All Episodes
Previous Next
April 25, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
35:24
Legal Rights for Immigrants? - April 24th, 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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
All right, news roundup, information overload hour.
Our toll-free number is 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, we would have thought that lawfare would be long dead and gone after the Biden administration had weaponized their Department of Justice along with Merrick Garland.
You know, hopefully, and we got some pretty good news today.
Tulsi Gabbard exposing three deep state criminals who have, quote, infiltrated America's intelligence network.
She has referred the Intel officials to the DOJ for prosecution over alleged leaks of classified information.
But we have got to restore constitutional order to the Department of Justice so we have equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws.
We need to make sure that the Department of Justice is not weaponized.
The FBI is not weaponized or politicized.
Our intelligence community is not weaponized or politicized.
And we've got to clean house and restore them to their former greatness.
Now, that is not an easy lift.
I'm sure many of these people are probably just trying to hide in the woodwork and just wait out the Trump administration, hoping another president that's willing to restart weaponization will get back in office.
However, it's not stopped.
Lawfare is still very real.
You see, with every effort that Donald Trump, every executive order, every action that he's taken, there is usually a legal challenge.
And the legal challenge is usually judge shop to a friendly venue, a left-wing judge.
And there'll be a temporary restraining order on whatever Trump's action is.
He has now, I think the number is five, maybe it's six.
I don't know.
I don't remember the final tally.
The Supreme Court, for the most part, with one exception, siding with President Trump and his executive authority.
And in that battle, and this is the left's way of accomplishing that which they can't win electorally at the ballot box and that which they can't get done legislatively.
They use judicial activism, radical left judges, and judge shopping to accomplish that which the American people, frankly, didn't vote for.
Anyway, so the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Drew Enzyme, filed a sealed motion requesting a seven-day state of the judges' directive for the U.S. to provide testimony documents that involve plans to retrieve a Brego Garcia.
The administration's also seeking relief from having to file daily updates on their progress.
And lawyers for Garcia, by the way, I wonder who's paying for them, filed a response in opposition to the government's motion to halt the order.
Anyway, is it lawfare?
Seems like it to me.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News, legal analyst, best-selling author, weighs in.
Sir, what are your thoughts?
It is lawfare.
And you and I have discussed over the last two to three years, you know, how the lawfare would never end against Donald Trump.
I mean, they, you know, filed criminal cases and civil cases against him to stop him from getting elected last November.
And then you and I talked on air how it wasn't going to stop once he took office.
I predicted he'd be sued within the first 24 hours, and he was.
And so right now, what happens every time Trump so much as sneezes or coughs, liberal groups and Democrats rush to the federal courts and they sue him.
And it forces Trump and his Department of Justice to play an interminable game of whack-a-mole.
And, you know, these unconscionable plaintiff lawyers use two tactics.
First of all, they go judge shopping like it's half-off sale at Macy's.
You know, the plaintiffs may be in Texas, but they rush to a favorable liberal judge in Washington, D.C.
And, of course, the Supreme Court slapped that down in the Judge James Boesberg case saying, you didn't have any power or authority or jurisdiction.
Get rid of this case.
It's not yours.
And he was embarrassed.
The other thing that they do is that they issue these universal nationwide injunctions, which they have no authority to issue.
You know, there are roughly 675 lower federal district court judges.
Do you mean to say that any one of these unelected judges, the lowest of low in the federal court system, can countermand and override anything and everything the elected president of the United States says no.
And in fact, even liberal justices have long publicly railed against district judges issuing federal injunctions.
I think it may soon come to an end.
There is a Supreme Court hearing on May 15 related to the birthright citizenship case, and it would appear that the Supreme Court finally belatedly will address this nonsense of national injunctions by district court judges.
And I would hope they would finally put their foot down and say, sorry, you can't do that.
So, I mean, now we have to spend time, money, energy, resources into defending what is clearly, you know, spelled out in the Constitution, and that is the executive powers of the president.
There really is not a lot of ambiguity here.
And the fact that you can have a judge like Bosberg, I believe an activist justice, you know, try and take away that authority, to me, in and of itself, is a major problem.
Yeah, and I fault the Supreme Court.
The court has offered only vague and ambiguous rulings so far on deportations.
The court said about a week ago, 10 days ago, yes, before being deported, there must be, quote, judicial review.
In other words, to satisfy due process.
But the justices didn't define what that means for people here illegally.
Does it mean that all 10 or 12 million aliens get to individually and fully litigate their cases in the same way that legal citizens might?
Or is it a simple summary determination by a judge of illegal status sufficient to satisfy due process, meaning that these cases can be expedited, deportation can quickly follow?
I think that's the better course.
But regrettably, the Supreme Court hasn't said they have been a model of opacity and evasion, which is why John Roberts has been such a feckless Chief Justice.
People should understand that deportation is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of the Bill of Rights.
So the Fifth Amendment due process right is not the same.
An illegal alien does not have the same rights as citizens.
Their rights are very limited, and the Supreme Court needs to spell it out.
You know, I think you're right about that.
And, you know, you wrote a column when the issue of the Alien Enemies Act came out.
And you rightly pointed out, and you gave a great historic summary of this.
Four prior presidents had used this act, a 1948 Supreme Court decision that went very deep and hard in terms of the president's authority to use that act.
And even more importantly to me is in that decision, the court determined that once a president has made the decision, it is not subject to judicial review.
That is not a small element in this case.
And I got to imagine, I mean, every Supreme Court justice, when they're up for confirmation, is asked about their belief in court precedence.
And they all give the same answer that they're big believers in it.
And it turns out many of them are not.
That's neither here nor there.
And that's what was so surprising that John Roberts wasn't even prompted, you know, weighed in on this and said that's why we have an appellate system, et cetera, et cetera, when he should have really been defending, in my view, the precedents.
Now he's had other opportunities to weigh in as well.
This 7-2 decision, I thought, was a disaster.
And I think Sam Alito, you know, excoriating his colleagues was dead on accurate and Clarence Thomas joining with him.
Yeah, it was.
But when you look at that, you know, order, it's four sentences long.
And it was done in eight hours at midnight one night.
And, you know, I'm looking at it here in front of me, and honestly, I've gone over it and over it and over it, and I can't figure it out.
And, you know, if a person who's been a lawyer for 45 years can't figure out four simple sentences, then there's something truly wrong.
You know, so I blame the Supreme Court.
They've got to clean up the mess that they have created.
You know, they need to further define what they mean by judicial review.
But this was a temporary hold on deportation.
The justices, I think, wanted to buy time.
We've got to figure out what to do.
Let's buy some time.
We'll put a pause on this.
And earlier, as you noted, the Supreme Court stated the deportations could proceed under the Alien Enemies Act as long as there's some sort of judicial review.
But, you know, this sudden action by the Supreme Court is unusual.
It's troubling.
And no wonder Alito and Thomas were irate about it.
You know, they didn't give anybody on the government side, Trump side, an opportunity to even be heard.
The Fifth Circuit below said, well, we don't have jurisdiction.
We're not going to intervene.
So why is the Supreme Court intervening when the lower courts say we don't have jurisdiction?
Makes no sense.
It really doesn't make any sense.
Quick break, right back more with Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett on the other side.
Then your call's coming up.
All right, we continue now with Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, best-selling author.
What is the best way?
I mean, how do we expedite the president's decisions, or is it just a process that we're going to have to live with?
In other words, that, okay, the president will issue an executive action or order, and the left won't follow it.
They'll go judge shopping.
They'll even go outside of the jurisdiction, which they got called out on in one case, and they will get their decision, temporarily halt the president's actions, usurping his authority as president, his constitutional authority, and then the process then begins of taking it to the next court, the appellate court, and then hopefully making it to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's not going to be able to punt on the issue of the Alien Enemies Act.
They're not going to be able to punt ultimately.
They're going to have to deal with it.
Yeah, they are.
And they should have already dealt with it.
And they dealt with it in the Vosberg case, upholding the Alien Enemies Act with a proviso.
But they need to be more deliberate.
Otherwise, this game of whack-a-bull will just continue in perpetuity, which is why I say this May 15th Supreme Court hearing, very unusual.
They never take cases for oral argument that late in the term.
But I think it is a golden opportunity, as I said in my column a few days ago, for them to put their foot down and stop these universal injunctions.
And if they do that, Sean.
How would they do that?
They would just say this has got to stop.
Now, Congress can also act here.
Congress would be within their right, and there is discussion and legislation that they're putting on the table in the House, and I believe in the Senate as well.
And that would prevent the weaponization or the lawfare or these lower court judges having the power to usurp the constitutional authority of a president.
Yes, but good luck getting that past the filibuster.
There are ways to do it.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.
You'll pass out waiting for Congress.
I think the better course of action is, as I say, Supreme Court, to issue a ruling sometime before the summer recess, meaning around July 1st, saying, knock it off.
No more nationwide injunctions by district court judges.
You know, it is a modern invention that really never happened before the mid to late 20th century.
Federal district judges knew they had no power to do that.
But slowly but surely, a few decided, let me test this.
And the Supreme Court failed or refused to slap them down.
Well, it's gotten out of control.
These injunctions are epidemic.
And the court system will be absolutely overwhelmed.
And the executive branch will be brought to a screeching halt unless John Roberts and the Supreme Court stops it.
I can't say it any better.
That's why you're the expert.
Greg Jarrett, appreciate you being with us.
Always appreciate your insight, my friend.
Thank you.
Thanks, Sean.
Appreciate it.
800-941-Sean, our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
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 Podcast, 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 on 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 Napok 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.
I'd 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Listen, let me tell you about this.
A U.S. Army vet named Brian with his family got viciously attacked by a guy with a steel pipe.
His life's in jeopardy, obviously.
In this case, was forced to defend himself and his family with his firearm.
He's the one that ends up getting charged with first-degree murder and put in jail as he was being dragged off in handcuffs.
He did remember he had a USCCA membership.
And I tell you this because it's one of the many reasons that I am a proud and have been a proud member of the UFCCA for over nine years.
And they also offer defense liability insurance.
So in other words, if that god forbid moment happens and you have to protect your life or the life of your family or the life of your employees, they will have your back and they'll have an army behind you so that you can defend yourself.
Otherwise, you're out on your own.
Good luck.
And by the way, now is the perfect time to check out the USCCA.
They are offering all of you, no obligation, six chances to win $1,200 for a free new firearm.
You simply go to their website, defendfamily.com right now.
You enter, you get six chances to win the gun of your choice.
And also, they have a membership offer for you, my listeners.
Proud member, nine years.
This is a great organization.
Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of us.
We count on the U.S. CCA.
Just go to defendfamily.com today.
All right, so earlier today, the president, I mean, how refreshing it is that we have a president that actually talks to the press and can speak coherently.
You would think the press would love him, but they still hate him.
Anyway, so he was with the leader of Norway today, and he spent a lot of time discussing his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
Now, they are getting to a point here where it's, you know, Adam Schiffer, get off the pot.
It's either they're going to do this deal or they're not going to do this deal.
And I'm watching a lot of conservative hawks making the case, oh, this is terrible.
Donald Trump is giving in to Putin and and he's going to the annexation of Crimea happened in 2014.
They've already lost a significant portion of their population.
They're running out of not only firepower, but of men to fight this war.
Many people have fled.
And if they want the opportunity to rebuild their country, they have it.
It's not the greatest deal.
Does it reward somebody like Putin, who I think is an evil, murdering dictator who had no business starting this and beginning this?
And if he had territorial claims, there were far better ways to discuss them.
Yeah, I do.
Anyway, the president in the Oval Office from earlier today.
We spoke about trade and we understand each other very well.
I think we'll have no problem.
You think that we can get into Greenland?
I think we'll have no problem whatsoever with Norway.
Continue to discuss a possible visit to President Congress.
We didn't, but I would, I love it.
I mean, I've been there, and it is a beautiful place.
They have.
So I told the president that, you know, he is receiving us early in the term.
He's welcome to visit Norway.
We would like to have him.
And it will be another way of emphasizing this strong friendship.
Mr. President, no one has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since the Russian invasion in 2022.
Has something been discussed here today that may have altered your views on things?
No, we want to, very simply, I have no allegiance to anybody.
I have allegiance to saving lives, and I want to save a lot of lives.
A lot of young people, mostly young people, it's the war.
It's the soldiers.
And if we can do that, also, as you know, I got started because the money that's been spent on this war is insane.
It should have never happened.
And it would have never happened if I were president.
But Biden spent $350 billion on this, and it's a shame.
And that's what got me involved.
And then I looked at, and I see the results.
It's horrible.
It's a killing field.
5,000 soldiers a week on average.
And we want to stop that.
We both want to stop that for a lot of reasons, but I would say that is my number one reason.
You continue to tell Russia that you will get Russia to accept the deal that also Ukraine and Europe is willing to accept.
I think so, yeah.
I do.
I believe they will accept.
And I think we're going to get this over with.
I hope so, soon.
You continue to lack support from NATO allies in your goal of obtaining Greenland.
How will you proceed if you don't get that support?
Well, Greenland's going to be interesting, but that's for another day.
I think we need that for international peace.
And if you don't have that, I think it's a big threat to our world.
So I think Greenland's very important for international peace.
Yeah, please go ahead.
Mr. President, this morning in Social Post, you used the words, Vladimir, stop.
That seemed like a slightly different message, a personal message.
What is your level of frustration with President Putin?
I didn't like last night.
I wasn't happy with it.
And we're in the midst of talking peace, and missiles were fired.
And I was not happy with it.
That's what I meant.
And that's, you know, what he said.
I assume that's what you mean.
Will you consider additional sanctions toward Russia, or what will you do if President Putin?
I'd rather answer that question in a week.
I want to see if we can have a deal.
No reason to answer it now, but I won't be happy.
Let me put it that way.
Things will happen.
Why are you not putting more pressure on Russia?
I know a lot of Europeans are.
I'm putting a lot of pressure.
You don't know what pressure I'm putting on Russia.
They're dealing.
You have no idea what pressure I'm putting on Russia.
We're putting a lot of pressure.
Can you maybe tell us actually kind of a question?
We're putting a lot of pressure on Russia, and Russia knows that, and some people that are close to it know, or he wouldn't be talking right now.
The Prime Minister understands that better than anybody.
He wouldn't be talking right now.
He's talking, and we're putting a lot of pressure.
I think he wants to make a deal.
We're going to find out very soon, but it takes two to tango.
So I think that they both want peace right now.
They're ready to do something.
We'll see what happens.
Complicated, very complicated, but I think they are both very much looking to make a deal.
Marco, what would you say?
Well, first of all, what was put before our partners was options to discuss about things that it would take to end a war.
This war is endable.
Both sides just have to agree to it.
We've shown them a pathway forward.
We've discussed those ideas.
It was a good meeting yesterday.
There'll be good meetings over the weekend.
We've shown them the finish line.
We need both of them to say yes.
But what happened last night with those missile strikes should remind everybody of why this war needs to end.
It's horrible those missiles landed.
What's even worse is there are today people that were alive yesterday that are not alive today because this war continues.
And the president wants to stop it.
And everyone should be thanking the president for being a peacemaker and trying to save lives.
That's what we're trying to do here.
It's not our war.
We didn't start it, as you know.
But we're trying to end the dying.
We're trying to end the destruction.
And we've shown the path forward.
We can see the finish line, but both of them have to get there.
We're going to do everything we can to help them get there.
But they have to ultimately say yes.
But we are using a lot of pressure on both.
If you think we're just in there because we're nice people, then we are nice people, but we're using a lot of pressure on both.
What concessions, Mr. President, and to your national security team, what concessions has Russia offered up thus far to get to the point where you're closer to peace?
Stopping the war.
Stopping taking the whole country.
Pretty big concession.
Mr. President, if you are going to take down the tariffs, what do you want Norway to buy more of from the U.S.?
To buy more?
Well, you don't need snow.
You don't need skis.
You don't need ski champions either, right?
Yep, a lot of them.
We just want to keep the relationship the way it is.
We've had a great relationship.
I think now maybe closer than ever, but we've had a great relationship with Norway.
I think just keep it the way it is, kid.
You can't do better.
Really?
Nothing by say a fighter.
Well, if they want to give us some additional concessions, that's okay.
You can't do much better.
Yes, yes.
Mr. President, you've had a long meeting with Norway today.
You said that Norway is doing a lot of things right.
But on the Ukraine, if I can ask both you and the Prime Minister, did you find common ground today on Ukraine and the peace plan?
Totally.
It's totally common ground.
The Prime Minister can speak about it, but I can just say he wants to see people stop dying more than anything else.
And he'd like to see it end.
He's going to help us end it.
Mr. President, can I say that to move towards an end of this war, US engagement is critical.
President Trump made that possible.
That is clear.
That is obvious.
It's really happening.
Now, the important thing is that both parties have to know that they have to deliver and they have to feel the pressure to deliver.
You deserve this price, if you measure the credit.
Do I deserve the Nobel Peace Agreement?
Well, maybe for the Abraham Accords.
I don't want to get ahead of myself on this one, but they say for the Abraham Accords, and by the way, speaking of that, we're going to be filling it up.
A lot of countries want to come into the Abraham Accords.
You know, we have four.
And Biden did nothing on that one, too.
It's the same four.
But they're great countries, and they were brave doing it, and it's worked out very well.
And we're going to be filling up the Abraham Accords.
They're going to be, I think, filling it up very, very rapidly.
Could you say something about that?
There's great enormous opportunity to grow the Abraham Accords.
But I would just point to one thing.
Of all the leaders in the world today, no leader is working harder to prevent wars or end them than President Trump is right now.
That's why we're talking to Iran.
That's why we're engaged with Ukraine and Russia.
It's the desire to prevent these wars from breaking out and to end the ones that exist already.
And again, I just think it's tremendous for our country to be led by a president who desires to bring peace and establish peace and protect peace.
So it's hard work.
Marco just mentioned something that maybe we should talk about for just a second if we could, Mr. Prime Minister.
And you're involved in it too because you've been involved in the world and peace.
But I think we're doing very well with respect to Iran.
And we're having very serious meetings.
And there are only two options.
And the one option is not a good option.
It's not a good option at all.
And I think we're doing very well on an agreement with Iran.
But that one, we're doing a lot of things, I will say.
But that one is well on its way.
We could have a very, very good decision.
And a lot of lives will be saved.
Mr. President, on the economy, there was a slowdown as it relates to home sales in the month of March, the slowest pace since 2009.
Is that an economic indicator, and perhaps the Treasury Secretary can weigh in on this as well, is that an economic indicator that concerns you about the broader U.S. economy?
No, they had very good numbers on housing today, extremely good numbers.
And that's despite interest rates, because, you know, if you look at what happened, everyone said, oh, I said I was going to get prices down.
I did.
Energy just hit $1.98 in a couple of states.
It's way down.
Energy is down.
We're about $64 a barrel when I came in, and we were looking at $89, $90, $95.
And by the way, that helps us solve the war, too.
Having those energy prices is a big incentive for Russia to also agree with solving the war problem.
Groceries are down.
When I was with you two months ago, you were complaining about eggs.
I said, I just got here.
I've been here for, I was here for about a week when the press started saying about eggs have gone through the roof.
I said, I just got here.
Tell me about eggs.
And they have been.
They went through the roof and you couldn't get them.
So we just had a big Easter egg hunt at the White House, thousands and thousands of eggs.
And the price was down 87%.
So we did a great job.
Housing is doing very well.
We should lower interest rates.
That's the Fed.
I hope they lower interest rates.
That's the smart thing to do.
Be ahead a little bit, although already it's a little bit late.
But in the end, we just have a great country, a very strong country, and we have every other country.
I can't think of one country that doesn't want to negotiate a deal.
And they either negotiate a deal or we set a deal that we think is fair.
Because we don't have to go through all of these.
It would be physically impossible.
You know, you have so many people that really understand it, which is a very small group of people here.
And we are going to, at some point, just set prices for deals.
Some will be tariffed.
Some treated us very unfairly.
They'll be tariffed higher than others.
But we've been ripped off for many, many years.
The United States has been ripped off like no country probably in the history of the world has been ripped off for 45, 50 years.
And countries have gone rich by doing that with the United States.
We've taken care of their militaries, and military is another subject we talk about.
We're not going to make that subject to any of the deals.
But, you know, you know the same countries that I do where we virtually take care of their military and then don't get treated fairly on trade.
So the people, and I don't blame those countries, I blame the people that sat at that beautiful desk right behind you because those people didn't do the job for this country and they let us lose $4 billion a day on trade.
We were losing $4 or $5 billion a day on trade when I got here.
And now we're going to be much better than breaking even.
And we're going to be making $4 or $5 billion a day on trade.
So, but I don't blame any country, not the worst of them.
And we were abused by countries.
I blame the president of the United States that happened to be sitting where these deals were made.
Disgraceful.
When I was here, we had a great four years.
We had the most successful economy in the history of our country, my first term.
And we were very tough on trade.
And with China, as you know, they paid hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs.
But nobody else ever did that.
China paid not 10 cents to any other president.
And they, but not only China, virtually every country got away with murder.
And we just can't let that happen.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you very much.
All right, that was President Trump from the Oval Office earlier today with the head of Norway.
And I spent a lot of time talking about Ukraine.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We will be back tomorrow.
All the news information that you will never get from the state-run legacy media mob.
Don't forget Hannity, 9 Eastern on Fox at EDVR.
Have a great night.
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.
So down at 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.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
▲
Export Selection