Sean Hannity Show - Governor Kristi Noem - March 5th, Hour 3

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 6, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

32:26

Governor Kristi Noem - March 5th, Hour 3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Final news roundup and information overload.
	All right, news roundup and information overload hour this Super Tuesday.
	It's going to be a very interesting night.
	We've been following it.
	You got, what, 16 states and America and Samoa voting today.
	I've gone over what states are holding primaries, the states holding caucuses.
	And, of course, a little full coverage on the Fox News channel tonight.
	Now, this is one of two nights during an election season where all primetime shows are preempted, but I will still be on at 9 o'clock and doing hits with Brett and Martha, giving you my insight as information comes in as they want me.
	Anyway, they'll love the best coverage.
	Anyway, hope you'll join us for that.
	We'll be back here tomorrow, obviously, with full, complete analysis.
	I have a pretty good idea, I think, what the night is going to turn out to be.
	I think most people do.
	There is a big issue involving whether or not why foreign nationals are buying land.
	In a minute, we're going to talk to Governor Christy Noam about that.
	We'll get her thoughts on today, Super Tuesday.
	And of course, the left, the media, the mob, Democrats fuming over the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado ballot ban.
	Let me play some of that crazy reaction.
	Listen.
	The Supreme Court handed Trump a second gift in this many weeks on a constitutional technicality.
	There are a lot of Americans out there.
	Their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6th, what he did leading up to January 6th.
	And they just think that he's just getting let off the hook scot-free left and right.
	The Supreme Court has just said it's up to Congress.
	So what have they done?
	Well, they've put it in the capable hands of folks like Jim Jordan, James Comer, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gates, and others.
	I'm glad we're a nation of the rule of law, and the highest court in the United States has ruled on this.
	And that is important, right?
	We are still right now effectively a democracy.
	But in the court of public opinion, Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it.
	I think the Supreme Court has issued bad decisions on democracy.
	I have far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of Donald Trump.
	And I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner.
	All right, joining us now is South Dakota Governor Christy Noam is with us.
	Governor, welcome back.
	Glad you could join us, and we appreciate your time.
	All right, so I find this pretty amazing.
	Those people that claim that this election in 2024 is all about the threat to democracy, they would like to live in a country where one elected official would have the authority to just decide they're going to be the judge, jury, and executioner that somebody who's not even been charged with insurrection is not only charged but declared guilty and kicked off the ballot.
	That's basically what they wanted to do in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine.
	And thankfully, even the three liberal justices on the court said, no, that's not constitutional.
	That's not going to stand.
	I'm hopeful on the immunity issue also.
	We can get into that later.
	But what's your reaction to the court decision?
	You know, I'm just so happy they took swift action and that they made the right decision and that they did it unanimously.
	That's a clear message to this country that we need to hold elections.
	We need to hold fair elections and that these socialist Democrats that are sitting in these offices in random states don't get to decide who gets put on ballots.
	It's the people who get to decide who their elected leaders are.
	And thankfully, this decision came soon and came quickly, and it'll make a big impact on who ends up being in the White House this fall.
	And I'm very, very grateful that the right decision was made.
	As we look at the states on Super Tuesday and what, 854 delegates up for grabs, that will bring, if Donald Trump has a good night, I'd define a good night winning the majority of these states and winning them overwhelmingly.
	And really, if I had to guess, maybe the three states that might be slightly competitive would be Virginia, Vermont, maybe Minnesota.
	There might be proportional distribution of delegates there.
	But short of that, I mean, I would think that he's going to be pretty close to the magic number of wrapping up this primary.
	What's your take on it as you look at the field at this moment?
	Well, there's no doubt that President Trump is going to have a good night.
	He has all the momentum in this race.
	He's already sealed the nomination for the Republican primary candidate.
	It's incredible to still see that Nikki Haley's in this race.
	But tonight will be a night that, again, he'll be able to celebrate more victories.
	These states from the middle of the country, the West Coast, the East Coast, the South, they are all going to be big wins and big victories, and he'll overperform and show that America is behind him.
	And they really are suffering under Joe Biden.
	They want somebody that's tough enough to go into the White House next year and write the ship, put America back on its foundation and to really make sure their freedoms are protected.
	Nikki Haley's never done that, not once.
	The only time that she ever overperformed is when she was working for Donald Trump, and he told her what to say.
	So, you know, this is Republicans get it, Independents get it, even Democrats are now getting it.
	So I'm just thankful that today is here and it'll just be one more step closer to where America can be unified and recognize that we need a leader back in the White House.
	Well, I think that we are that much closer.
	And I mean, I've gone over in great detail.
	We had pollsters on earlier in the program today.
	Donald Trump is beating Joe Biden in every poll.
	More importantly, he's showing incredible inroads with many of the demographics that do make up as a coalition party, just like the Republican would be, the Republican Party would be a coalition party, major parts of the base.
	He's really doing well with African Americans and Hispanic Americans and young people.
	If he got 25% of what the polling is showing currently, it would be a wipeout November 5th in 244 days.
	Do you think those people end up at the end of the day that they go back to the Democratic Party or not?
	I think it's clear they're recognizing the party that fights for them and their families every day, and that's the Republican Party.
	If you look at what Democrats are embracing right now, it's destruction.
	It's an invasion of our country.
	It's raising taxes, taking away more of their freedoms that they enjoy and more mandates out of their governors and their state legislatures.
	That's not what America was built on.
	And if you look at every single state where there was Republican leadership, that state is thriving right now compared to these liberal states.
	So, you know, we don't have to talk about our policies and what might happen if a Republican president was in the White House and what a Democrat president does.
	We can look at every single state and see what the consequences of these decisions are.
	And the fact is, is that conservative policies work and people do better.
	And you don't have to be any culture or background or race to recognize truth when you see it.
	So I overwhelmingly believe that people more and more, their eyes are being opened because of how extreme the Democratic Party has become that people just can't find anything that's recognizable in that party that used to be there maybe 30, 40 years ago.
	You put out a statement, and I'm actually glad you're dealing with this issue because unbeknownst to, I think, many Americans, we have been watching Chinese nationals in particular buy up thousands and thousands of acres of farmland and ranch land and even land near military installations.
	I wonder if I wanted to invest in China, if President Xi would allow me to buy up similar land in the country of China.
	I tend to doubt it, or any other American.
	But you have signed which places restrictions on the ownership of agricultural land.
	And you mentioned six particular states.
	You said that you respect the freedom to farm and to ranch, and that freedom should not extend to our enemies.
	And you pointed out over the past year, you have had contentious discussions to create the legislation to protect South Dakota from foreign adversaries buying up agricultural land in your state.
	And that you said in your state of the state address that you could not afford to wait another year to get it done.
	And you put forward this bill, and it blocks people coming from countries like China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and foreign entities and these governments and foreign nationals from owning South Dakota agricultural land.
	I applaud you for doing it.
	Now, under Joe Biden, with his open borders, unvetted illegal immigrants, now approaching 10 million, we now have tens of thousands of people from China showing up at our southern border.
	We had over 15,000, I believe, from Russia.
	We have people coming from the number one state sponsor of terror, Iran, their satellite, Syria, the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt.
	Thousands have come in from there, thousands from Afghanistan, the home of al-Qaeda, which apparently has reopened their training camps, according to reports last week.
	Why was this important to do, and why don't other states follow in your footsteps?
	Because I think this should be a national mandate.
	I'm hoping they do.
	What we passed and what I signed into law this week is the strongest bill in the country that will ensure that China and countries who hate us can't buy our land.
	I've been involved in policy now, Sean, for 30 years.
	So I've watched over 30 years as China has manipulated their currency, stolen our IP.
	Then they came into America and they started buying up our chemical companies.
	They started buying our fertilizer companies 20 years ago.
	Then I watched them buy our genetics.
	And we actually in South Dakota had Chinese spies in our state that were here to spy on our genetics and processing systems that we had to, that we were alerted to by the State Department, that they were actually here doing that.
	And now we see them trying to purchase up our land.
	And listen, Sean, when China controls our food supply, they will control America.
	And that is the national security issue that every single state needs to recognize that they have a responsibility to put a stop to.
	And it's not just about food supply.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, it's not top of mind.
	Do you know other states that are doing it?
	I would imagine Governor DeSantis will do it in Florida if he hasn't already.
	I think other states are looking.
	We are the first legislature to go into session every year and the first one out of session.
	South Dakota goes in first, and we are done in less than 40 days and we're out.
	So a lot of times people look at what bills get proposed in South Dakota for ideas on what they can do during their legislative session.
	So I imagine that our language will be used in a lot of states that really care about protecting their land from China buying it up.
	And don't forget, Sean, you know, this country doesn't even pay our bills anymore.
	We borrow money by selling treasury bonds to keep our doors open just to operate our federal government.
	And guess who's buying those treasury bonds?
	It's China.
	And so we're using them to finance the operations of our federal government, selling our soul of our children and our grandchildren out to these communists.
	And boy, we got to take a stand and really decide how much we care about protecting our freedoms.
	Well, I'm glad you're doing it.
	I hope other states follow through as well.
	All right, quick break more with South Dakota Governor Christy Noam on the other side on the Super Tuesday.
	Then your call's coming up 800-941-Sean, our number.
	If you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
	We continue now with South Dakota Governor Kristi Nomas with us on the Super Tuesday.
	Let me play a clip of Joe Biden saying about the border that, now remember, in the first hundred days of his administration, he undid all the policies of President Trump.
	He inherited the most secure borders in modern history.
	And then he bragged about, and Majorkas bragged about, the list was so long they couldn't even list it all of all of the Trump policies they rescinded.
	And then after doing that with a stroke of a pen, he could easily undo the damage he's done by bringing them back in place again with the stroke of a pen.
	But he's been trying to say after three years of lying to us, saying that the border is secure and closed, now he's out there blaming Republicans for his decisions.
	And they've lied to us for three straight years.
	And now he's saying, well, Republicans, they won't help me.
	They won't give me the authority.
	I'm like, you don't need their authority.
	And this is what he said.
	Why are you making me take me back on the border?
	Because we need more forces on the border.
	I don't have the authority to do that.
	He said, I don't have the authority to do that when asked why.
	And I'm like, yes, he does.
	He can just bring back the policies that he rescinded.
	You did a fantastic show just a week or two ago where you went through every single one of those policies that Joe Biden has rescinded that Trump had in place.
	And it really is amazing at how they completely dismantled our border and dismantled our national security policies in order to allow this invasion to happen.
	So that's what we need to keep telling the American people is that this isn't an accident.
	It's not because he's old.
	It's not because he has dementia and it's not because he has Alzheimer's.
	It's because he's doing this on purpose.
	They're doing this on purpose to remake America and to make it more socialist and give Democrats more power and take away your freedom.
	And that's what Republicans need to remember to remind the American people that this is all fully within Joe Biden's control and he could change everything today by just announcing that he's going back to the policies that Donald Trump enforced.
	Well, that's all that we really would take.
	And, well, I appreciate the bold stances.
	I love the fact that in South Dakota, you're only in session 40 days because that's 40 days.
	You know what?
	If you have the wrong governor and the wrong legislature, they can't do as much damage in 40 days.
	Maybe Washington should adopt those policies.
	I like that a lot.
	Yeah, somebody told me when I first got elected to office, they said, remember, every day you're in session, our way of life is in jeopardy.
	And I've always taken that to heart, that when you're in session, a bill can come that will change life overnight, or maybe your responsibility is just to be here to kill the bad bills that change your way of life.
	So it is good.
	It's good to have a short session, do your work, and then everybody goes home.
	Go back to work.
	Yeah, get back to work.
	Go live your real life and stop living off the taxpayer.
	I like that a lot.
	Governor, appreciate your time.
	Thank you.
	As always, it's going to be an interesting night tonight.
	And I can't, we'll have a lot to say about it all tomorrow.
	Thank you.
	Months now have passed since the Hamas brutal terror attack against Israel.
	They're now going to fight for their very survival.
	It's sad.
	Now, the unfortunate side of this that a lot of people don't know about is the economic situation for hundreds of thousands of Israelis is dire.
	And many can't return to their homes.
	Many more being evacuated as things have heated up in the north with Hezbollah to Lebanon.
	And thankfully, there are groups like the International Fellowship for Christians and Jews.
	They're right there on the ground.
	They are in the middle of it and have been in the middle of it every single day, distributing critical essentials like food, medicine, emergency supplies for hundreds of thousands of suffering Israelis.
	That's why we're proud to partner with them, the IFCJ.
	Every donation is urgently needed.
	Whatever you donate today is going to be matched by a generous donor, so it's going to have twice the impact.
	It's the perfect day to donate.
	And to do it, there's two ways you can donate.
	Dial pound250 on your cell phone, say the keyword, support IFCJ.
	It's that simple.
	Pound250, keyword, support IFCJ, or just visit their website, supportifcj.org, supportifcj.org.
	Again, your generous gift will be doubled during this period.
	So now would be the perfect time, and the need is great.
	Whatever you can do will be greatly appreciated.
	We'll continue.
	All right, 25 down to the top of the hour.
	Our toll-free number is 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, you know, the administration, remember, they want you taxed to the brink under the thumb of their ever-growing IRS.
	They want you controlled with their digital dollar.
	Thousands of hardworking, patriotic Americans, they have, in their own way, been opting out of the system and they've been diversifying their savings with precious metals like gold and silver.
	Sales are hitting record highs.
	Ever since I got into a position in my late 20s, to be honest, I wish it was earlier.
	I could say it was earlier.
	But once I finally could begin the process of saving, I always took a percentage of my savings and put it into gold and silver.
	And one of the best choices I ever made.
	And I'm glad I have.
	I'm a customer of Goldco.
	They are the top-rated precious metals company, a seven-time Inc.
	5000 winner.
	They have placed over $2.5 billion in gold and silver.
	If you're new to the process, they'll walk you through and send you all the information you want so you can do your due diligence.
	Right now, by the way, they're offering up to $10,000 in bonus silver, but only while supplies last.
	Give them a call now at 855-815-GOLD and learn how you can get started today.
	I just got an order recently from them.
	You tell them I sent you.
	That'll qualify you for the $10,000 in bonus silver, but it's first served, first come, first served on that kind of basis.
	So you might want to move.
	Anyway, call my friends at Goldco today, 855-815-GOLD, 855-815-GOLD.
	Let me go back.
	I played it earlier.
	Let me play it again.
	The media Democrats, they just lost their mind over what was a simple, basic, fundamental, kind of no-brainer decision that you just can't have one elected official just, well, deciding for reasons that they deem correct that Donald Trump, who's never been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of insurrection.
	Yeah, we're not going to put him on the ballot.
	This is the Supreme Court 9-0 decision yesterday.
	Anyway, listen to this.
	Media and Democrats fuming over this Supreme Court ruling.
	Listen.
	The Supreme Court handed Trump a second gift in this many weeks on a constitutional technicality.
	Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it.
	I think the Supreme Court has issued bad decisions on democracy.
	And here we have in this context, right, a hesitance.
	That's a reticence, a refusal to hold this man accountable.
	Unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be.
	Had far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of Donald Trump.
	And I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner.
	My favorite, and that is, unfortunately for America, they made the right decision.
	Like, you can't even make that up.
	Anyway, joining us now, we have our friend Greg Garrett with the Fox News Channel, best-selling author.
	Also with us, Robert Steinbuck is with us.
	He is a law professor, University of Arkansas.
	Thank you both for being on the program.
	Robert, let me start with you.
	Let's get your general reaction and your reaction to the decision by Democrats, the media, the mob, I call them.
	What was your take?
	To me, it was a no-brainer.
	It's a wonderful opinion, and it's nine to zero based on federalism principles as amplified through the purpose in the history of the 14th Amendment, where the court said, wait a second, the 14th Amendment takes away power from the states, and you think, therefore, says Colorado, that you now have power to declare a candidate for president can't run for president?
	That can't be right.
	And I love the comments you played.
	One person says it's a constitutional technicality.
	Federalism?
	It's a constitutional technicality?
	Another person said, this is a bad decision on democracy.
	That one state can't disqualify a president?
	That's a bad decision on democracy.
	Another person said the justices behaved in a partisan fashion.
	It was 9-0.
	All the liberals agreed.
	It's exactly the opposite of partisans.
	And that's what you see.
	This is a meltdown by the left because the court was unified in saying you can't do this.
	Well, let's get your take, Greg Jarrett.
	We had predicted, both of us and Professor Dershowitz, we all kind of believed that it would be 9-0.
	But you never know when you listen to arguments before the Supreme Court, really kind of a crapshoot to read where their thinking is.
	And they can surprise you when they come out with their ruling.
	This was not really a surprise.
	They all seemed skeptical at the time.
	And you had predicted 9-0.
	I predicted 9-0.
	Professor Dershowitz as well.
	Your thoughts.
	Well, anybody with half a brain knew that Trump was going to win and Colorado Supreme Court was going to get reversed.
	And that was especially accentuated when we all listened to the Supreme Court hearing.
	But yet, we saw heads explode on MSNBC and CNN.
	And you're right.
	Dana Bash was the most egregious.
	You know, she insists she's a neutral, objective journalist.
	And yet, you know, she said, unfortunately for America, the Supreme Court got it right.
	She might as well have said democracy is dead because Trump is now on the ballot.
	That's what she really meant.
	You know, you expect people like Lawrence Tribe, who was on CNN, Judge Michael Luddig on CNN, they've lost their minds to Trump derangement syndrome.
	And the usual suspects over on MSNBC, Neil Katyall and Andrew Weissman, who got it fundamentally wrong and deceived their viewers.
	But this was an easy decision.
	The 14th Amendment plainly reads that Congress has the power, not states, to enforce the amendment.
	And in fact, Congress did that more than a century ago, passing a series of laws granting authority to federal officials to enforce the amendment.
	Supreme Court cited it, the Enforcement Acts, and that provides some measure of due process.
	The feds can do either with a civil action or a criminal prosecution under the insurrection statute.
	They can take action to disqualify somebody.
	States cannot.
	And it was pretty obvious to anybody who's been paying attention.
	Yeah.
	Let me move on.
	One thing that, Greg, you and I were skeptical.
	We both felt very strongly that the court should take up the issue of immunity, but we had our doubts that they would.
	Now, I think from a constitutional perspective, it was imperative that they do.
	And I'm glad that they did.
	And I think if argued in the right way, in other words, I thought the initial arguments were a little too broad for me with absolute immunity.
	And I think it was the judge in oral arguments that brought up the issue, a hypothetical about, well, if a president says that, you know, wants SEAL Team Six to assassinate their top political opponent, do you get absolute immunity?
	You need a lot more nuance than that, as we discussed last night.
	And I think if I was the attorney, and I'm not one, but you are, I would make it far more nuanced than that and certainly not fall for that type of very broad definition of immunity.
	Your thoughts.
	Well, I think a couple of things happened.
	More recently, Trump's lawyers brought it up in the Florida case.
	So now you've got Florida and Washington, two cases in which immunity is at play.
	And so I think that may have motivated the Supreme Court.
	And also, I think having read the circuit court decision, I think the SCOTUS justices say, wait a minute, you're going too far.
	You're dismissing any immunity, even if a president is acting consistent with his duties.
	That's absurd.
	And most importantly, it's inconsistent with Nixon versus Fitzgerald, 1982 Supreme Court precedent that said presidents do have absolute immunity in civil lawsuits as long as their actions fall within the outer perimeter of official acts.
	Well, the same reasoning should apply to criminal prosecutions.
	So I think what the Supreme Court will do is that they will remind everybody of the Nixon-Fitzgerald case and extend existing immunity standard in civil actions to criminal cases, then send it back to the trial court for a finding of fact as to whether Trump's actions were consistent with his official acts.
	Let's get your take, Robert, on this, because I think it's very, very important.
	First of all, are you as glad as we are that they took it up?
	I think it is of great consequence and constitutional importance.
	And how do you think the argument should go?
	Do you believe in this broad immunity, which I felt that that was a little bit of a stretch?
	For example, we have freedom of speech, but you can't scream fire in a crowded theater and create a panic at that point.
	So there's a certain limitation in that respect.
	I would imagine that there is a way to thread the needle where a president would be able to get advice, make controversial decisions as president with the authority as president, with the authority as commander-in-chief.
	However, it wouldn't include sending out a SEAL Team 6 group to go kill your political opponent.
	Sean, I agree entirely with you, and I think Greg's analysis is rather subtle and well done, meaning that there's no way this broad immunity claim will be upheld by the Supreme Court, and there's no way that it should be upheld by the Supreme Court.
	The notion that you can go and kill somebody because you're the president and just get away with it, Greg, focused exactly on the right question.
	Is this an official act or does it fall within the penumbra of official acts?
	If so, then immunity applies.
	And the distinction between civil and criminal law is largely irrelevant.
	You have immunity for those official acts.
	But that's the question.
	Are Trump's lawyers going to be able to narrow that so that they can make a convincing argument?
	Because I tell you, that argument about the COTM6 and the answer they gave was not a good argument.
	I didn't think it was a good argument either.
	I was actually surprised they even took the bait on that, Greg.
	Yeah, it was a dumb argument.
	And, you know, the professor is right.
	And, you know, people should go back and read the 1982 Nixon decision because the Supreme Court makes a compelling argument.
	This was the Berger Court at the time.
	And they pointed out the severe chilling effect on presidential decision-making that might trigger paralysis if a president has to look over his shoulder at every critical decision he's making and worry about future prosecution and then have to vet everything through a committee of lawyers instead of acting precipitously as commander-in-chief, which is his duty.
	So, you know, that's why I think the reasoning of that precedent applies to criminal prosecutions as well.
	Yeah, I agree.
	How would you then make the argument, Robert, what would be off the top of your head, I know I'm putting you on the spot, but off the top of your head, what would the argument be?
	main crux of the arguments you'd bring before the court nor in oral arguments well frankly i'm going to steal from greg if i may which is look the distinction between but greg doesn't care if you steal from i mean He doesn't mind at all.
	Indeed.
	Thank you, Greg.
	The distinction between civil and criminal is not the question.
	The question is whether the president is acting within the scope of his authority or some penumbra around that.
	We know that government officials have immunity.
	We know this from all these cases that we see sort of with police officials and this kind of thing.
	So there's nothing new about government immunity.
	The question is, what is the scope of that immunity and whether this behavior falls into the official behavior of a president?
	I can't answer that question at this juncture.
	I'd need to know more.
	Greg, what would your arguments be?
	The Supreme Court's not going to answer the question of whether Trump's acts fell within the quote-unquote outer perimeter of his official acts.
	They'll leave that to the trial court.
	What they're going to do is answer the vital question, is there some form of immunity, absolute or not, or limited immunity, and to what extent does that protect a president?
	So they'll answer that important question.
	This is a question that will affect future presidents for hundreds of years in America.
	So it's a really important case.
	And yes, the hearing is expedited.
	So are the briefs.
	April will be oral arguments.
	They will take all of their time to get it right.
	So I would expect a decision at the end of June, which, by the way, is really going to make it nearly impossible, in my judgment, for Jack Smith, the special counsel, to get a trial on the merits before the election.
	I just don't think it can be done.
	Well, I mean, let's say they do give a decision, render a decision.
	Then, of course, you're going to have a lot of pretrial motions.
	I mean, are they really serious that they would have a criminal trial in the month of a presidential GOP convention in this case, heading into the final months of a campaign?
	Would that happen?
	Yes or no, Greg, because we're running out of time.
	Yeah, remember, the DOJ has a rule that prohibits prosecutions close to an election because it interferes in the election.
	And so in addition to the pretrial motions, I mean, you have to afford Trump an opportunity to craft his defense in light of whatever the Supreme Court decision is going to be when it comes down at the end of June.
	That takes time.
	I'm just out of time.
	Greg Jarrett, Robert Steinbuck, thank you so much for being with us.
	Appreciate both of you.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Fox in full Super Tuesday coverage tonight all through prime time.
	However, I will be on in my regular hour at 9 o'clock, but as a guest of Brett and Martha's as they cover Super Tuesday.
	So we'll see you tonight.
	We'll be on 9 Eastern, and any results we have, we'll be going over it.
	What does it mean?
	It's all happening.
	Set you DVR for Hannity every night, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
	Bill O'Reilly, Ted Cruz, thank you for making this show possible.

▲