All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
36:31
The Battle of Executive Authority - April 3rd, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, we're coming to your city.
We're going to play our guitars and sing you a controversial.
We'll all be inside higher than a jail, I know.
And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
These guys are crushing us.
The Democratic brand is toxic right now.
It's one thing to make noise, but you also have to make sense.
This sounds all very good, but Governor, you were the poster boy for a lot of this stuff.
Do you agree that the Democratic brand is toxic?
I do agree that the Democratic Party brand is really problematic.
Well, this is a revolution.
And I think it might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your center.
Going to play our guitars and sing you a contra song.
Sean Hennedy.
The new Sean Hennity Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, news roundup and information overload.
Our toll-free R number is 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So the only thing, the only power, if you will, the left has to stop the mandate that Donald Trump got in the last election is, well, they lost electorally, so what they can't get done that way, what they can't get done legislatively because they don't have control of the House or Senate.
They go racing to the courts and they look and they do a little judge shopping.
They find the right radical leftist activist, judge, or jurist, and they try to stop the president's agenda that way.
Now, President Trump has experienced more of this.
Frankly, it's an extension of lawfare and weaponization as far as I'm concerned.
And we have talked at length about how to stop it.
We're going to get into more details here in a second.
This morning, JD Vance, the vice president, was on Fox and Friends, and here's what he said about this.
Well, there are a lot of things that we can do, not just appeals.
We can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts.
Even when certain courts make a ruling, say that you're not allowed to deport a person for a certain reason, we can still deport that person for another reason.
So it's not like deportations have stopped.
But yes, the radical courts are a problem.
But our view here is we knew we were going to have this fight.
We were prepared for it.
We're going to litigate it all the way to the Supreme Court.
We think that we're going to win.
And when we do win, that will end this question permanently.
Think about this.
The Democrats, they're spending so many resources fighting the deportation of gang members.
You have to ask, where are their priorities?
But we knew they were going to do this.
We're prepared for it, Lawrence, and we're going to fight all the way to the top of the courts.
When you think about it, I mean, they're the party now that champions the rights of men to play women's sports.
They're the party that puts the rights of illegals over the safety of Americans.
I mean, Jamie Raskin demanding, going as far as to demand the return of these illegal alien gang members, Trende Aragua gang members that were sent to El Salvador.
I'm fine with that plan under two conditions, that they have to live under his roof in his house with him, and they have to have ankle bracelets on in case they try to escape his house.
Listen.
I call on them to demand that the Trump administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever ones they want to appeal and to demand the return of people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so-called plane full of gangbangers.
Yeah, let's bring back the Trende Aragua gangbangers.
Let's bring them back into the country and let them move straight into Jamie Raskin's apartment or home or wherever the hell he lives.
That's a brilliant idea.
Now, on that particular issue, that deals with the Alien Enemies Act.
There are other ways you can deport people, and the administration is now implementing them as we speak.
But that's only one example of judge shopping.
That's one example of judicial activism.
The Constitution is clear.
There have been four presidents that have used the Alien Enemies Act, and there was a 1948 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the president's authority to deport people that he deems to be illegal aliens.
And by the way, Trende Aragua is now designated a terrorist organization.
So if you're a member of that gang, you should be deported immediately.
So the president has every right to do so.
The interesting part of the decision is the court was very clear that it is not subject to judicial review.
They upheld the authority and the constitutional rights of the president, the constitutional duties of the president to enforce such actions as the commander-in-chief.
Now, there are other issues that have come up, legal issues.
One op-ed, by the way, in the Wall Street Journal by Dan Huff, who's going to join us here in a second, pointed out something we brought up the other day and the Wall Street Journal brought up the other day.
And in the case of Judge Boesberg's deportation order and dozens of similar injunctions, he points out they're legally invalid because they failed to impose what is a mandatory bond, mandatory, not subjective in any way, mandatory bond required under Rule 65C of the federal rules of civil procedure.
Without the bond, those rulings are likely not legally enforceable, which is the interpretation of Pam Bondi and others.
Anyway, Dan Huff, former White House attorney, joins us now.
Sir, how are you?
I'm great.
It's an honor to be here.
All right, let's talk about lawfare.
Let's talk about the injunctions.
Let's talk about the lower courts.
And let's talk about Rule 65C.
Well, you know, it's interesting.
I guess where you talk about let's get all these Trender Awagua criminal alien gang members and put them in Jamie Raskin's home.
And what you're really saying is, let's see, you got to have some skin of the game.
Or let's see how you behave when you have to suffer the consequences of the things you say.
And that's really what Rule 65 is all about.
It's making sure that plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions have skin in the game.
And specifically, if they want to block a defendant from taking action, if they want to block the government from taking action, they want to block it up front before a full trial, then those plaintiffs have to post-bond to compensate the defendant for any costs or damages that result from being wrongfully enjoined.
So in the Boesberg case, you're telling the government, turn around the planes, put these people in prison, hold them there at cost.
Well, if you want to do that, then the people who want that to be done should have to pay for it in case, as is highly likely, the Supreme Court says that the government had every right to do that, citing, among other things, the case that you brought up.
And because that isn't happening, because Judge Boosberg did not require that, that injunction is invalid.
Actually, the temporary restraining order is invalid, and the government was not required to comply.
Let's talk about specifically what the bond refers to, because if you're causing this action and forcing people to pay money and ultimately it is overturned, what does that mean for the people that bring this court proceeding?
So the way it's supposed to work is they're supposed to put up bond up front.
They're supposed to put up the money to pay those costs.
And when they lose, that money goes to the injured party here, the government.
So let's say the cost of turning around that plane is $20,000 and holding them comes to a couple million dollars.
They have to put that bond up front.
And if it's later overturned, they lose that money, which is why this bond requirement is so important.
Because the basic idea is to deter frivolous litigation.
You won't bring those cases if you know you could lose all that money later on when your preliminary injunction gets overturned on appeal, even if you have a sympathetic judge down below.
And that winds up deterring this frivolous litigation and preventing these types of things from even starting to begin with.
It's almost the version of loser pays.
You bring a lawsuit, you lose, then you should pay the attorney's fees for the people that were involved.
I think that would result in far less litigation, far fewer lawsuits.
I know maybe attorneys groups don't like the idea of it.
I like it a lot.
I know European countries often use that strategy.
I think it's a good law personally.
It gets rid of frivolous lawsuits.
I like the idea.
Yeah, and I think that that's a very good analogy.
And what's important to remember, too, is that it's not as if you can't bring a lawsuit without a preliminary injunction.
If you really think you've been wrong, you can go bring that lawsuit and have it completely litigated on the merits and never seek a preliminary injunction.
Preliminary injunction is pre-trial.
It's before the full hearing on the merits.
So you just go, you litigate it out.
If you can't afford the injunction, you simply don't afford the bond.
You simply don't seek the injunction.
So the court doors are not being slammed on anyone.
And I think that's really important to remember.
It's just a question of whether we're going to let activists score quick, upfront victories without having to prove their case.
And the bond helps say no.
And if you really want to bring your case, go bring it.
And if you can't afford the bond, that's fine.
You just won't get a preliminary injunction.
You'll have to go through the ordinary process.
So it's really completely fair here.
And one other point that things are really important to remember is that we're not in this situation by accident.
Okay.
Starting in the 80s, there were Law Review articles where you had activists saying, we want to use the courts to achieve our agenda, to impose our ideology.
And the problem we're going to face is these bonds.
We're not going to be able to pay these bonds.
If we want to stop the construction of an airport, if we want to stop the government from halting welfare payments, we're going to have to post these enormous bonds that we may lose.
And we can't afford it, and it'll kill us.
So we've got to figure out a way to sideline these bond requirements.
And sort of systematically, they started going to sympathetic judges and getting decisions that tried to minimize or reinterpret the bond requirement to say that they didn't need to follow it.
But it's all lies.
Like if you read the requirement, it's crystal clear.
The history is crystal clear.
It's mandatory.
It must be done.
Okay.
So this process, and by the way, to the credit of the Trump administration, they identified the legal off ramp in this March 11th memorandum directing the Department of Justice to demand bonds in future injunction cases.
I think it should be retroactive because the rule has been in place personally.
So I would argue that that decision should be rendered unenforceable.
And I think that's Pam Bondi's take on it as well.
But moving forward, I think the long-term solution is going to be legislation.
Now, Chuck Grassley is introducing legislation in the Senate in the House.
Jim Jordan and others are working on legislation there that would prevent these lower court judges from usurping the power of a duly elected president of the United States and his agenda.
I think that's a better long-term solution.
Do you not agree?
Well, I think it's a very important solution because there's a real intuition behind that, right?
Judges should not be one judge, one lower court judge should not be able to set a rule for the entire nation.
And what those bills that you referenced do is they say that a judge can issue a decision that binds the parties before him or her.
It doesn't go beyond that.
And that sort of is a very sort of fair way of handling it.
My concern with these approaches are that it's just going to be very hard to pass them.
Even that bill that was supposed that Mr. Issa, Representative Issa, introduced to do just that, was supposed to be voted on the House this week, and it got sidetracked because the House had to go out of session for a totally unrelated reason.
And I think that just speaks to the difficulty of a legislative solution.
But ultimately, yes, that would be a very good way to do it.
The advantage of the injunction bonds that I'm bringing up is that it sort of merely requires people to enforce the law as is without having to pass something new.
Well said.
I really do appreciate your analysis, your expertise.
Dan Huff, thank you for being with us.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you for having me.
800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program, we're going to hit the phones when we get back.
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 with 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.
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 Nayfak from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, to our busy phones we go.
800-941-Sean is our number.
We have Jim in San Antonio.
God bless Texas.
Jim, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, God bless Texas, and I'm honored.
Thanks for taking my call, Sean.
And hats off to your outstanding call screener, Katie.
She does an excellent job.
Why does everybody suck up to Katie and to Linda?
It's very annoying.
They've earned it.
They are your bread and butter right there.
So treat them well.
Give them big raises and send them on nice vacations.
They didn't ask me to say that either.
Oh, man.
Man.
What's on your mind today?
Hey, I wanted to just sound off on Donald Trump inviting Bill Maher to the White House, whatever day it was.
And I got to say, I'm no real fan of Bill Maher.
I was when I first heard him with his new roles, and then I listened to him for years and just wrote him off as a leftist nut job.
And then he started to get a little more fair and impartial the last year or two.
But I think it was an awesome gesture and olive branch that Donald Trump had him in the White House, had the enemy inside there.
Because, you know, the best way to keep track of your enemy is to keep him close to the vest.
And I think winning Bill Maher over, at least neutralizing him, was good for him.
I'll tell you, I'm a young Republican in the Reagan era.
My first vote ever was for Ronald Reagan three weeks after my 18th birthday in 1980.
And Reagan changed this country much as Donald Trump is doing.
Trump, I think, is even doing better.
The one thing Trump will do is he will fight at the drop of the hat.
He's a New York fighter.
He was raised and born that way.
That's what people love about him.
But he's got to understand when he's the president, he's got to be able to offer those olive branches.
And Ronald Reagan did a great job of that.
He was the master at reaching across the aisle and going out with Tip O'Neill for lunch every week and, you know, and making friends of his enemies.
And I think Donald Trump has mastered that and should continue to do so.
You know, he brought Joe Blow and Mika into the Mar-a-Lago, I think it was last year.
And I think that was a good thing.
I can't stand either of those two.
They're leftist nut jobs.
They lie.
They distort the truth.
They've been nothing but bashing Trump for years.
But him bringing them in shows he's the bigger man.
He's a bigger man and big enough to be president.
And he's doing an excellent job.
And I just, I commend him for it.
I think he should keep doing it.
Keep inviting them in.
Win them over with love.
You don't have to beat him up in the rink with hate.
Just win them over and show them what you're doing well and show them your success.
Does that help?
I think it helps a lot.
And let me tell you something.
There are differences in style with Reagan and Trump.
I think at the end of the day, as successful as Ronald Reagan was, and he was successful, the Trump agenda is the most transformational.
And if we help him be successful by putting pressure on congressmen and senators, et cetera, I'm telling you, this country is going to be on the right track and it's going to help our children, our grandchildren, future generations.
And I think it's just going to be a boom for the entire country.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
By the way, if there's one thing you own that should be made in America, don't you think it should be the American flag?
Do not buy a flag made in China or elsewhere.
Now, every allegiance flag is hand-sewn by craftsmen and women in Charleston, South Carolina.
Every single component from the white ash flagpole to the spinners and mounts, they were all sourced right here at America.
I just got mine, and you're going to love yours.
When you buy an American flag, you're supporting American jobs.
You're supporting an American business.
This business, the American Dream, started by three friends in their garage.
It's simple.
Get your full American flag.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue more your calls straight ahead.
800-941-Sean as we continue.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
800-941 Sean is our number.
If you want to be a part of the program, don't forget our Tesla contest win a free Tesla.
You get to register every day.
If you know the word of the day that we give out on the program, and today's word is reciprocal, just go to Hannity.com, click on the Tesla Tesla contest icon.
It'll take you to the contest page.
You put in the word of the day, reciprocal, and you will have a chance to win.
This continues through April the 11th.
You can register once a day every day, and then you get to pick, if you're the winner, the Tesla of your choice, Allie Dwyer and her three sons.
They lost their hero.
His name was Stephen.
He was serving our country in the U.S. Army.
And anyway, it was his calling in life.
He was flying a helicopter.
That was his passion in life.
Now, sadly, Stephen died in a Black Hawk helicopter and a crash over the Mediterranean.
And thanks to friends like you, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation was able to help this family with a mortgage-free home, helping to give them the security, the hope that they need in their darkest hours.
Tunnel to Towers provides mortgage-free homes for families of our country's fallen heroes.
They build specially adapted smart homes for catastrophically injured heroes.
The foundation is also committed to eradicating homelessness among our veterans and helping our nation to keep its vow to never forget 9-1101.
Please help this great mission continue.
Join us here at Team Hannity if you can commit to $11 a month every month.
This great work continues.
Everybody listening to my voice, please go to their website, the letter T, the number two, the letter T.org, the letter T, the number two, the letter T.org for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation.
President Trump announcing tariffs, and in a second, an unlikely ally.
Listen.
April 2nd, 2025 will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.
For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.
American steel workers, auto workers, farmers, and skilled craftsmen, we have a lot of them here with us today.
They really suffered gravely.
They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream.
Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore.
It's not going to happen.
This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history.
It's our declaration of economic independence.
For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense.
But now it's our turn to prosper and, in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt.
And it'll all happen very quickly.
If you want your tariff rate to be zero, then you build your product right here in America because there is no tariff if you build your plant, your product in America.
To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs.
I say terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don't manipulate your currencies.
They manipulate their currencies like nobody can even believe, which is a bad, bad thing and very devastating to us, and start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.
Now, believe it or not, we found a clip of Nancy Pelosi in the 90s talking about tariffs and a trade deficit.
And listen to what she had to say about tariffs and a trade deficit.
It's a little long, but I think it's worth playing because he sounds an awful lot like Donald Trump.
Listen.
How far does China have to go?
How much more repression, how big a trade deficit and loss of jobs to the American worker, and how much more dangerous proliferation has to exist before members of this House of Representatives will say, I will not endorse the status quo.
As I mentioned, it's about jobs, proliferation, and human rights.
And there are those who say we shouldn't link human rights and trade and proliferation and trade.
I disagree.
But if we just want to take up this issue on the basis of economics alone, indeed, China should not receive most favored nation status for several reasons that I'd like to go into now.
I'd like to call the attention of our colleagues to this chart on the status quo that the business community is asking each and every one of you, each and every one of us, to endorse today.
Right now, we have a $34 billion trade deficit with China, the 1999 figure.
It will be over $40 billion for 1996.
Since the Tiananmen Square massacre, this figure has increased 1,000% from $3.5 billion then to about $34 billion now.
In terms of tariffs, I think it's interesting to note that the average U.S. MFN tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is 2%, whereas the average Chinese MFN tariff on U.S. goods going into China is 35%.
Is that reciprocal?
On exports, China only allows certain industries into China, of U.S. industries into China, and therefore only 2% of U.S. exports are allowed into China.
On the other hand, the U.S. allows China to flood our markets with a third of their exports, and that'll probably go over 40%.
And it's limitless because we have not placed any restriction.
In terms of jobs, this is the biggest and cruelest hoax of all.
Not only do we not have market access, not only do they have prohibitive tariffs, not only are our exports not let in very specifically, but China benefits with at least, at least 10 million jobs from U.S.-China trade.
The president in his statement requesting this special waiver said that China trade supports 170,000 jobs in the United States, 170,000 jobs, whereas our imports from China support 10 million jobs at least.
Fact is that the U.S.-China trade is a job loser.
And one of the reasons that it is, is because in order, well, first, let me just make another point, and that is that our colleagues on the other side of this issue will say that trade with China, exports to China have increased three times in the last 10 years.
They have.
But they failed to mention that exports, imports from China have increased 11 times, thereby leading to this huge trade deficit.
The other issue, in addition, if intellectual property is a $2 billion, $3 billion loss, technology transfer is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
If you want to sell to China, your products into China, the Chinese insist that you open a factory there.
They misappropriate your technology, open factories of their own, and then say to you, now we want to see your plan for export.
That's as simply as I can say briefly.
But the fact is this isn't about products made in America.
The Chinese want American products that are made in China.
And the most serious of these transfers of technology are in the airline industry, where Boeing tail sections, the tail sections of the Boeing 737s were mostly made in Wichita, Kansas.
Now they are made in Shen Province, where workers make $50 a month.
And they had the transfer of the technology and the transfer of the jobs has taken place.
General Motors, Ford, they're all fighting to get in to build factories there so they can make parts there.
They want MFN so they can get those parts back into the United States.
So we are exporting not low-tech jobs and textile jobs.
We're exporting our technology.
Now, if you take a country the size of China with the cheap, the very cheap, and in some instances, slave labor, the lack of market access, the ripoff of our intellectual property, the transfer of technology, a country that is not willing to play by the rules in any respect in this trade relationship, you have a serious threat not only to our relationship, but to the industrialized world.
And if there's one message that I want our colleagues to understand today and our constituents is that on this day, your member of Congress could have drawn the line to say to the President of the United States, do something about this U.S.-China trade relationship that is a job loser for the United States.
And this brings us to the point that others have said, well, we can't isolate China.
Do you think for one minute that with 10 million jobs at least and $35 billion and be over $40 billion this year in a trade surplus, all those billions of dollars in circles, that the Chinese are going to walk away?
Where are they going to take 35 to 40 percent of their exports?
Who's going to buy them?
This is what sustains the regime.
The funding and the jobs, they can't have those people out of work.
They have to be at work exporting to the United States.
It just reminds you of how radicalized this party has become.
Anyway, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, let's say hi to Jim, my free state of Florida.
Jim, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Listen, about this tariff thing, I thought he was going to do it reciprocally, which means even for even, but it seems like he's doing 50% mostly.
I think he should just do the full 100% of what they're trying.
They charge us, we charge them.
He's doing that that way now.
I think what he's doing is leaving open the door.
If you want free and fair trade, our door is open.
And we already see movement today.
I mean, this is now for car companies in particular.
It is opening the door.
If 94% of vehicles in some place like Japan, for example, are Japanese cars, why aren't 94% of American vehicles American cars?
I mean, I've always felt that way.
But, you know, however, Toyota, you know, other companies from overseas, if they have, if they manufacture their cars here, that's fine.
But something's got to be done.
I mean, it's just so unfair to our workers, our manufacturing capability.
It weakens our economy when you have a country like Germany that has a 10% tariff and then a 20% value-added tax, which is a national sales tax.
It makes an American car in Germany cost prohibitive.
Well, that's not a level playing field.
Like Trump said, he's been talking about this since back in the 80s when he was on Oprah.
He commented about it.
He absolutely did, and he was right then, and he's right now.
Anyway, my friend, appreciate the call.
You're right on the money.
Let's say hi to Larry in Wisconsin.
Larry, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hello, Sean.
Hey, I was listening to your conversation with, I think it was Bill O'Reilly about the Wisconsin Supreme Court thing.
And towards the end, Bill said, hey, I think Wisconsin's going blue.
And I'm like, no, no, no, no, we're not.
We voted for President Trump.
There's plenty of us here, plenty of us ready and willing.
Well, it's still considered a swing state.
I don't think you can make any judgments based on the race for the Supreme Court, as I had pointed out.
As much as I would have preferred the conservative to win, and we had him on the program before the election, both radio and TV, as much as I would have preferred that, it didn't happen.
And as much as I, you know, understand, look, it came down to me to one issue.
And you were in Wisconsin.
You were probably watching the ads, but he supported a law in the 1800s on abortion.
He made a number of comments, and that law does not make exceptions even for rape, incest, or the mother's life.
To me, that makes any candidate unelectable.
Did you see a lot of abortion ads in the state of Wisconsin in the lead up to Tuesday's vote?
Yeah, and a lot of nonsense about, you know, who let who go as far as criminals.
And yeah, I don't even pay attention to them to tell you the truth.
But yeah, I mean, I think you're dead on right about the abortion thing, and that's what a lot of people voted for.
Yeah.
Yep.
Yeah.
I mean, I think that's a big issue.
Look, my personal views on abortion are one thing.
Do I think my views are the same as where the country is?
I do not.
I think probably the country is at 12 to 15 weeks.
I mean, looking at how it's playing out in states like Mississippi, I mean, 15 weeks seems to be a consensus number or belief in terms of a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Do I like it?
No.
I mean, Bill Clinton famously said, legal, rare.
And I would add the word early.
With the abortion pill decision in the Supreme Court, it pretty much has codified the first trimester abortion availability using the pill versus the old methods of getting an abortion.
So I think in that sense, it's a moot point in terms of the first trimester, and the states will make their respective laws.
It's going to be up to the states.
However, that's where that became an issue in the Supreme Court race that you just dealt with on Tuesday.
But I think it's an untenable political position for anyone to be in.
If you're on record against exceptions for rape, incest, mother's life, I don't think you can win.
When Doug Mastriano ran against Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, I mean, that was his position.
And he lost by the largest percentage of any gubernatorial candidate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to a non-incumbent since the 1940s.
That's how big an issue it was in the state.
It became a big issue, I think, in Wisconsin in this race.
In my view, in many ways, made it unwinnable, talking about Brad Schimmel in this case.
Anyway, my friend, I appreciate your call.
And the 26% of voters that want voter ID in Wisconsin, that was huge.
The two congressional seats in my state of Florida, that was huge also.
Anybody that's spinning it any other way is just flat out lying to you.
800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We have a busy show tonight.
Set you DVR, 9-Eastern Hannity on Fox.
Victor Davis Hansen, David Asmond, Lindsey Graham.
What he's doing is the single most important thing the U.S. Senate will do this year.
And he'll explain why it's so important and why we may need you to call your congressmen and your senators.
Anyway, Tom Holman, Joe Concha, Stephen A. Smith.
We go at it again tonight.
9 Eastern, Sety DVR, Hannity on Fox.
We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making this show possible.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
▲
Export Selection