrictions.
There are some states that will allow people to get abortions.
I mean, this kind of shocked my conscience is that Democrats put forth a bill where you can have an abortion up until the moment before birth.
That would be called murder and infanticide.
Use whatever term you want.
And if you don't like the laws in your state, you could always go to California.
You can go to New York or any liberal state where they're far less restrictive.
But constitutionally, there's no mention of abortion in the Constitution.
There is a mention of the Second Amendment, which shows the consistency of the court on whether or not it's an issue for the states or whether or not it is an enumerated right within the Constitution.
Nicole is in Florida.
Hey, Nicole, how are you?
Glad you checked in.
Thanks for joining us.
Hi, yes.
And I'm calling because I heard on the radio you speaking about how Governor Newsom is being pressured to run for president and that he had ran.
I don't think necessarily pressured.
I think he's being anointed.
I think he's very, very, he's an ambitious politician.
And I think if you look at the list of Democrats, Kamala, Pothole Peep Buddha Judge, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, even Michelle Obama's name gets bannered about.
He is going to be the next chosen anointed one by the mob and the media and by the Democratic Party as their savior.
Mark my words.
Well, please, people need to understand.
I lived in California, and I came to Florida because of Governor Newsom and what he did to the people there and my children.
He has taken away, he took away our rights when COVID hit.
We could not see our families, could not see my elderly parents.
He does not take care of the forest there, does not clean up the brush, and we had terrible, terrible fires there, which put my family in lockdown for a month and a half.
My parents could not get out of Santa Barbara.
And, you know, when you're talking about livelihood and you're talking about the family, he has no interest for family first.
He also I went through all of these statistics yesterday.
I mean, first of all, he's a class A hypocrite on a multitude of issues.
You know, you can't travel to these red states, but he traveled.
Kids have to do remote learning, but not his kids.
He paid for a very expensive private school.
You can't eat in restaurants, but he can, and do it without a mask and no social distancing and no other Californians allowed to even leave their house unless it's urgent and unnecessary.
So, I mean, all of this would be in the wash.
The country will reject his California radicalism.
That's my guess.
But I don't take anything for granted in any election when all 50 states are in play.
Because for Republicans to win, they've got to run the table.
It's very, very hard to thread that needle.
You have got to win Florida, Georgia, North Carolina.
You've got to win Wisconsin or Michigan, Pennsylvania.
These are all hard states for Republicans to win.
You've got to fight in Arizona, Nevada.
You've got to fight New Hampshire.
There's no slam dunk for a Republican.
Democrats start out with all these electoral votes from New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California.
They've got a huge electoral advantage.
Well, I can tell you this.
If people want to have the freedom to their health and the rights to their children, there's no way that they should be voting for Governor Newsome.
I have an autoimmune disease, lupus, and I've been on hydrochloroquine since 2012.
As soon as Trump came out and supported the hydrochloroquine.
Hydroxychloroquine, yeah.
I'm sorry, the hydroxychloroquine, pardon me.
He stopped letting the pharmacies fill prescriptions.
That's correct.
I went to the pharmacy to get my prescription, and they asked me if it was for personal use, the pre-existing condition, or if it was for COVID.
That is breaking the doctor-patient privilege.
It's a HIPAA.
Well, that would be a violation of HIPAA in most cases, but you should have, but your history would have spoken for itself because it's a medicine you had been on for a long period of time.
But it was not available.
You can get it.
Well, and now there are studies that have shown, starting with the Henry Ford Hospital study, and there have been many since then, that taken early, it was the 84% effective at mitigating symptoms, and nobody wants to ever talk about it.
The one that I never saw any study on was ivermectin that impressed me in terms of having worked.
We didn't talk a whole lot about it because I just never saw a medical study on it.
You know, Dr. Oz had a great line at the time.
He said, you go to war with the army, you have not the army you wish you had.
And, you know, now we've got Paxlovid, but Paxlovid comes with its own little set of problems.
Dr. Fauci experienced it, where you take it for five days, your COVID, you'll test negative, and five days later, you can test positive again.
You have what's called a rebound effect, and you have to take five more days of PaxLovid.
But with that said, we're seeing far fewer deaths, far fewer hospitalizations.
It's an antiviral.
We had it from the beginning of COVID.
We just didn't use it.
Maybe we didn't know to use it.
They seem to have stopped producing monoclonal antibodies, which they did up until Omicron 2.0 with the Eli Lilly version of monoclonals.
Regeneron helped with Delta and the original COVID coronavirus that came out.
And secondly, then they had Cetrovimab for Omicron 1, but I don't know why they don't have one for BA5, which is the most dominant variant in the country now.
I don't know.
Anyway, I'm going to run Nicole.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Last word.
No, go ahead.
Last word for you.
I was going to say, I couldn't take it for four months.
I ended up being very ill with lupus.
I had to travel to San Francisco for work.
And while I was in San Francisco, I. Back to our busy phones.
Greg is in Rhode Island.
Greg, how are you?
Glad you called.
I lived in Warren for five years, sir.
How are you?
Hey, hi, Sean.
Yeah, I'm actually right down Medica.
I'm Avin Warren right now.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, go by 109 and 119 Child Street.
I lived in both those houses.
Oh, yeah, really.
Okay, I will.
Tomorrow I'll check y'all around the street.
Wow.
Before I get to the Democrats denying the nine-month abortion, but we all know we got Governor Blackface Northern saying, oh, yeah, we're going to let the mother have the baby, make sure the baby's comfortable, and then we'll talk about it.
Yeah, that's called infanticide.
Exactly.
That's murder.
That's ridiculous.
Anyway, the Biden administration, it's unbelievable.
Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP is now not a recession.
But if Trump had, if Trump had two consecutive hours of negative GDP, it'd be the end of the world.
The economy's over.
Listen, I wish you were.
If it wasn't so funny, I mean, it's just, you know, think about all this.
You know, Steve Moore had a couple of good lines today about this, that they want to change the definition.
They want to redefine what a recession is.
You know, I guess that's, they want to redefine what's the definition of peaceful.
Now we're struggling with that.
You know, what's the definition of starting a war now that we have minor incursion?
What is the definition of a woman now?
We're actually asking these questions.
What is the definition of a secure border?
What does transitory actually really mean?
You know, government doesn't spend money, it invests money.
You know what?
It's all one big game to them, and they're just trying to spin their, look, in December, Joe Biden said, we've hit the high watermark on inflation.
The worst is behind us.
As I told you, it's transitory, and none of that turned out to be true.
We'll find out Thursday.
My guess is probably I'll put more money on the Atlanta Fed than I put on Biden, but even if it's 0.1% growth, we're still in a recession by definition, no matter how they try to spin it.
I just don't like being lied to as a matter of course.
And that's what they're doing.
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 download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection