All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
33:30
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 down with 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 to Sean Hannity Show 800-941 Sean, our number.
You want to be a part of the program?
Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?
Because I can see the congenital liar, the corrupt compromised 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?
Naked Trump.
Naked picture Trump.
Wow.
Now, has Vladimir seen them?
Yeah, but of course, Vladimir sees the naked Trump picture.
You know, 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, 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 between the campaign and Russia.
I've been very clear over the last year, a 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 overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.
That is, I think, by any rational American's expectation, 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 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 Strzok just happened to make an appearance on the morning schmo show over there at MSDNC.
What a great, credible guest you got there.
Anyway, and then a week later, he texts her again.
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 in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
Oh, top-ranking officials of the DOJ, FBI, conspiring to bring down a president.
Now, how many people were found were held accountable for these actions?
Never mind the dirty dossier and the lying to FISA court judges.
None of them.
Well, here we are.
Now, of course, Adam Schiff was all over January 6th, January 6th, January 6th, and here he is this weekend, you know, of course, proclaimed Donald Trump guilty of, you know, waking up in the morning.
Here he is again.
So if it were truly materials of this classification level, and it's been publicly reported elsewhere that there were 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.
But if the Trump people represented that they provided all the classified or national security information and didn't, that's a serious problem.
I can tell you anyone in the intelligence community that had documents like that marked top secret SCI in their residence after authorities went to them, you know, they would be under serious investigation.
They had full ability to take the documents anytime they wanted.
They were there, the DOJ and the FBI on June 3rd for crying out loud.
But, you know, the same Peter Strzzok, I just read you his 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 the 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 narrative that has been developed and amplified, particularly by President Trump.
Well, we know that on the secret servers of Hillary Clinton that they used BleachPit to erase, we know that there was top-secret classified information all over those servers, which is why she deleted and used BleachPit to erase all 33,000 emails.
It's why AIDS took hammers to devices that might have that information on them.
It's why SIM cards were removed.
But again, 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 policy to make sure.
Anyways, let's get to the issue of the law involving all of this.
Greg Jarrett wrote a great column about this today.
Also, Carrie Severino is with us, Chief Counsel and Policy Director for Judicial Crisis Network.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
You know, your article, 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 lawbreaking, but they decided not to prosecute.
No prosecutor in his right mind would ever prosecute her.
They would first have to establish that 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 something that will never be met.
Yeah, it's true.
They're willfully, intentionally, knowingly taking, stealing, converting government documents.
Now, the FBI proved that's exactly what Hillary Clinton did.
She directed that all of her emails be put 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, there's no indication here that he intentionally misappropriated the documents.
In fact, when the DOJ and the FBI came to Mar-a-Lago and they went through the files, he invited them to do that.
They discovered that there were some government documents there, some of them allegedly classified, and he said, take them.
He responded to a subpoena willingly to comply.
So, you know, when Merrick Garland stood in front of cameras last Thursday and said it's our standard practice to use the least intrusive method rather than a search warrant, why didn't he issue another subpoena if they wanted more documents?
Trump had indicated you can have them if you want them.
They could have had them on June 3rd if they wanted them.
All right.
So it tells me that this dispute over government records with the National Archives, that was, you'd say, pretext.
What they really wanted to do was to get in there, spend 10 hours, nobody looking, turn it upside down, ransack the joint, to find something, anything, that might support some seditious conspiracy with the January 6th 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, but it's a blatant abuse of power.
Let's get your take, Harry, Severino.
Yeah, and I have to say, I got a little bit of shotgun here because I was telling people since 2016, Merrick Garland, oh, he's this nice, moderate.
No, we should totally at least give him a hearing, give him a vote.
He could be on the Supreme Court.
He'll be in middle of the road.
Hello, folks.
They don't appoint people who are middle of the road, and 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 his demeanor, but what he actually does.
And I think we can at least, you know, the sad thing is we appear to have even more politicized than we have before DOJ, which is saying a lot.
The good thing is at least he doesn't have life tenure on the Supreme Court.
And it's very frustrating to see that institution, which is supposed to be defending the rule of law, applying it evenly to both sides, really going all in for what look like very politicized approaches.
And it's sad to see that that wasn't limited to what was going on for the last four years.
It's absolutely continuing in spades.
And, you know, I've been concerned about it on the court front as well because he seems to be unbalanced in the way he's defending our own justices because we've got federal laws 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 constant threats in their front lawn, people marching in front of their house all the time, will not prosecute them despite the fact they're clearly violating federal law, despite the fact there's been an assassination attempt against one of our justices.
And so I think that that is just illustrating how far down the road of politicization this DOJ has gone.
Quick break more with our legal analysis, Greg Jarrett and Carrie Severino with us.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of the half hour.
More of our legal analysis of the raid at Mar-a-Lago with Greg Jarrett and Carrie Severino.
You know, this definitely, I agree with you, Greg, was a fishing expedition.
And now the question is, where do we go from here?
They're going to spend, what, months pouring over every single document that they took out of there?
And at what point, you know, do we look at the Constitution and say such a broad warrant like this?
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've told everybody it would.
The real question is the affidavit that was filed with a magistrate.
And why would you file it with a magistrate when you could have gone with a judge that had 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.
You know, they went to a magistrate instead of a federal district court judge because they knew they could give in their affidavits an incomplete story or a misrepresentation 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 wanting to serve a search warrant when you could obtain these same documents with a subpoena?
It's also troubling that 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, citing his own personal bias.
Yet when he's presented with the Trump warrant, he happily signs off on this.
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 6th committee that seems to go on ad nauseum.
I guess they're having more hearings coming up in September.
So I think the American people see that under whatever circumstances, pretense they have to use, they don't want this guy on the ballot in 2024, Carrie.
That's all I can conclude here.
Yeah, it's shocking to see 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 have all the strength.
I'm going to push back against him.
But I hope this backfires on them.
I think the American people don't want to see a politicized 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.
And that's the problem because the American people don't want a DOJ that's going to just enforce the law against their political enemies.
That would be horrible.
That turns us into a third world country, basically.
We want a nation that has the rule of law where we can be confident that they're actually doing the things that the words that Merrick Garland mouthed in his thing.
Terry, 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, Peter Navarro, and I can keep going.
And yeah, 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 going to keep voting for him 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 four or six years now, and it recognizes business as usual.
If they were really going to apply the law equally, 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 both.
We appreciate it.
800-941-Sean, 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 Hennity 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 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.
I've seen Fox Digital got pictures of Hunter, loving dad that he is, great example that he is with, I guess, a young son on the beach.
And Joe is there.
You know, we've now, the FBI, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray have had his laptop, the laptop from hell, the laptop with all the evidence you'd ever need of lawbreaking, and they haven't done anything.
Maybe the raid is going to take place in Kiowa 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 too busy picking out a bathing suit.
No, I need to get a bikini or whatever bathing suit he's got.
I don't know what he wears.
Do people wear speedos anymore?
His old generation wears speedos?
Please don't talk about speedos and Joe Biden in the same sentence.
I beg of you.
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 are very pale people.
We don't belong on the beach, so that's not a thing.
We don't belong.
No, because within 15 minutes, I'm literally in pain.
Oh, it's awful.
It's not a thing.
It's worse than the payday paid.
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 in Afghanistan a year ago.
But, you know, here we go today.
I know.
Keep dreaming.
Will is in the free state of Florida.
Will, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Doing good, doing good.
Had a, you know, just wanted to get your thoughts on with the potential of adding additional IRS agents and arming them.
Do you think that this could be steps towards, one, tracking guns through the starting phases through taxing them and then eventually leading to the seizing of firearms using additional tax codes?
I don't know.
When they first had that job posting With the definition of, you know, that you would need the ability to carry and maybe use a firearm.
I'm like, what?
For an IRS agent?
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 going to, they're unleashing 87,000 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 absolutely won't audit people that make 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 $2,500 on average per year.
Well, millions lost their doctors, millions lost their plans, and we're paying about 250% 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 only so many rich people out there that you're really going to be able to go after.
The problem is, is that for people that are middle income, lower income, they don't have the resources to hire the accountants and the lawyers that will 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 could afford to go to H ⁇ R Block for crying out loud.
They're stuck.
So what are you going to get?
Another $25 out of them?
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.
They'll look at your lifestyle.
They'll look at your bank account.
They'll look at what you 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's pretty much how it's going to go down.
You know, I will tell you that for me, I couldn't fill out a tax form if my life depended on it.
But I have not only one accounting firm go over it, then 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 like every other lie.
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 audit people making under $400,000 a year is meaningless.
It's insane.
Anyway, well, 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?
It's hot.
It's great.
By the way, I've been to Tucson in the summer.
And 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 a humid heat.
And you can't breathe.
It's so hot.
How hot is it there?
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 complaint to you after I'd 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 law enforcement agents.
I totally disagree with that.
It can't possibly be true.
I mean, they couldn't execute these search warrants and all that they are doing and these raids unless the rank and file was willing to participate.
I mean, look at them standing out.
Now, you're the second person that has called me out on this.
And by the way, I'm willing to be called out on anything.
So, first, that's number one.
How long have you been in law enforcement?
I retired with 33 years as a police officer.
Well, by the way, thank you for your service.
And I bet you were one of the 95% that I talk about, right?
You went to protect and serve.
You put your life on the line every day to protect innocent people, correct?
Of course.
I mean, 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?
99%.
You're making my case for me.
Now, if we look at, go back to the dirty dossier of Hillary Clinton.
Go back to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that were working with the upper echelon, and they're out there saying he can't, he's never going to get elected.
No, we're going to stop him.
And we have an insurance policy.
And then, of course, then the FBI using a dirty dossier that Hillary paid for that was unverifiable, and they swore before a FISA 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 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 going to be interesting to see 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 be a part of this.
It's worse than embarrassing.
It's degrading my credibility to be a part of the FBI.
They're so wrong.
I mean, you can't execute these raids without what you're calling ranks.
But 99% 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 they have to follow orders or they're going to 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.
Do you really want to give up your career and disobey an order?
I get that it's a sacrifice, but I feel like they should speak up and start refusing to participate.
I really do.
I think some people are.
But you got to admit, 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 justifying my gut instinct on law enforcement.
What we saw with the Comeys, the McCabes, the Bakers, Precepts, Strzok, Page, we're talking about the most minuscule minority that were involved in all of this.
And in this particular case, 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, you know, the FBI being a part of it.
I don't know 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.
My gut has shown me, 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 abuse power.
I mean, 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 the guy was handcuffed.
You did not need to keep 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 1%.
He's one of the bad apples.
Yeah.
Well, this DOJ, and you also keep saying, when is Christopher Ray going to do something?
He's as much as the rest of the people.
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 no different than any of the people involved in the Russia hoax.
Sad.
Yeah.
And by the way, let me address this too.
The American, if you're a conservative like I am, all this talk about if you're critical of 5% or 1% or the tactics 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 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.
But 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 churches, et cetera, as well.
You know, we have an obligation to keep our law enforcement safe and secure, our elected officials and our institutions safe and secure.
And, you know, just because we are critical of specific actions of a specific feud does not mean in any way, shape, manner, or form that you would support anybody being violent, especially towards law enforcement.
As far as I'm concerned, that should result in the death penalty.
Anybody 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, don't call yourself a conservative and tell me that that's the right way to think.
But that's how they're trying to paint this narrative.
Oh, conservative support.
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 to judgment.
Anyway, 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 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 background.
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're probably maybe three, four, five.
Oh, 100%.
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-Shawn is 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 down with 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?
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?
▲
Export Selection