Sean Hannity Show - Trial of the Century - February 23rd, Hour 3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 24, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show

37:59

Trial of the Century - February 23rd, Hour 3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So Down verdict with Ted Cruz now, 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?
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	Well we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be flying higher than a jet airliner And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
	As President Biden often says, the United States will support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
	We will not waver.
	Well, I'm gonna try to help explain to the American people that defeating the Russians in Ukraine is the single most important event going on in the world right now.
	Look, I was mayor of my hometown for eight years.
	We dealt with a lot of disasters, natural and human.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome to the revolution.
	Yeah, we're coming to your city.
	Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
	Sean Hannity The new Sean Hannity Show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
	Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
	Alright, news round up information overload hour 800 941 Sean, our number if you want to be a part of the program.
	What will the fallout be?
	What will, you know, what legal, I would assume, challenges will be headed to court any minute now as it relates to quashing uh this this grand super grand jury report uh where you have this jury for person pretty much all over the place.
	Uh giddy, happy, giggling.
	Um totally unprofessional, uh, but more importantly, it is uh against what the jurors in a grand jury are told uh if they take on that position of terms of what they are allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do.
	We went through this in great specificity and great detail yesterday.
	Uh and now the question is what happens here legally?
	Uh if you miss some of the comments that she made, her name is Emily Kors.
	Here's what she said.
	Did the grand jury recommend an indictment of former President Trump?
	I'm not going to speak on exact indictments.
	So nothing that would surprise people who have been following this.
	Uh probably not.
	Um, I wouldn't want to characterize anyone else's reaction, of course, but that was when we heard a lot in testimony.
	Um, but probably not.
	Did you personally want to hear from the former president?
	I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in.
	And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, do you solemnly swear?
	And me getting to swear him in.
	I just I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.
	There are indictments recommended, of course.
	Is it more than twelve people?
	Is it more than 20 people?
	I think if you look at the page numbers of the report, there's about six pages in the middle that got cut out.
	Allow for spacing.
	It's not a short list.
	Not a short list.
	After everything that you've seen, what would your reaction be if the DA decides against bringing any charges after what you've seen?
	I will be sad if nothing happens.
	Like that's that's about my only request there is is for something to happen.
	Something to happen.
	I I I mean I was like it would have been so like really cool and and and like I would have I would have been able to swear in President Trump.
	I was really looking forward to that.
	I wanted him to be subpoenaed.
	I mean it was so cool and it goes on from there.
	And she gives you know very specific chapter verse detail about what it is that happened inside the grand jury hearings.
	They are supposed to be secretive the grand jury handbook says quote grand jurors shall keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in some court of law in the state and it also goes on to say do not discuss cases with your fellow jurors or anyone else outside of the jury room.
	That seems pretty clear to me that all of which has been violated in this case.
	Anyway joining us now to weigh in on it Fox News analyst legal expert Greg Jarrett is with us.
	Brian Claypool is back with us veteran trial attorney welcome back both of you Greg Jarrett uh let's get your thoughts and more importantly what is the next move of say President Trump and others that that may be mentioned in this uh super grand jury report.
	Well anybody who cares about our system of justice and fidelity to the law should be deeply alarmed by what this four person was doing insane.
	she egregiously violated her oath of office as a grand juror she is sworn to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings these are secret grand jury proceedings behind closed doors she breached that duty and as i wrote in today's column uh she could be in legal jeopardy i if i were the judge i'd be irate uh and i would seriously consider holding her in criminal
	contempt of the court uh but beyond that insofar as bringing a motion to dismiss the case it's not ripe yet because nobody has been indicted no uh charges have been filed but if they are i mean the first thing that any defense attorney would do is file a motion to dismiss the case based on impropriety within the grand jury as well as bias she tainted the
	potential wait let me ask you though why would you have to wait to file that knowing that this has already taken place.
	In other words before this is ever revealed publicly I mean she is now saying anywhere between twelve and twenty people they recommended for indictment here.
	So at that point her not following the the rules of a grand jury uh should render their findings uh frankly irrelevant at this point and should be squashed by the judge I I don't I don't know why we would have to wait.
	Well, their findings have not been made public except for the introduction heavily redacted, the conclusion, again, redacted.
	And again, nobody is in legal jeopardy by virtue of a charge.
	So if you try to bring a motion to dismiss, you don't really have standing because you're not in legal jeopardy yet.
	But I can assure you that those who might be already have counsel are you know drafting the motion to dismiss their poised to be but wouldn't this been what wouldn't this taint the jury pool and prejudice a jury pool now remember this is a a special grand jury uh they don't have the ability To indict.
	They only have the ability to recommend.
	And the and the district attorney would have to go before regular grand jury if this information is made public.
	Wouldn't it prejudice the potential jury pool?
	Oh, it absolutely would, and that would be one of the many basis upon which to file a motion to dismiss.
	But at this standpoint, a judge would say, wait a minute, no charges have been filed yet.
	You've got to convene a regular grand jury that may take weeks or months, and then that grand jury will decide whether to bring criminal charges uh pursuant to an indictment.
	And so the judge would probably say at this juncture it's premature.
	You know, Mr. Even though we know that the entire proceeding has been uh prejudiced and corrupted.
	Yeah, I mean, there might be a uh a motion that can be made at this juncture by interested parties, including those who appeared before the grand jury.
	Uh and you named some of them, you know, Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, who might file a motion uh that any finding of this special purpose grand jury should be quashed.
	And uh, you know, uh but it's secret unless and until the judge reveals the rest of the report, which is supposed to be forthcoming and may have already uh been, you know, levied by the district attorney in Atlanta.
	Uh what's your take, Brian Claypool?
	Hey, Sean, great to be back with you.
	I mean, this this is a complete sham.
	This was not a grand jury proceeding.
	This this was another example of radical left wing uh folks that are that are they crafting political witchcraft and they're using our judicial system to do that.
	I mean, when you when I heard her laughing, Sean, it writ it almost sounded like they were doing some kind of interview at h at a happy hour, you know, at five o'clock on Friday in downtown Atlanta.
	I mean that that's how bad this is.
	And to Greg's point, there's no question about it.
	Any indictment that comes out of this, if anything does, is going to be challenged vigorously and and and and on the grounds that Greg's mentioned, but I would go one step further.
	There's got to be some type of investigation of this sham grand jury proceeding, Sean.
	Seventy-five witnesses over how many months over a topic that I think both Democrats and Republicans, most of us, don't even care about wanting to hear about.
	We'd rather have our money spent on trying to do grand jury proceedings on murderers, on child molesters, not to promote a political agenda.
	So I I I again I would expect a very vigorous uh attack on any of these.
	And one other quick point, Sean.
	This lady that she comes out and says, Oh, there there might be at least ten perjury charges.
	I think Greg will agree with this.
	It's really hard, Sean, to prove perjury in any state.
	You've got to you've got to prove a knowingly false and willful statement, and that you believe that to be untrue.
	So how is this lady proclaiming that all these folks are going to be charged with perjury?
	Well, but but my question is to me, it is fundamentally unfair, knowing that this person has tainted the entire process, is giddy about it, giggling about it, revealing things that she is not allowed to reveal, that it will now prejudice the entire jury pool in the state of Georgia.
	I I don't even know I I don't think there's a uh a venue you can change to at this point that wouldn't be influenced by some of this.
	That's a great point.
	You can't get a fair trial.
	That would be your first argument in in in a in a motion to throw out any indictments.
	You can't get a fair trial because grand jury proceedings are cloked in secrecy, and they shouldn't be discussed at all.
	And there shouldn't be a a a round table of interviews talking about secret information that was generated in the grand jury.
	So you that's what you argue.
	You can't get a fair trial.
	And I'm pretty confident, you know, that argument's gonna win.
	And Sean, real quick, I've I've tried to I've tried to get grand jury uh testimony from that's how bad and and how unethical and and potentially criminal that this charade is.
	Quick break more with our lawyers, Greg Jarrett and Brian Claypool on the other side, then your calls 800-941 Sean as we continue.
	We continue with our attorneys, uh, Greg Jarrett and Brian Claypool are with us.
	This is weird posting in the Daily Mail, and I guess it's on our Pinterest page.
	I don't even uh that's one of the social media pages.
	I don't even think I have an account on do you have an account on that?
	You do.
	Of course you do.
	Um but anyway, apparently, according to the Daily Mail, um, she their instructions on how to cast magic spells that she put up there.
	I'm not making this up.
	I know people are saying, yeah, right, Hannity.
	Well, I'm just reading from the Daily Mail.
	Anyway, um, quote, casting a circle, which is a way for witches to protect themselves during their magic work.
	One, uh, cleanse your space of all negative energy, two, visualize pure energy and breath.
	Three, recite the following, quote, by the earth that is her body, by the air that is her breath, by the fire that is her spirit, by the living waters of her womb.
	The circle is cast.
	End.
	So what is the grand jury, is there a magic spell that has now been cast on them based on the jury four person?
	You know, uh, I talked to somebody yesterday who had testified before the grand jury.
	Um I'm not gonna say who it is.
	This individual said that the four-person Emily Coles acted bizarrely uh during the questioning period.
	She she acted very strange.
	And as I say, this is disturbing and alarming that you know, we expect citizens to be reasonably intelligent, those who are selected to serve on a special purpose grand jury.
	Uh it's troubling that this woman uh doesn't take it seriously, but worse than that, she's not schooled in the law, and during a grand jury proceeding, it's one-sided.
	The defense is not there to challenge the testimony of witnesses, not there to contest some of the evidence presented.
	It is, as I've always described it, a free-for-all.
	There are no rules of evidence.
	Double hearsay, triple hearsay, quadruple hearsay is admissible.
	The judges usually not there to say, hey, wait, you can't present this kind of evidence.
	Well, that's where the phrase you can indict a ham sandwich comes from.
	Because there is no defense at all in the proceedings, and it's only a one-sided presentation about whether to indict or not indictment and which I think the whole process should be changed anyway, but you know, I I still see you know, this press blitz continue, and and one has to wonder what any judge would be thinking if this is now brought before a judge.
	I would think it's not fair, Greg, if if those people that potentially could be recommended for indictment, uh have their names read as a result of all of this, and then only later, because then there'll be great suspicion cast over all of them, and at that point, you know, they're almost guilty before being proven innocent.
	Right, which is why I've long suspected that this was attacked by an inexperienced district attorney uh in Clayton County, pressured by Democrat uh to smear Donald Trump.
	You know, she's had two years to investigate the subject matter.
	Uh why not convene a regular grand jury if you have confidence and compelling evidence of guilt.
	She didn't.
	He convened a special grand jury.
	So the special grand jury information gets out, recommendations of indictments come out, and you're assumed guilty because the special grand jury with no uh indictment powers says uh that you're guilty of such.
	Uh does she then bring it to a regular grand jury or does she drop it?
	Well, if she has confidence in her evidence, uh she has to start from square one, impanel a regular grand jury, present all of the evidence and testimony, it can be expedited somewhat, uh, because there's a record of that testimony.
	Uh but but still, uh, you know, I I'm suspicious that this was intended to be a smear, and that in the end, she may be uh she may realize she doesn't have uh proof beyond a reasonable doubt and can't possibly bring a winnable case.
	Greg Jarrett, uh Brian Claypool, thank you so much for being with us.
	We appreciate it.
	We'll follow this very closely tonight again on Hannity.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
	You're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, 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.
	It's almost a dirty word.
	One that connotes conspiracy theory.
	Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
	Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
	We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
	You put two and two together.
	Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
	Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
	I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
	This is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Locker up.
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
	You're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes, inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, 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.
	It's almost a dirty word.
	One that connotes conspiracy theory.
	Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
	Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
	We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
	You put two and two together.
	Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
	Benghazi is a rosetta stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
	I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
	This is Fiasco Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Locker up.
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, let's go to our busy phones.
	Many of you have been very, very patient.
	Peter in Georgia.
	Peter, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	What a what a great uh grand jury system you have down there in Georgia.
	It's very impressive.
	Got it.
	Makes you sick thinking about it.
	But anyway, um, what I called about was I really don't trust the president of the Ukraine.
	Well, we do know people close to Zelensky have been taken out of his inner circle because they've misappropriated funds.
	Um I've not looked I uh there's a part of me that admires the people of Ukraine.
	They have fought with valor, they have fought with courage, they have been underdogs the entire way.
	Um there are other things though that I don't like.
	I don't like that Europe is not stepping up.
	This is their backyard.
	Um they're m they are far more at risk of you know territorial ambitions of Vladimir Putin than we are, and yet as usual, the United States has to bear the financial burden or has chosen to bear the financial burden uh of this conflict,
	but yet at the same time they're not allowing Zelensky uh to get the fighter jets that have been offered by numerous European countries so that they can also take their fight to the air and compete with Vladimir Putin on an equal playing field.
	Now that tells me that you know we're now might we we're now entrenching ourselves in another foreign conflict, likely protracted, uh with no end in sight in terms of billions of American tax dollars being spent, and Europe gets a free ride as per usual.
	I that's unacceptable to me.
	And if you're gonna if we're gonna get involved in any military conflict, like I I think the best lesson is Donald Trump with modern uh warfare technology, we have the ability to fight and win wars uh by pushing buttons in offices in the United States, and we can hit any target with pinpoint accuracy, uh pretty much any place in the world.
	We're not we're not fighting the war that way.
	Now, it's not our war.
	However, that is the type of technology that would help uh Zelensky win the war and then the conflict in Europe.
	And I I am not interested in Americans, you know, getting involved in long protracted conflicts with no intention of ever winning wars.
	We've we've been through down this road.
	Um and we saw what happened.
	It took what what, 20 years we're in Afghanistan?
	How long did it take to finally get out of Iraq?
	You know, what was the human toll on the United States?
	What was the financial burden on the United States?
	And I just think that, you know, once again that the United States, you know, should not be leading this effort.
	This should be a European effort that we would support, but support in a limited way.
	I agree with you, but let me you mention his inner circle.
	There's no doubt in my mind he is in control of his inner circle.
	Okay.
	He's a crook, that's my opinion.
	We don't know where the money went, Sean.
	And I agree with you.
	This should not be America's war.
	This should be Europe.
	Should at least take equal part in it.
	Look, I'm I'm just telling you, America's got to prioritize.
	We are thirty trillion dollars in debt, thirty-two trillion, and we're headed to uh a hundred trillion dollars in debt.
	We can't afford to be the world's policeman.
	Now, is Putin a thug?
	Yes.
	Is he targeting innocent men, women, and children?
	Yes.
	Is it a shock to the the conscience and soul of humanity?
	Yes, it is.
	Is it the world's responsibility, especially Europe's responsibility to engage him and stop him?
	Yes, it's their responsibility first.
	Could we, as the United States, do we have a moral obligation to help?
	We do.
	Unfortunately, they've now put most of the burden on us.
	That is unacceptable to me.
	I don't think the especially with Joe Biden, you know, putting handcuffs on not only Zelensky, but all of Europe and their ability to fight to win the war.
	At that point, we're throwing good money after bad.
	And you would think we would have learned the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan and these other long protracted conflicts.
	We haven't learned them, but we need to.
	Anyway, appreciate the call.
	Uh let's say hi to Gary is in New York.
	Gary, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hey, son.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Yes, sir.
	So I wanted to talk to you today about the trillion dollar infrastructure bill.
	I live and work in Western County, and as you know, this is just north of New York City.
	And my job is in sales.
	I my car is my office.
	I drive all day long.
	I do about a hundred miles a day.
	The roads are a mess up here.
	Pothole City.
	I don't see anybody working on the roads, and I don't know where the money's going.
	Well, number one, a lot of people are leaving New York, and all those horrible rich people that have been demonized uh for the last two decades have finally said, okay, you don't want our money, you don't want us here.
	Uh you demonize us because we have conservative values.
	We're leaving.
	So we've seen states like New York and California, you know, losing an you know an average of close to 300,000 people a year, and then you see states like Florida, the Carolinas, Texas, Tennessee, they're gaining population at a dramatic rate.
	Then there's nearly a thousand new residents moving into Florida every day.
	And they're leaving states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and and states in the Midwest like Indiana and Michigan and Wisconsin.
	They're leaving.
	And they're leaving and they're taking their money with them, and they're living in better weather with lower taxes, less burdensome regulation, and a freer lifestyle.
	And they like what they see and they like what they live.
	So I mean, New York is bearing the burden of their horrible governance.
	Um, you know, Gavin Newsom is now, in spite of everything, he's facing, you know, a what a 30, 35 uh billion dollar shortfall out in California.
	Well, how's he gonna make that money up?
	And I'm sure he's gonna go back and try and and raise more taxes.
	Meanwhile, they're the highest tax state in the country.
	New York not far behind them.
	So, you know, my answer is, you know, get it get away from the bad infrastructure.
	I can tell you New York versus Florida is a very interesting case study because Florida's budget is about half of that in New York, and their population now is higher than New York.
	And I just spending time down in Florida, which is where I eventually plan to be one day.
	Uh I'm telling you, it's it's a much you have much better infrastructure, much better government service, you have a better, healthier lifestyle.
	The warm weather suits me really well.
	My days of wanting to be on the top of a mountain and freezing my ass off are gone.
	So I don't particularly like winter the way I used to.
	Yeah, my daughter's a junior in high school, and we've actually my wife and I have discussed moving out of New York.
	We went we just want to get her through school the next year and a half and then off to college, and then we're looking to get out of New York.
	There's not a person I speak to now in New York that is not thinking about leaving.
	Not a single person.
	Everybody is thinking about their exit strategy.
	And so I think this is gonna accelerate.
	It's not gonna decelerate over time.
	That's my guess.
	Uh good luck, Gary.
	Hope you picked the right place for you and your family.
	Uh I'm sure you can't do any worse than New York.
	Uh Jason in Arizona.
	Jason, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hi there, son.
	Thanks for getting my call.
	Um I just have a couple of comments to make.
	Uh one of them is about the um grandeur uh forum union Georgia.
	And uh, you know, you might be able to look at the similarities if you've ever seen the movie um Idiocracy.
	There's a lot of things that this uh the uh the Democrat Party has been uh been lead leading us into that are just like Hollywood movies.
	And they're all the worst of them.
	Uh like you know, the worst of the people in the Sopranos.
	You'll see some similarities there.
	But uh in the one I'm in the instance I'm regarding uh re referring to is in the courtroom in idiocracy.
	The prosecutor just says, look, the guy's guilty.
	Just look at him.
	And the judge says, okay, you're guilty.
	You know, and this is what I'm afraid this that the country's coming to.
	So we all need to be looking out for that.
	What do you think?
	Well, I mean, are you t I'm not I'm not following fully with you with you.
	Are you talking about this jury for person?
	Um, no, but it's similar in the way of uh that uh that people don't need evidence anymore to convict, it seems like well, there's a reason why they say you can indict a ham sandwich.
	Because when you're in a grand jury, you're only getting the the grand jurors are only hearing one side of the story, not both sides of the story.
	There's no defense in there.
	So they are extremely prejudiced, they're overly aggressive.
	Uh prosecutors, especially when they're dealing with high profile individuals, in this case, Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, uh Rudy Giuliani.
	You know, they they they get overly ambitious, they want to overcharge, and they present a one-sided case in the hopes that they get the indictment they want.
	And now somebody basically still has to prove their innocence, even though we say you're innocent until proven guilty.
	Once you're indicted, the assumption is of people that you must be guilty of something.
	Well, I think there's a theory here, too, you know.
	We've got this Emily Coors, who desperately wants to be a witch.
	I think I may have seen her in a few of the Harry Potter films.
	I'm not sure.
	I've gone back and I've looked because I don't know a lot about witchcraft, but you know, I'm trying to keep up.
	I'd never seen anyone like this woman.
	After everything that you've seen, what would your reaction be if the DA decides against bringing any charges after what you've seen?
	I will be sad if nothing happens.
	Like that's that's about my only request there is for something to happen.
	I don't necessarily know what it is.
	I'm not the legal expert.
	I'm not the judge, I'm not the lawyers, but I I will be frustrated if nothing happens.
	Did you personally want to hear from the former president?
	I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in.
	And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, Do you solemnly swear and me getting to swear him in?
	I just I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.
	Is it would you say when it comes to there are and there are indictments recommended, of course.
	Is it more than twelve people?
	Is it more than 20 people?
	I think if you look at the page numbers of the report, there's about six pages in the middle that got cut out.
	Allow for spacing.
	It's not a short list.
	Not a short list.
	More, I mean, when it comes to 75 witnesses, like it is it, it's not I assume, of course.
	Would you characterize it as 20-ish people?
	I can't say I counted.
	Okay.
	More than a dozen, though, I think I'd heard you say in another interview.
	I believe so.
	That's probably a good assumption.
	I really don't want to share something that the judge made a conscious decision not to share.
	I I will tell you that it was a process where we heard his name a lot.
	Uh we definitely heard a lot about former President Trump, and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room.
	And I will say that uh when this list comes out, you wouldn't there are no major plot twists waiting for you.
	And you know what's interesting.
	I I was thinking about how you when she was talking about, you know, how she wanted to do the thing with Trump.
	Did you personally want to hear from the former president?
	I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in.
	And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, Do you solemnly swear?
	And you getting to swear him in.
	I just I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.
	I think she wanted to put a spell on him.
	I would actually pay to see that.
	That'd actually be pretty funny.
	Okay, then.
	But but she certainly had a very strange article written about her in the Daily Mail.
	She sure did.
	All right, we are loaded up tonight.
	I mean, loaded up.
	We'll have the latest on this rogue jury four-person uh out of Georgia.
	We'll have an update on all of that.
	We'll also be updating you on the investigations into the FBI and the Department of Justice with Jim Jordan and Matt Gates.
	We have Mike Huckabee, uh, Kurt Schilling is on tonight.
	Jessica Tarlov and Tammy Bruce will be on.
	And then we'll check in with Vivek Ramaswamy, who apparently is flirting with a run for the presidency.
	We'll ask him what that's all about.
	Uh, we have a live audience show tonight.
	We'll hope you'll join us.
	Jimmy Phaelas, Sean Duffy, uh, Dega McDowell, Nine Eastern, set you DBR, Hannity Fox News.
	We'll see you tonight at nine.
	Back here tomorrow.
	Thank you for making the show possible.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	And I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, 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?
	Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

▲