Speaker 1: The second full day of President Trump's impeachment trial has
Speaker 1: just concluded, and Senator Ted Cruze has come straight from
Speaker 1: the Capitol to our studio here to help give us
Speaker 1: all a behind the scenes look into what this means
Speaker 1: for the president and the country. This is Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles. I am joined by the Senator himself, clearly
Speaker 1: a glutton for punishment, not sleeping at all this week,
Speaker 1: going straight from the impeachment trial to the studio, right
Speaker 1: back to the Capitol. Well, Michael, I'm thrilled that it's
Speaker 1: at least eleven PM and not three in the morning
Speaker 1: like it was last night. This is an early night.
Speaker 1: It's been twenty two hours now the impeachment trial, and
Speaker 1: we've still got a distance to go. But but we're
Speaker 1: making progress. You know what I want to do before
Speaker 1: we get into what happened today, because I think some
Speaker 1: significant things happened today. We're twenty two hours in. I
Speaker 1: think the vast majority of Americans have completely tuned out
Speaker 1: this impeachment. They are simply not paying attention. What is
Speaker 1: it that the House Democrats are accusing President Trump? Of
Speaker 1: having done what is at the core of this whole
Speaker 1: impeachment trial. So the House Democrats voted out two articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment. The first one is something they're calling abusive power.
Speaker 1: The second one they're calling obstruction of Congress. Neither one
Speaker 1: of those is a crime. Neither one of those I
Speaker 1: believe is an impeachable offense. But what do those refer
Speaker 1: to specifically? So abusive powers where they focused most of
Speaker 1: their time, And what they're arguing is that the president
Speaker 1: delayed military aid to Ukraine. Now, Ukraine, as a country
Speaker 1: in Europe, used to be part of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: broke off. It's now separate democracy, it's a friend, it's
Speaker 1: an ally. Remember back in twenty fourteen when Obama was president,
Speaker 1: Russia invaded Ukraine invaded what's what's called Crimea, and Russian
Speaker 1: and Ukraine have been in real tension. The Ukrainians don't
Speaker 1: like that. The Russians have had a bad history of
Speaker 1: riding in with tanks and invading their country, and so
Speaker 1: we've given them military aid. And what the Democrats are
Speaker 1: arguing is the President delayed that military aid in exchange
Speaker 1: for asking Ukraine to launch two investigations, one an investigation
Speaker 1: into whether Ukraine had interfered in the twenty sixteen presidential election,
Speaker 1: the election between Trump and Hillary. Okay, and two an
Speaker 1: investigation into Barisma, which is a Ukrainian natural gas company
Speaker 1: that on whose board Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son sat.
Speaker 1: They'd paid Biden a whole lot of money and it
Speaker 1: was not for his expertise in Ukrainian natural gas. Well,
Speaker 1: that is certainly true, right, So this is what people
Speaker 1: referred to as the quid pro quo. Yes, that Trump
Speaker 1: was withholding military aid and he wasn't going to release
Speaker 1: the aid until they launched an investigation into the bidens
Speaker 1: because he is afraid that he's going to run against
Speaker 1: Joe Biden twenty twenty. And they've spent almost every minute
Speaker 1: of the last twenty two hours trying to prove those
Speaker 1: two points. Okay, here's the problem. Number one, temporarily delaying
Speaker 1: military aid is not illegal, and it's not an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: Presidents have done that over and over and over again
Speaker 1: all sorts of foreign aid. You see temporary delays that
Speaker 1: are put into place. But number two, asking a foreign
Speaker 1: country to engage in an investigation is not illegal on
Speaker 1: its face. And it's not an impeachable offense that that's
Speaker 1: what there's And in fact, the President admits he asked
Speaker 1: Ukraine to engage in these investigations. So it's it's really
Speaker 1: kind of stunning. They're standing up there arguing over and
Speaker 1: over again the President wanted Ukraine to investigate, and Trump
Speaker 1: has said on live TV over and over again, yes,
Speaker 1: I wanted Ukraine to investigate. We've seen the transcript from
Speaker 1: this phone call with the President of Ukraine right this
Speaker 1: was released. I know most people's eyes glaze over when
Speaker 1: when everyone gets into the weeds over what he did
Speaker 1: with Ukraine and is that impeachable and on and on
Speaker 1: and on. But I think we all basically agree on
Speaker 1: the facts of the case, which is they withheld the AID,
Speaker 1: then they release the aid. President Trump did ask for
Speaker 1: an investigation by Ukraine into this corruption. And I guess
Speaker 1: what doesn't make sense to me is they impeach the
Speaker 1: president for this except Ukraine got the AID and we
Speaker 1: never got an investigation into the corruption. Well, and it's
Speaker 1: even you're right on both of those points, but but
Speaker 1: but even more broadly so, so it's the narrative from
Speaker 1: the House Democrats has changed. You remember there was for
Speaker 1: a couple of months we were hearing over and over
Speaker 1: again the phrase quit pro quo. Right, quit pro quo
Speaker 1: is a sort of phrase. Look, most people don't know
Speaker 1: quit pro quo means. It's a Latin phrase. It sounds
Speaker 1: kind of scary. Quit pro quos are not illegal. This
Speaker 1: would surprise anyone who's turning on the six o'clock news,
Speaker 1: because the media we're breathlessly saying, oh my god, this
Speaker 1: may have been a quid pro quo. So Quid pro
Speaker 1: quo is Latin for an exchange of something of value
Speaker 1: for something else of value. It means literally, this for
Speaker 1: that right, I give you this, you give me that.
Speaker 1: You know, it would take a Yale graduate to to
Speaker 1: really dive down on the Latin transfer. You know what
Speaker 1: it is. It's my Roman heritage, that's where it comes from.
Speaker 1: But look, quid pro quos in foreign policy, we do
Speaker 1: every single day that they're not only not illegal, that's
Speaker 1: it's the bread and butter of foreign policy. I'll give
Speaker 1: you an example. Nicholas Maduro is the dictator of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Right now, we have sanctions, economic sanctions in place against Venezuela.
Speaker 1: We have said if if Maduro steps down, we'll lift
Speaker 1: those sanctions. That's a quid pro quo. It's out and
Speaker 1: it's open. We're lifting sanctions if Maduro steps down. You
Speaker 1: look at Obama's a rand nuclear deal. That was a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. Obama gave over one hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: to Iran in exchange for a promise not to develop
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. Now that's a promise they weren't keeping, and
Speaker 1: they use the money to try to kill Americans. But
Speaker 1: that was a quick pro quote, right, So all of
Speaker 1: this focus on was this a quid pro quote misses
Speaker 1: the point. The question is whether it was done with
Speaker 1: corrupt intent, and that all comes down to whether these investigations,
Speaker 1: whether the President had a valid reason to ask U
Speaker 1: Crane to engage in these investigations and to withhold the
Speaker 1: aid either or both. But the real peace. If the
Speaker 1: President had a valid reason, the legitimate reason to ask
Speaker 1: U Crane to engage in the investigations, then everything the
Speaker 1: House is saying, everything the House Democrats are saying, is nonsense.
Speaker 1: And what is interesting now two days into it is
Speaker 1: they've devoted virtually every moment to trying to prove that
Speaker 1: he asked for the investigations, which he admits, which we
Speaker 1: already know this is something which we and almost zero
Speaker 1: to proving that asking for the investigations was illegitimate or inappropriate. Well,
Speaker 1: this is what I want to get to. So you've
Speaker 1: now had to sit through twenty two hours of this
Speaker 1: because there were three groups here, right There's there were
Speaker 1: the House Democrats. They're being led by Adam Schiff and
Speaker 1: they're the people who are pushing impeachment. There's President Trump's
Speaker 1: legal team, the White House Counsel and his lawyer, and
Speaker 1: they're the ones defending the president. Then there's the jury
Speaker 1: because this is a trial, and this is a special
Speaker 1: jury because the jury is you, guys, the senators are
Speaker 1: the jury in the impeachment trial. You've been listening to this,
Speaker 1: and let me correct you briefly and something. Yes, the
Speaker 1: senators of the jury, but oddly enough we're also the judges.
Speaker 1: And it's a strange dynamic under the Constitution. The hundred
Speaker 1: senators decide every question of law and every question of fact.
Speaker 1: And it's not a jury like you know, if you
Speaker 1: turn on Law and Order, it's not a jury like
Speaker 1: that you think about it. A jury is not supposed
Speaker 1: to know anything about the case. Is not supposed to know.
Speaker 1: The defendant is not supposed to know the prosecutor is
Speaker 1: not supposed to have conversations in this case senators. Look,
Speaker 1: Senators deal with the president, deal with the president all
Speaker 1: the time. The Framers knew that when the Constitution gave
Speaker 1: impeachment to the Senate, they knew fully well senators would
Speaker 1: be dealing with players, would be involved, would be speaking
Speaker 1: to the public. And so actually, I will point out
Speaker 1: that the President did tweet out this very podcast today,
Speaker 1: so obviously there is some relationships. Sure, But you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting when Bill Clinton had an impeachment trial, there
Speaker 1: was actually an objection. So one of the people in
Speaker 1: the trial referred to the senators as jurors, and they
Speaker 1: raise an objection and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who's the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice, sustain the objection and said, you're right, you're
Speaker 1: not jurors, your senators. And it's a different responsibility under
Speaker 1: the country because it's because not to get even more
Speaker 1: complicated here, but there is a fourth role, which is
Speaker 1: that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, head of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, is presiding over impeachment, but he's not
Speaker 1: quite a normal judge, and the jury is not quite
Speaker 1: a normal jury. And that is because an impeachment trial
Speaker 1: is unlike other kinds of trials very much so. Now
Speaker 1: you've spent twenty two hours listening to these two arguments
Speaker 1: from the House Democrats. And let me say, by the way,
Speaker 1: to lock a hundred senators in a room and to
Speaker 1: prevent all of them from speaking. Look, I gotta say,
Speaker 1: every one of us is suffering DTS. There's a reason
Speaker 1: I'm launching a damn podcast in the middle of this.
Speaker 1: I can't not talk for that long. It's so about
Speaker 1: medical treatments. Well, you know, they used to say that
Speaker 1: the most dangerous place in Washington, DC was between Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer and a television camera. Now I think have we
Speaker 1: actually don't know, because no one's ever survived that experience.
Speaker 1: It's true, we need more investigation. I'm actually thinking, having
Speaker 1: watched the House Democrats case for impeachment, I think the
Speaker 1: most dangerous place might be between Adam Schiff and a camera,
Speaker 1: because he's the one leading that case. And I just
Speaker 1: want to hear your thoughts on how each side is
Speaker 1: presenting their case. The House Democrats pushing impeachment, the White
Speaker 1: House lawyers defending the president. So yesterday we had procedural
Speaker 1: fights all day long. Half the time was the House Democrats,
Speaker 1: half the time was President Trump's lawyers. I thought they
Speaker 1: both did fine. I thought they both presented their case.
Speaker 1: When you and I talk last night, I shared my
Speaker 1: views that I think I think the White House lawyers
Speaker 1: need to focus less on process and more on substance,
Speaker 1: more on demonstrating why the president is innocent, why the
Speaker 1: conduct that he admits to is not illegal, is not inappropriate,
Speaker 1: and is perfectly legitimate and justified for a president to
Speaker 1: investigate corruption and to ask a foreign government to investigate corruption.
Speaker 1: That they need to make more of the affirmative case.
Speaker 1: So you've argued a lot of high profile cases. So
Speaker 1: what you're saying is maybe we're missing a little bit
Speaker 1: of the thirty thousand foot view. We're missing a little
Speaker 1: bit of the big picture from the White House. You
Speaker 1: can get lost in the weeds, and it's easy to
Speaker 1: do it, and I don't want that to happen to
Speaker 1: the American people. They just see a lot of bickering
Speaker 1: that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The underlying
Speaker 1: If you want to understand this, case, in one sentence,
Speaker 1: can the president investigate corruption? Yes or no? Okay? And
Speaker 1: the Democrats are saying, no, you can't investigate corruption. That
Speaker 1: he couldn't ask Ukraine to investigate Barisma, this natural gas
Speaker 1: company because Joe Biden, his son was making millions of
Speaker 1: dollars from him, and that is nuts. That's not a
Speaker 1: very good argument. Any president has the authority to investigate corruption,
Speaker 1: but has the responsibility to investigate corruption, And so I
Speaker 1: think we need to be talking more about the substance.
Speaker 1: So today though President Trump's lawyers didn't get to talk
Speaker 1: at all, so we're an opening argument. Day was all
Speaker 1: day long, nothing but House Democrats the Adam shifts show.
Speaker 1: That's not easy to say three times. By the way,
Speaker 1: there's some slips that come in there sometimes. But they
Speaker 1: were presenting their case, and as I said, it's all
Speaker 1: focused on proving things that everyone agrees to. How did
Speaker 1: they do in the sense of the political theater. Do
Speaker 1: you think, if you're just judging this from the effectiveness
Speaker 1: of their objectives, that the House Democrats are making a
Speaker 1: good argument? Look, I think for I think most partisans
Speaker 1: stayed where they are. In other words, if you hate
Speaker 1: President Trump and think he's the embodiment of evil. You
Speaker 1: probably thought today was a wonderful day because it featured
Speaker 1: ten hours of House Democrats describing how horrible Donald Trump is.
Speaker 1: If you think, if you think the President has done
Speaker 1: a good job and we've gotten good results, and you're
Speaker 1: tired of House Democrats just attacking the president all day long,
Speaker 1: then today was really hard to listen to. And it
Speaker 1: was made worse by the fact that it was incredibly repetitive.
Speaker 1: So yesterday, when we were having procedural arguments, the House
Speaker 1: Democrats basically gave their opening argument right, and then today
Speaker 1: they turned around and gave the same thing. So they
Speaker 1: keep making the same points and playing the same clips
Speaker 1: and reading the same quotes over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: And we've got two more days of opening arguments. We're
Speaker 1: gonna spend all day long tomorrow, all day long the
Speaker 1: next day with them making them. Did anything new happen
Speaker 1: in terms of the Democrats case, I think the single
Speaker 1: biggest thing and I think I think the House Democrats
Speaker 1: made a strategic mistake, which is they opened the door
Speaker 1: to Hunter Biden testify. Now here's why Adam Schiff got
Speaker 1: up and he argued in his opening argument. He based
Speaker 1: their whole case on the proposition that the two investigations
Speaker 1: that the President asked for were sham investigations. I want
Speaker 1: to read you a little bit from what Adam Schiff said.
Speaker 1: He said he said that he the President wanted Ukraine
Speaker 1: to launch investigations quote that were completely without merit, that
Speaker 1: were sham investigations that he later says, the allegations are
Speaker 1: untrue and they've quote been widely debunked patent lee false.
Speaker 1: So that's the central question, that these investigations are untrue. Now,
Speaker 1: let's take Barisma, which is the most important of the investigation. Okay, Barisma,
Speaker 1: big natural gas company, has had major problems with corruption.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow when we talk, we're gonna talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more about the evidence on Barisma that that the White
Speaker 1: House lawyers have laid out and the media doesn't want
Speaker 1: to talk about. I want to drill down. We'll do
Speaker 1: it tomorrow because it's going to take a lot of time,
Speaker 1: but I want to drill down into Barisma and Hunter Biden. Yes.
Speaker 1: To me, that seems like the whole heart of this
Speaker 1: impeachment question. It is the whole ball of wax. Now
Speaker 1: the Democrats look in the House. House Republicans wanted to
Speaker 1: call Hunter Biden as a witness, and Adam Schiff said no,
Speaker 1: said we're not allowing you. And it was interesting yesterday
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff said, if you have a trial and don't
Speaker 1: allow the defendant to put on evidence of innocence, it's
Speaker 1: not a fair trial, right, And it was you know,
Speaker 1: it was all I could do not to laugh out loud,
Speaker 1: because that's what they did in the House, because they
Speaker 1: base their whole case on arguing that asking for an
Speaker 1: investigation into Barisma is false and completely without merit. It
Speaker 1: raises not just as relevant, but but as central to
Speaker 1: the defense. Okay, what evidence was there that this was
Speaker 1: real corruption that needed to be investigated? And even beyond
Speaker 1: I mean, because I think when you get into this
Speaker 1: Ukrainian company and this relative of Joe Biden, it's easy
Speaker 1: to get lost in it. I just wonder, if you're
Speaker 1: investigating the question of whether Trump should or should not
Speaker 1: have asked for this investigation, whether that's an impeachable offense,
Speaker 1: perhaps the most important person to talk to and get
Speaker 1: testimony from would be Hunter Biden to ask him. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I don't know as a fact that
Speaker 1: it was corrupt. There's a lot of indication that it
Speaker 1: could well have been, but the House Democrats have had
Speaker 1: zero interest in asking, and they run around with their
Speaker 1: hair on fire if you even suggest that anyone would ask,
Speaker 1: much less ask Joe Biden. You know, hey, Joe, why
Speaker 1: why was your son getting paid a million bucks a
Speaker 1: year by a gas company? We didn't know anything about gas?
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, this is not subtle and sophisticated, right,
Speaker 1: But if the House Democrats are going to stop that,
Speaker 1: they do not want Hunter Biden to testify. Obviously, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is right now the front runner in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty Democratic presidential race, so they really don't want Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden to testify last time I checked. Although I do
Speaker 1: have to say I kind of wonder if Bernie and
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warred and klobuch Are are secretly rooting rooting for
Speaker 1: Joe and Hunter to testified, but they haven't indicated that
Speaker 1: they have not yet. However, they could give a little
Speaker 1: support to their Republican colleagues, because last time I checked,
Speaker 1: it is your political party that controls the Senate. So
Speaker 1: can the Republicans in the Senate make Hunter Biden testify
Speaker 1: before the Senate. Absolutely, it takes fifty one votes, fifty
Speaker 1: one Republicans, we can call Hunter Biden. Now, the way
Speaker 1: it works actually is the parties call the witnesses. So
Speaker 1: what it would mean, as President Trump's lawyers, if they
Speaker 1: want to call Hunter Biden, I've been saying for months,
Speaker 1: we ought to call Hunter Biden. Why. Look the prosecutors
Speaker 1: the House Democrats, they had seventeen witnesses in the House.
Speaker 1: They built the prosecution side in what was basically a
Speaker 1: kangaroo court where you say only prosecution witnesses, and we
Speaker 1: don't allow the White House to call witnesses. So you've
Speaker 1: got seventeen witnesses for the anti Trump pro impeachment side,
Speaker 1: and you've got zero witnesses. The president had not been
Speaker 1: able to call a single witness. Now, if the president
Speaker 1: could call one, I'm pretty sure it would be Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: If the president could call too, it might be Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden and the so called whistleblower. If you could call three,
Speaker 1: my guess is Joe Biden might be number three on that.
Speaker 1: We can call those witnesses or any others, and it
Speaker 1: just takes fifty one votes. We have fifty three Republicans.
Speaker 1: So if you simply have Republicans saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: we want to have a fair trial. One side has
Speaker 1: had all their witnesses. The other side, the defendant, the accused,
Speaker 1: has had zero witnesses. That's not fair. So is it
Speaker 1: going to happen? I mean, is the White House going
Speaker 1: to call Hunter Biden to testify? So it's up in
Speaker 1: the air. The fight we had yesterday as we adopted
Speaker 1: basically the same scheduling order the Clinton impeachment trial had,
Speaker 1: which is we'll go through opening arguments and questions from
Speaker 1: senators first, and then we'll decide whether additional witnesses are needed.
Speaker 1: And so the House Democrats they want to call a
Speaker 1: bunch of additional witnesses. The big one they're focusing on
Speaker 1: is John Bolton. John Bolton was the National security advisor
Speaker 1: to President Trump. They think they're going to get some
Speaker 1: dirt on Trump out of John bull that that is
Speaker 1: their big focus. Next week, the Senator is going to
Speaker 1: vote whether we're going to have additional witnesses or not.
Speaker 1: And it's going to make a big difference because you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things you and I were talking about
Speaker 1: a little earlier is how long is this thing going
Speaker 1: to last, I really want to know that because I
Speaker 1: don't live in Washington, DC, so I got to make
Speaker 1: some plans. Well, the vote next week on witnesses will
Speaker 1: make a massive difference. Okay. If fifty one Senators vote
Speaker 1: next week we don't need any more witnesses, We've got
Speaker 1: all the evidence we need, then the trial will end
Speaker 1: next week, we'll move to final judgment, and if and
Speaker 1: when that happens, the president will be acquitted because because
Speaker 1: the House Democrats haven't proven their case. Okay. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, if fifty one senators vote that we do
Speaker 1: need additional witnesses, then it's Katie bar the door. Then
Speaker 1: this thing could easily last weeks or even months. You
Speaker 1: could see six, seven, eight, nine weeks, because if you
Speaker 1: go down in additional witnesses, you're you're opening the door
Speaker 1: to litigation, to assertion of privileges, to all sorts of delays.
Speaker 1: We could be sitting here here months from now with
Speaker 1: the impeachment trial still going on if we call additional
Speaker 1: witness But if you call additional witnesses, then we might
Speaker 1: finally hear from Hunter Biden. Now my question on this though,
Speaker 1: is and by the way, if we do call additional witnesses.
Speaker 1: I'm very confident we'll call Hunter Biden. But if you
Speaker 1: call Hunter Biden, or rather if the White House calls
Speaker 1: it Hunter Biden to testify before the Senate, can't Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden just say I don't want to answer your questions.
Speaker 1: I plead the fifth and I'm not gonna I'm not
Speaker 1: going to say anything, so he can and if we
Speaker 1: call Hunter Biden, he will almost certainly plead the fifth.
Speaker 1: Now here's the interesting thing. There's a federal statue that
Speaker 1: gives the Senate the authority to grant him what's called
Speaker 1: transactional immunity, which means we can force him to testify. Now,
Speaker 1: he can't be prosecuted for anything he testifies to, Okay,
Speaker 1: but you can find out, you can get his testimony,
Speaker 1: and that's something the Senate can do, grant him immunity.
Speaker 1: And I got to say that idea. You want to
Speaker 1: talk about something to terrify forty seven Democrats in the Senate,
Speaker 1: It is the fact that the Senate could grant Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden immunity and hear his testimony about whether, in fact,
Speaker 1: there was corruption from Joe Biden. And let's be clear,
Speaker 1: this is not about lac Hunter Biden. It's a guy
Speaker 1: who's led a troubled life. This is not about him.
Speaker 1: This is the question about whether his dad abused his power. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, I just want to be very clear
Speaker 1: about this. Hunter Biden could be called to testify and
Speaker 1: he could say I don't want to testify. I plead
Speaker 1: the fifth And if he's going to be held responsible
Speaker 1: for anything he did, then it ends there. However, the
Speaker 1: Senate can give him immunity so he won't be held
Speaker 1: responsible for any crimes he commits. And no reporter in
Speaker 1: Washington knows this or understands this. But the Senate can
Speaker 1: force Hunter Biden to testify. You can, and I'll give
Speaker 1: an example. Take a criminal case. This is something prosecutors
Speaker 1: do all the time. Let's say you have a criminal
Speaker 1: case and you have, say, you know, some drug dealers
Speaker 1: that that that you're investigating, and you've got say a
Speaker 1: low level guy, a drug dealer. You'll see prosecutors that
Speaker 1: will give that drug dealer immunity to flip on the
Speaker 1: higher ups and to make them testify. Give them immunity
Speaker 1: to flip on the higher ups. It's the same basic principle.
Speaker 1: Immunity is not always a good thing, because it means
Speaker 1: you can be forced to testify or be put in
Speaker 1: jail if you don't. That is a lot of leverage.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, Senator, I have not heard
Speaker 1: that anywhere else. I had no idea that the Senate
Speaker 1: could make unter Biden testament. What reporters don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about it. Reporters don't want to talk about barism
Speaker 1: at all. They don't want to talk about the evidence
Speaker 1: of corruption that I mean, I mean, they're that and
Speaker 1: in fact, you know it's even funnier than that. So
Speaker 1: the Joe Biden campaign is sending out angry letters to
Speaker 1: media reporters saying, whenever you mentioned the allegations of corruption,
Speaker 1: you must state on air these are false and have
Speaker 1: been disproven. In what other instance are so called reporters
Speaker 1: becoming an advocate? Look, I don't know if there was
Speaker 1: corruption or not. I do know that there's prima facia
Speaker 1: evidence something, and I know one way to find out.
Speaker 1: At a minimum. The House Democrats don't even want to
Speaker 1: ask the questions, and we ought to ask the questions.
Speaker 1: Now are we going to have additional witnesses? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Next week when we vote on it. All, forty seven
Speaker 1: Democrats will vote yes. The question is are there going
Speaker 1: to be four Republicans that vote yes? Maybe? I think
Speaker 1: I could name a few Republicans who might be likely too.
Speaker 1: There are three who have spoken publicly about being open
Speaker 1: to it. It's not clear if there's a fourth. It's
Speaker 1: not clear if those three will vote right. If we
Speaker 1: have additional witnesses, We're going on for a long time.
Speaker 1: But that means we may get John Bolton in, but
Speaker 1: we're gonna get Hunter Biden. We may get other witnesses too.
Speaker 1: This is the best argument I've heard so far for
Speaker 1: dragging this thing onward. Obviously, we've got a whole lot
Speaker 1: more to get to. We will be getting into Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: Bizma and corruption in Ukraine specifically tomorrow, because I know
Speaker 1: pretty much nothing about it and you know pretty much
Speaker 1: everything about it. So I want to I want to
Speaker 1: hear that. Obviously, people need to subscribe and leave a
Speaker 1: five star review. Please to this show. It is Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz and we are now up on Apple podcasts.
Speaker 1: We are on YouTube or on Spotify. We are everywhere
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. One thing we want we want
Speaker 1: to do in these shows because there is so much
Speaker 1: to cover. Is take your questions from the mail bags.
Speaker 1: So we have a few of these today that came
Speaker 1: out after our first episode. In just our remaining one
Speaker 1: or two minutes here, let's try to get through a
Speaker 1: couple of them, all right, from timmy Senator Cruise, who
Speaker 1: fell asleep? Twenty two hours of testimony? Who fell asleep?
Speaker 1: So there's been some reporting that accused Jim Rish of
Speaker 1: falling asleep. I didn't see that. I got to admit it.
Speaker 1: Points I kind of feel like all of us fell asleep.
Speaker 1: Did you mean it was? I didn't formally not off,
Speaker 1: I will say so Jim's defense and his press spokesperson
Speaker 1: said he was closing his eyes and listening contemplatively. I
Speaker 1: you know, I've tried that with Heidi at home. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that the story always that's not a great excuse, no,
Speaker 1: but but I gotta admit last night, so I will say,
Speaker 1: when we were there at two in the morning, I
Speaker 1: was asking Chuck Grassley. Yeah, you know, Iowa farmer, eighty
Speaker 1: six years old. Chuck is an early bird. And I
Speaker 1: asked Chuck last night, I said, all right, what time
Speaker 1: do you get up each morning, and Chuck said four Now.
Speaker 1: He said he didn't get it. I didn't ask him
Speaker 1: what time he got up to day, but he said,
Speaker 1: I won't get up at four am. When he was
Speaker 1: there at two. He was still at the senator for it.
Speaker 1: But Buddy, it was you know, look, we met, we
Speaker 1: stayed awake. I'm not sure much of America did. But
Speaker 1: but the hundred senators by and large name that almost
Speaker 1: sounds like you're pleading the fifth This brings up the
Speaker 1: immunity arguments. I don't We'll have to get into that tomorrow.
Speaker 1: La final question from Carl do you think senator that
Speaker 1: they will try to impeach President Trump again if this
Speaker 1: one fails. I think they'll certainly be Democrats that want to.
Speaker 1: They could easily. I don't think Pelosi wants to. So
Speaker 1: one of the interesting things you look, a year ago,
Speaker 1: Pelosi was saying, don't impeach Trump. A partisan impeachment doesn't work.
Speaker 1: I think Pelosi thinks impeachment. I think she thought it
Speaker 1: was going to backfire. I think she thinks it's backfired now.
Speaker 1: And basically the far left that hates Trump dragged her
Speaker 1: into doing this. So I was having a conversation with
Speaker 1: one of the other Republican senators today, he was saying,
Speaker 1: why are they doing this now? Why didn't they do
Speaker 1: this in June or July? And that was my comment
Speaker 1: to him, is I think Pelosi thinks this is a
Speaker 1: political loser and she wants to get it over with.
Speaker 1: So will the extreme left one will try to impeach
Speaker 1: Trump over and over and over again. Yes, but I'd
Speaker 1: be surprised if the House goes out in this road.
Speaker 1: It didn't even occur to me that they could try
Speaker 1: to impeach him again. I mean, I guess there have
Speaker 1: been a whole bunch of excuses for impeachment since the beginning.
Speaker 1: Six out of seven of the House Democrat impeachment managers
Speaker 1: actual supported impeachment before we knew anything about the current
Speaker 1: excuse to impeach. A lot of these Democrats called for
Speaker 1: impeaching Trump within days of his being elected, before he'd
Speaker 1: been sworn in. So this has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: This has to do with Trump derangement, center right, and
Speaker 1: that's going to continue regardless. And yet somewhere at the
Speaker 1: heart of all this that nobody's talking about in the
Speaker 1: press are not covering, is this incident, this corruption in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: the question of Beisma, the question of Hunter Biden, we
Speaker 1: will have to get into. By the way, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration wouldn't investigate it. The Obama Justice Department wouldn't investigate it.
Speaker 1: There was no accountability. And I got to say, when
Speaker 1: I'm back home in Texas, the frustration about folks in
Speaker 1: the prior administration who abused power and were never held accountable.
Speaker 1: That frustration is massive, and and and and it still
Speaker 1: needs to be dealt. Are they going to be held
Speaker 1: accountable from the past administration book? I hope so they
Speaker 1: haven't been so far, and and and they need to
Speaker 1: be Law needs to be enforced fairly, regardless of party,
Speaker 1: Which means the whole democratic argument that just because Joe
Speaker 1: brock Biden as vice president you can't investigate when there's
Speaker 1: enormous evidence of corruption, that that's a pretty bogus argument.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty weak argument. I think hopefully we'll be
Speaker 1: able to just dismantle it tomorrow night. We've got to
Speaker 1: We've got to get you ready to go back on
Speaker 1: the hill and listen to another ten hours of impeachment
Speaker 1: debate in this trial. Senator, thank you as always Seemanyanna.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. We'll
Speaker 1: see tomorrow. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is
Speaker 1: being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
Speaker 1: a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
Speaker 1: and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
Speaker 1: running for Congress and help their Publican Party across the nation.