All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
33:37
Weaponizing the DOJ - August 15th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
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.
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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right.
Hour 2, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-SEAN.
Our number, you want to be a part of the program today.
Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?
Because I can see the uh congenital liar, the corrupt compromise congenital liar, the only guy that is on tape colluding with a Russian, a guy that he thinks has compromising materials on Donald Trump.
What is the nature of the compromise?
What is it?
Uh naked uh Trump, they could think naked picked a Trump.
Um wow.
Um now, did has Vladimir seen them?
Yeah, but of course, Vladimir seed the naked Trump picture.
You know, that's that's the guy that was out there every day lying that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.
Because now he's back in it as it relates to the DOJ and proclaiming Donald Trump's guilt.
But this was him, just to remind you, because he has this history of being a congenital liar.
Here he is.
There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion.
If you're willing to see it, uh if you want to blind yourself, then you can look the other way.
I could certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion uh between the campaign and Russia.
I've been very clear over the last uh year or year and a half that there is ample evidence of collusion in plain sight.
You have an offer of illegal help, you have the acceptance of that offer, you have an overact overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.
That is, I think, by any rational Americans' expectation, the the personification of collusion.
And remember on Friday, I brought up the issue, oh, that's right, of a guy named Peter Strzok.
And Peter Strzok, you know, his famous exchange uh texting with Lisa Page, you know, who was distraught and terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency texting her colleague and former lover, you know, Trump's never going to become president, right?
No, he's not.
We, the FBI will stop it.
By the way, the same Peter Struck just happened to make an appearance on the morning Schmo show uh over there at MSDNC.
Um, what a what a great credible guest you got there.
Anyway, um, and then a week later, he texts her again.
Uh, I want to believe that the path that you threw out for consideration in Andy's office, that there's no way he gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy, and in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
Oh.
Top ranking officials of the DOJ, FBI uh conspiring to bring down a president.
Now, how many people were found um were held accountable for these actions?
Never mind the dirty dossier and the lying to Pfizer court judges.
None of them.
Well, here we are.
Now, of course, Adam Schiff was all over January 6th, January 6th, January 6th, and and here he is this weekend, You know, of course, proclaim Donald Trump guilty of you know waking up in the morning, here he is again.
So if there were truly materials of this classification level, and it's been publicly reported elsewhere that there were uh materials related to nuclear programs, for example.
If there was that sensitive level of information being held, why did Justice Department officials wait 18 months after the end of the Trump presidency?
What change that made this immediate?
I don't know.
Uh, but it uh if uh the Trump people represented that they provided all the classified or national security information and didn't, uh that's a serious problem.
I can tell you anyone in the intelligence community that had uh documents like that marked top secret SCI uh in their residence after authorities went to them, um, you know, they would be under serious investigation.
They had full ability to take the documents any time they wanted.
They were there, the DOJ and the FBI on on June 3rd for crying out loud.
But you know, the same Peter Strzok, I just read your text messages, he's out there on MSDNC saying, oh, the FBI doesn't target any one side or another.
Well, what was the insurance policy to ensure that Donald Trump won't get elected?
We won't let that happen.
Is that the same guy that's saying this this morning?
The year and a half that I spent with a team looking at Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, there was no concern.
There was no outrage on behalf of any Republican as we used search warrants, as we went out and did a very invasive investigation to try and get to the bottom of what she did or didn't do.
So it's not that the FBI is targeting any one side or the other.
What you see is the FBI going out on a day-in-day-out basis, objectively investigating allegations of law.
It just so happens that the only thing that tends to come up in the right-wing ecosphere, whether in the media or on the hill or from President Trump, are those things where they take a personal affront because it directly impacts them.
There's absolute silence when the FBI is investigating former Secretary Clinton.
There's absolute silence when the FBI is doing things that isn't targeting them.
So I think this is a one-sided one-sided narrative that has been developed and amplified, particularly by President Trump.
Well, we know that on the secret servers of Hillary Clinton that were used, they used Bleachbit to erase.
We know that there was top secret classified information all over those servers, which is why she deleted and used bleach bit uh to erase all 33,000 emails.
It's why aides took hammers to devices that might have that information on them.
It's why SIM cards were removed.
But again, this this coming from the guy, this credible source, we won't let that happen.
We won't let Donald Trump get elected.
And we have an insurance polity policy to make sure.
Anyways, let's get to the issue of the law involving all of this.
Uh Greg Jarrett wrote a great column about this today.
Uh also Carrie Sir uh Severino is with us, Chief Counsel and Policy Director for Judicial Crisis Network.
Uh welcome both of you back to the program.
Uh, you know, your article, uh, Greg, I think really sums it up really well to prove that a case that Donald Trump stole government records, including allegedly classified documents.
By the way, Jim Comey did admit that Hillary they found evidence of law breaking, but they decided not to prosecute.
No prosecutor in his right mind would would ever prosecute her.
Um you would have they would first have to establish that he in he misappropriated the material deliberately, and then you go through the very specific statutes that are mentioned in the warrant, and then you point out that the key words that are in there to prove any type of guilt is is something that will never it's a standard that could never be met.
Yeah, i it's true.
They're willfully, intentionally, knowingly uh taking stealing, converting government documents.
Now the FBI proved that's exactly what Hillary Clinton did.
Um she directed uh that all of her emails be put uh at her private residence on her own personal server.
And she had been instructed never to do that.
She signed a document saying I won't do that.
That shows her intent to violate the law.
But with Donald Trump, um there's no indication here that he intentionally misappropriated the documents.
In fact, uh when the DOJ and the FBI came to Mar-a-Lago and they went through the files, he invited them to do that.
Uh, They discovered that there were some government documents there, uh some of them allegedly classified, and he said, take them.
He responded to a subpoena willingly uh to comply.
So, you know, when Merrick Garland uh stood in front of cameras last Thursday and said it's our standard practice to use the lease and trust intrusive uh method rather than a search warrant.
Why didn't he issue another subpoena if you know uh you know they wanted more documents?
Uh Trump had indicated you can have them if you want them.
They could have had them on June 3rd if they wanted them, all of it.
Right.
So it tells me that this dispute over the uh government records with the National Archives.
That was just a pretext.
What they really wanted to do was to get in there, spend ten hours, nobody looking, turn it upside down, ransack the joint uh to find something, anything, yeah, that might support some seditious conspiracy with the January sixth writers.
I think that's what's really going on here.
And if that's true, then Merrick Garland is not only unethical and his actions horribly wrong, uh, but it's a blatant abuse of power.
Let's get your take, Carrie Se uh Severino.
Uh yeah, and I I have to say I got a little bit of shot for it here because I I was telling people since 2016, Merrick Garland, oh, he's this nice, moderate.
No, we should totally at least give him hearing, give him a vote.
He could be on the Supreme Court, he'll be in the middle of the road.
Hello, folks.
They don't appoint people who are middle of the road and he the mask is off now.
He may have this moderate demeanor, and you know, of course he says things like, well, yes, we would always want to use the most non-intrusive method, but judge them not by you know his demeanor, but what he actually does.
And I think uh we can at least you know, the the sad thing is we we appear to have a a even more politicized than we have before of DOJ, which is saying a lot.
Um the good thing is at least he doesn't have life tenure on the Supreme Court.
And uh it's very frustrating and to see that institution, which is supposed to be defending the rule of law, applying it evenly to both sides, um really going all in for what look like very politicized approaches and and and it's sad to see that that that wasn't limited to the what was going on for the last four years.
It it's absolutely continuing in spades.
Um and and you know, I I've been concerned about it on the on the court front as well because he seems to be uh unbalanced in a way he's defending our own justices because we've got federal law that he's refusing to enforce.
He's very concerned about enforcing this law against President Trump.
When you ask about the laws that are protecting justices in their homes from intimidation and threat, people have uh have constant threats in in their in their front lawn, people people marching in front of their house all the time, will not protest uh prosecute them despite the fact they're clearly violating federal law, uh despite the fact there's been an assassination attempt against one of our justices.
And uh so I think that that is just illustrating how far down the road of politicization the COJ has gone.
Quick break more with our legal analysis, Greg Jarrett and Carrie uh Severino with us.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of the half hour.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of the half hour.
All right, more of our legal analysis of the raid at Mar-a-Lago with uh Greg Jarrett and Carrie Severino.
You know, this this definitely I agree with you, Greg was a fishing expedition.
And now the question is what what are where do we go from here?
They're gonna spend what, months pouring over every single document that they took out of there?
And at what point, you know, do we do we look at the Constitution and say such a uh a broad warrant like this?
Um had what what what evidence did they have that something nefarious and illegal had taken place?
Now they can release the warrant.
It gives us very limited information, as I told everybody it would.
The the real question is the affidavit that was filed with a magistrate, and why would you file it with a magistrate uh when you could have gone with a judge that it actually been approved by the Senate?
Because it's easy to snooker a magistrate who doesn't have the depth of experience of a federal district court judge.
And that's really the troubling part.
Uh, you know, they went to a magistrate instead of a federal district court judge because they knew they c they could give in their affidavits an incomplete story or a misrepresent representation of facts.
And the magistrate probably wouldn't ask the kind of challenging questions that a district court judge would, such as, well, wait a minute, why are you uh uh wanting to serve a search warrant when you could obtain these same documents with a subpoena?
Uh it's also troubling that uh this magistrate, Bruce Reinhardt prior to his appointment as a magistrate, posted these virulently anti-Trump opinions on social media attacking the president's moral character, Trump's moral character.
And then six weeks before he signs off on this warrant, he recuses himself from a different case involving Trump, uh citing his own personal bias.
Yet when he's presented with the Trump warrant, he happily signs off on this.
It it tells you that Garland and the FBI went judge shopping and they chose a magistrate they could more easily deceive.
I know when you look at the backlash against these actions, I think most people, especially in light of the Trump Russia collusion lies that were debunked, And then you add to that two phony impeachments, and then the January sixth committee that that seems to go on ad nauseum.
I guess they're having more hearings coming up in September.
Um it's so I think the American people see that under whatever circumstances, pretense they have to use that they don't want this guy on the ballot in 2024, Carrie.
That's all I can conclude conclude here.
Yeah, it it's shocking, uh, you know, to see the the levers of power being used.
This feels like a banana republic, where you say, hey, my political opponent is in a weak spot here.
I can I have all the all the strength I'm gonna push back against him.
But um, you know, I hope this backfires on them.
I I think the American people don't want to see a politicised judiciary.
I think the challenge is I don't think most people, if they're watching, you're watching CNN and MSNBC, they're not learning about it.
Um, and that's the problem because uh the American people don't want uh a DOJ that's gonna just enforce the law against their political enemies.
That's that would be horrible.
That turns us into a third world country, basically.
We want a a nation that has the rule of law where we can be confident that they're actually look actually doing the things that the the words that Merrick Garland mouth in his thing.
I hate to burst the bubble, but we don't have equal justice under the law.
We already have a two-tier justice system, a dual justice system.
Absolutely.
And I'll give exhibit a Paul Manafort, Exhibit B, Roger Stone, Exhibit C, uh Peter Navarro, and I can keep going.
And yeah, I I just think we need to make sure people are aware of it and see how extreme this White House has become.
The radicals on the left are gonna keep voting for him uh nonetheless, but I think a lot of people in the middle would be horrified as well.
And obviously those of us on the right have seen this going on for the last uh, you know, four four or six years now, and uh and it it recognized business as usual.
If they were really going to apply the law equally, uh they would have raided Hunter's house a long time ago.
And Hillary Clinton's house.
That never happened.
These are very dangerous times for this country, I'll tell you that.
Thank you uh both.
We appreciate it.
800-941-SHAWN, our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Standing up for what's right with America.
We're back on the Sean Hennedy Show.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
800 941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
I wonder if the Bidens are on vacation in South Carolina.
I guess there's an island there called Kiowa Island, and they're hanging out at the beach of seeing Fox Digital got pictures of Hunter loving dad that he is.
Great example that he is with uh, I guess a young son on the beach.
And um then Joe is there.
You know, we've now the FBI Merrick Garland, Christopher Ray have had his laptop, the laptop from hell, the laptop with all the evidence you'd ever need of law breaking, and they haven't done anything.
Maybe maybe the raid is gonna take place in Kiawa Island, South Carolina.
I don't know.
And Joe this weekend was they tried to get him to answer a question, but he didn't have time.
He was he was too busy picking out a bathing suit.
Will you come talk to us?
No.
Go get some drinks.
No, I need to get a bikini or whatever bathing suit he's getting.
I don't know what he wears.
Do people wear speedos anymore?
His old generation wear Speedos.
Please please don't talk about Speedos and Joe Biden in the same sentence.
I beg of you.
It's it's just too early in the week.
Oh man.
I don't even think I own a bathing suit.
I don't think I have one.
First of all, you and I you and I are very pale people.
We don't belong on the beach, so that's not a thing.
We don't belong.
No, because it's within 15 minutes, I'm I'm literally in pain.
Oh, it's awful.
It's not a thing.
Of course, nothing.
Yeah.
He's he does not belong on vacation either.
He should be reaching out to the families of those SIV holders and American citizens that he left behind Afghanistan a year ago, but you know, it's got better.
I know.
Keep keep dreaming.
Will is in the free state of Florida.
Will, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Doing good, doing good.
Um had a you know, just one of the future thoughts on with the potential of adding um additional IRS agents and farm them.
Do you think that this could be steps towards um one tracking guns through the starting phases through taxing them and then eventually leading to the seizing of firearms using uh additional tax codes?
I I don't know.
I when they've first had that job posting with with the definition of you know that you would need the the ability uh to carry and and maybe use a firearm.
I'm like, what?
For an IRS agent?
Um it certainly seemed a little bizarre.
Look, this bill, this is what everybody needs to know.
In the middle of the worst inflation in 41 years, they are raising taxes on the poor, the middle class, on every single American, people on fixed incomes, and they're lying about it.
I mean, and then on top of it, they're gonna they're unleashing eighty-seven thousand new IRS agents.
Now, the agents that we currently have, if you make $25,000 or less, Syracuse University did a study, you are five times more likely to get an audit.
Now, they're saying, no, no, no, we won't, we we absolutely won't audit people that make uh under $400,000 a year.
Well, they said they wouldn't tax people under $400,000 a year, and this very bill breaks that promise.
You know, the same people that said keep your doctor, keep your care, and the average family will save twenty-five hundred dollars on average per year.
Well, millions lost their doctors, millions lost their plans, and we're paying about two hundred and fifty percent more than we had paid at the time.
So I don't trust any of them.
But this is what they're doing, and they just lie with impunity, and nobody in the media holds them accountable.
But when you raise the taxes on oil and gas and coal, all of which they are doing, and you unleash the IRS.
There's there's only so many, you know, rich people out there that you're really gonna be able to go after.
The problem is is that for people that are middle income, lower income, they they don't have the resources to hire the accountants and the lawyers that will do do battle with the IRS for them.
Many of them don't even have the ability to hire an accountant unless they, you know, I don't even think some people can afford to go to H and R Block for crying out loud.
They're stuck.
And so what are you gonna get?
Another 25, you know, dollars out of them?
It's it's insane.
What they're really looking for are people that work in the restaurant business, contractors, people that may have opportunities to get cash money, uh, they'll look at your lifestyle, they'll look at your bank account, they'll look at what you per claim that you make per year, and then they'll decide, oh, you make way more than what you're saying, therefore you owe us X number of dollars.
That that's pretty much how it's gonna go down.
You know, I will tell you that for me, I couldn't fill out a tax form of my life depended on it, but I have not only one accounting firm go over it, and I have a second accounting firm go over it, then I have a legal team go over it, and then it gets submitted just to make sure that we dot every I, cross every T, pay every penny that we owe, and usually we end up paying more.
So it's it's like every other lie.
The this very bill breaks Joe Biden's promise of not raising taxes on people making under 400,000 a year.
And so the promise that they won't order people making under 400,000 a year is meaningless.
It's insane.
Um anyway, we'll hope that answers your question.
Randy, also in the free state of Florida.
What's up, Randy?
How are you?
Hi, Sean.
I'm actually in Tucson, Arizona.
Okay.
It says Florida.
What's going on?
How are you doing in Tucson?
Uh it's hot.
It's great.
So by the way, I I I've been to Tucson in the summer.
Yeah.
And I'd walk you you'd be in a nice air conditioned building room, whatever it happens to be, studio in my case.
And then you walk outside and it's so oppressive.
And I know they say it's a dry heat, so it's not as bad as the humid heat.
And you can't breathe.
It's so hot.
How hot is it there?
It's I think it's like 98 today.
It's not too bad.
98, not too bad.
Do you hear that, Linda?
98, not too bad.
Anyway, what's going on?
Good for your hair.
Yeah.
So my so my um my my complaint to you after I would like to thank you for all that you do, and most of what you say is I wish you would you're driving us crazy when you keep saying that 95% of the FBI is still good ethical uh law enforcement agents.
I totally disagree with that.
That can't possibly be true.
I mean, they couldn't execute these search warrants and all but all that they're doing and these raids, unless the rank and file was you know willing to participate.
I mean, look at them standing out for the code.
Now you're you're you're the second person that has called me out on this, and I'm by the way, I'm willing to be called out on anything.
So first if that's number one.
How long have you been in law enforcement?
I retired with 33 years as a police officer.
Okay, by the way, thank you for your service.
And I bet you were one of the ninety-five percent that I that I talk about, right?
You you were you went to protect and serve, you put your life on the line every day to protect innocent people, correct?
Of course.
I mean, I anybody I worked with, any commission.
All right, so here's my question.
In your 33 years experience, what percentage of the people that you worked with were like you?
Ninety-nine percent.
You make it my case for me.
Now, the c if we look at go but go back to the dirty dossier of Hillary Clinton.
Go back to Peter Strck and Lisa Page that were working with the upper echelon, and they're they're out there saying he he can't, he's never gonna get elected.
No, we're gonna stop him.
Uh and we have an insurance policy.
And then, of course, then then the FBI using a dirty dossier that Hillary paid for that was unverifiable, and they swore before a Pfizer court.
Those are the people I'm talking about.
The rank and file FBI agents that are out there fighting the drug cartels, the guys that are out there, you know, stopping, you know, doing very dangerous work every day.
They're not involved in this crap.
They didn't they they don't every FBI guy I know is disgusted at what happened here.
Every single one of them.
Then why don't they speak out?
Well, it's easy to say.
I mean, you know what happens if you speak out in a lot of occasions.
Now, apparently there are FBI agents that have spoken to Chuck Rassley and whistleblowers that are saying that they're purposely protecting Hunter Biden, and I would assume that they have the evidence to back that up, and it's gonna be interesting to see uh whether these whistleblowers we ever get to hear from them.
Well, at some point, at some point, all those officers should say, I can't I can't be a part of this.
This is uh it's worse than embarrassing.
It's degrading my credibility to be a part of the FBI there.
So wrong.
I mean, you can't execute these raids without what you're calling.
But then but ninety ninety-nine percent of them are not involved in this.
That's the whole point.
And I bet you the agents, I would bet anything that the agents that actually were involved in this particular raid, my guess, probably had no earthly idea why this was happening.
They were told to search for documents and they went in and and they they have to follow orders or they're gonna give up their career.
Now it's easy for people to say just give up your career, but you have 18 years in and you retire after 20 years.
Uh, do you really want to give up your career and disobey an order?
Well, I get that it's it's a sacrifice, but I feel like they should speak up and start refusing to participate.
I really do the people who are.
I think some people are.
That's but you gotta admit there's there's a certain irony that I'm asking you what percentage of people in 33 years in law enforcement were good people, and you're telling me 99%.
You're you're you're just you're justifying my gut instinct on law enforcement.
Well, we saw with the with the Comey's, the McCabes, the the Bakers, precepts, struck, page.
You know, we're we're talling we're talking about the the most minuscule minority that were involved in all of this.
And in this particular case, you know, this is the top of the Justice Department.
Merrick Garland made this call.
That's part of the executive branch.
That's Joe Biden's branch of office.
And uh, you know, the FBI being a part of it.
I I you know, I don't know what the what people want or expect of those guys, but for the average rank and file, special agents, field office workers, I believe most are like you.
I I my gut has shown me my my experience has shown me that they're good people.
I don't want to paint with a broad brush.
I'm looking specifically at people that are corrupt that use abuse power.
I mean, do you for example, in the case of George Floyd, did you think the officer in that case, Derek Chauvin abused power?
Because I do.
I do.
He made a really bad decision.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Nine minutes on the guy's neck and and the guy was handcuffed.
You did not need to keep your your knee on that guy's neck and pound it into the pavement.
And also knowing that the neck is the most vulnerable part of the human anatomy.
But he's not the 99% that you worked with your whole career.
He's the one percent.
He's one of the bad apples.
Yeah.
Well, this DOJ and you you also keep saying, when is Christopher Aegan to do something?
He's just much more than a good one.
Never won't.
I think he had an opportunity to come in after the Russia collusion hoax and clean things up at the FBI, and he failed miserably.
He protected the institution.
He's an institutionalist to me.
And now I would even argue he's he's no different than any of the people involved in the Russia hoax.
Sad.
Yeah.
And by the way, and this is let me address this too.
The American, if if you're a conservative like I am, all this talk about if you're critical of five percent or one percent or the tactics in in a particular case, you know, they're trying to create a narrative that oh, your words are going to incite people to violence.
Let me be very clear.
I do not under any circumstances ever support violence again against anybody, but against especially law enforcement, ever.
You have to let the system, in the case of Derek Chauvin, justice was served.
You have to find those people that are the bad apples, and they have to get charged and they have to go through the justice system, and there's always the presumption of innocence.
You know, but uh, but that you know, it's funny because we were the ones that were most outspoken defending police officers in the summer of 2020 when they were being pelted with bricks, rocks, and bottles of Molotov cocktails, and nobody else said a word.
Or, you know, we're the ones that were criticizing Chuck Schumer threatening Supreme Court justices.
And we were the ones speaking out that it's illegal to dox Supreme Court justices and their kids' schools and their their churches, et cetera, as well.
You know, we we have an obligation to keep our law enforcement safe and secure, our elected officials and and our institutions safe and secure.
And you know, just because we are critical of specific actions of a specific feud does it not mean in any way, shape, manner, or form that you would support anybody being violent, especially towards law enforcement.
If as far as I'm concerned, that should that should result in the death penalty.
Anyone that attempts to kill anybody involved in law enforcement.
And if these people, you know, if there are credible threats, we need to pay whatever amount it takes to protect them.
Same with elected officials.
And anybody that would think different, I'm sorry, I you don't call yourself a conservative and and tell me that that that's the right way to think.
But that but that's how they're trying to paint this narrative.
Oh, conservative support.
I no, I don't.
And nor does anybody I think that listens to this program.
My respect for law enforcement runs deep.
It's in my DNA.
But for those that abuse power and are corrupt, they need to be brought to justice with the presumption of innocence.
Start there.
Unlike everybody else that seems to rush the judgment.
Anyway, I I I thought it was worth the time because this is now the second call I've gotten on this.
Linda, interesting in both cases, they said, yeah, 99% of people are are that I work with Are great.
Yeah, they just want people to speak out because they're frustrated, and if they were still serving, they would probably speak out.
But I think there's a real fear of just being, you know, having some sort of action.
If you got to the number of people in law enforcement that actually knew what they were doing that morning when they got up, you probably maybe three, four, five.
Oh, a hundred percent.
And everybody else would say, show up at work, and this is where we're headed.
When you get there, this is what you're looking for.
Guaranteed.
People are just trying to get through their day, man.
Life is hard right now.
It's really hard.
It's brutal.
Anyway, 800-941 Shauna's on number if you want to be a part of the program.
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.
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.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection