Speaker 1: Remember civil liberties with all the Obama gates, spying and
Speaker 1: due process under attack, and the endless lockdowns, they might
Speaker 1: seem like a distant memory. We will get into all
Speaker 1: of it. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. The
Speaker 1: last time that we spoke, the biggest story of the
Speaker 1: day was the exoneration of Michael Flynn, President Trump's first
Speaker 1: national security advisor. The DJ dropped the case into him,
Speaker 1: the FBI set him up. This was a huge miscarriage
Speaker 1: of justice, but thankfully the case was being dismissed until
Speaker 1: I just read a headline that the judge is not
Speaker 1: letting go of the case even though the prosecution said
Speaker 1: that they were pulling out of it. Can you explain
Speaker 1: to me how that's even possible. What's going on? It
Speaker 1: is ridiculous that this federal judge. We've seen too many
Speaker 1: judges on the bench behaving like their members of the
Speaker 1: resistance and signing up to to really the partisan objective
Speaker 1: of attacking the president and this administration. Listen, everything about
Speaker 1: this Michael Flynn investigation and prosecution stinks from the get go,
Speaker 1: and and what has come public in the last couple
Speaker 1: of weeks is stunning. What we now know is number
Speaker 1: one Attorney General Bill Barr, when he came in, assigned
Speaker 1: a US attorney who is a long time, experienced veteran
Speaker 1: with the FBI and the Department of Justice to go
Speaker 1: and invest go look at this case and make sure
Speaker 1: nothing untoward happened. And he went and investigated, and they
Speaker 1: were horrified by what they found. They found that the
Speaker 1: FBI agents going after Michael Flynn Number one. The FBI
Speaker 1: was going to dismiss the case because they didn't have
Speaker 1: any evidence. And then Peter Struck, who we've seen as
Speaker 1: a rapidly partisan Trump pater, stopped from being closed and
Speaker 1: said how lucky they were that their incompetence, that's his word,
Speaker 1: was such that it saved them from closing the case.
Speaker 1: And they decided, all right, let's go interview him and
Speaker 1: see if we can somehow entrap him in a lie
Speaker 1: in order too. And this is the FBI zone notes
Speaker 1: get him fired, get him to lie so we can
Speaker 1: get him fired. That's not the FBI's job. Why are
Speaker 1: they trying to get the national security advisor for the
Speaker 1: newly elected president fired? So that came out initially, but
Speaker 1: it gets worse. And by the way, James Comey bragged,
Speaker 1: the old FBI director bragged in an interview how essentially
Speaker 1: he suckered General Flynn, who's a decorated three star general,
Speaker 1: by the way, who's who's spent his whole life fighting
Speaker 1: to defend this country. They suckered General Flynn into this,
Speaker 1: this interview where where they said, oh, you don't need
Speaker 1: a lawyer, No, no no, no, you don't need to tell
Speaker 1: the White House counsel about it. We're just coming to
Speaker 1: chat chat and he was and actually Komy said something
Speaker 1: the effect of, you know, a White House that knew
Speaker 1: what they were doing would never have fallen for this.
Speaker 1: Of course, they did this right after Trump was elected,
Speaker 1: right when they're getting started, when they're getting their team
Speaker 1: in place. But but it's worse than that. What's come
Speaker 1: out in this last week are two things that are
Speaker 1: beyond stunning. One, we know that there was a January
Speaker 1: fifth meeting in the White House with President Obama. The
Speaker 1: President Obama was directly part of the meeting where it
Speaker 1: was discussed with senior law enforcement and intelligence that they
Speaker 1: were targeting the National Security Advisor for the incoming president.
Speaker 1: Not only that, we know that Joe Biden was at
Speaker 1: that meeting, and stunningly that Joe Biden personally directed the
Speaker 1: unmasking of General Flynn. Let's let's unmask his name. Normally
Speaker 1: the intelligence reports, the intercepts come around with names blocked out.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden personally said, unmask him, let's see his name.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that, in the last week
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration, Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor,
Speaker 1: send an email to herself and to the intelligence community saying,
Speaker 1: under the directions of President Obama, and she made this clear,
Speaker 1: this was coming from Barack Obama himself, you may not
Speaker 1: be able to share certain aspects of national security information
Speaker 1: concerning Russia with the incoming president. What in the hell
Speaker 1: like this has never happened in the history of our country,
Speaker 1: an outgoing administration launching a political investigation, a political persecution,
Speaker 1: and telling all of the deep state bureaucrats when the
Speaker 1: new president comes in, he's not your president. You don't
Speaker 1: have to tell him what's going on. Just go after him,
Speaker 1: target him and trap him, set him up. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was stunning and in more than two centuries of
Speaker 1: our nation history. I'm not aware of any outgoing administration
Speaker 1: that ever so much has tried to do this to
Speaker 1: the new administration. It is wrong, it is offensive, it
Speaker 1: has grotesque And so the Department of Justice came in
Speaker 1: and said, we shouldn't have brought this case. We don't
Speaker 1: have the evidence. Let's dismiss it. Now. Here's what happens
Speaker 1: when the prosecutor does that. The judge says, case dismissed. Right,
Speaker 1: prosecutor is not going to prosecute you. The case is dismissed.
Speaker 1: But this judge apparently has has strapped on his little
Speaker 1: pink hat and he's decided he's part of the resistance.
Speaker 1: So number one, he issued this call to a meeky
Speaker 1: to friends of the court. You guys, tell me if
Speaker 1: this prosecution should continue even though the prosecutors aren't prosecuting it.
Speaker 1: And then he appointed another judge who happens to be
Speaker 1: a democratic appointing as well the coincidence, no assess whether
Speaker 1: he should charge Michael Flynn with perjury. All right, well,
Speaker 1: let me give you a clue. Judge, you or your
Speaker 1: body who you've appointed, don't charge anybody with anybody. Go'll
Speaker 1: read that document that you may have put away a
Speaker 1: long time ago, called the constitution. They're three articles Article one,
Speaker 1: Article two, an article three that set up our constitution.
Speaker 1: They're seven all together, but three that set set up
Speaker 1: our government. You're an Article three. You're the judiciary. It
Speaker 1: is the executive that charges, it is the judiciary that
Speaker 1: tries the case. And so this is grotesque. It is
Speaker 1: a violation of civil liberties. And of course all the
Speaker 1: left wing partisans don't care because they hate Trump. It
Speaker 1: is offensive. This is a very bizarre case. I'm glad
Speaker 1: you could lay that out because I've had trouble trying
Speaker 1: to relate. You have a Michael Flynn. Part of it
Speaker 1: relates to this January fifth meeting, how it relates to
Speaker 1: Susan Rice and Barack Obama and now Joe Biden. We've
Speaker 1: learned this is being called Obama Gate. The mainstream media
Speaker 1: are denying that Obama Gate exists, just like they denied
Speaker 1: all the rest of Brock Obama's presidential scandals. You're saying,
Speaker 1: this is possibly unprecedented, this is historic. This is an
Speaker 1: egregious abuse of power. I don't know of any history.
Speaker 1: They've been administrations that that didn't like each other before
Speaker 1: that shifted from one to the other. But but one
Speaker 1: of the hallmarks of our democratic system, of our constitutional
Speaker 1: republic is the peaceful transition of power from one party
Speaker 1: to another. We're not a bean at a republic. We
Speaker 1: don't go to try to prosecute those we disagree with
Speaker 1: because of political disagreements. We enforced the law regardless of party.
Speaker 1: That's that's what our tradition is. You know, the closest
Speaker 1: I can think of it is when the Clinton administration
Speaker 1: was leaving in the George W. Bush administration came in. Well,
Speaker 1: we knew that that that that the Clintons did steal
Speaker 1: the silverl wear from the White House residence, but that
Speaker 1: was the furniture that that was uniquely characteristic of them.
Speaker 1: But the outgoing Clinton White House staff, they did on
Speaker 1: a number of the keyboards in the White House they
Speaker 1: pulled the letter W off of and you know, it's
Speaker 1: George W. Bush. And that was sort of a juvenile prank.
Speaker 1: But they didn't unleash the Department of Justice and the
Speaker 1: FBI and the intelligence community to set up to entrap,
Speaker 1: to prosecute, to target the incoming administration. The National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor to unleash wire taps on the incoming administration's campaign
Speaker 1: to base it on a bogus dossier compiled by the
Speaker 1: opposite Bye bye, I guess the outgoing administration's own party,
Speaker 1: paid for by the DNC, paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: What a grotesque abuse of power. And let me tell
Speaker 1: you something. The Senate needs to do something about it.
Speaker 1: The Senate needs to have every one of these clowns
Speaker 1: that abused their power brought in front of us and
Speaker 1: testify under oath, the entire array of them, the ones
Speaker 1: that we're sitting in that White House. I'm talking James Comey,
Speaker 1: I'm talking Yates, I'm talking Susan Rice, I'm talking Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: I'm talking Barack Obama. Every one of them should testify
Speaker 1: about their weaponizing and politicizing law enforcement and the intelligence
Speaker 1: community to prosecute, target and wrongfully go after the next
Speaker 1: the incoming president of the United States. That's right, and
Speaker 1: it's so corrupt. And even if you're a Trump hater
Speaker 1: out there, even if you're glad you know that the
Speaker 1: outgoing administration was going after the incoming administration, all of
Speaker 1: that it does come down also to a question of
Speaker 1: civil liberties. And it's not just being attacked by government
Speaker 1: thugs who are spying on people. Were also seeing this
Speaker 1: in other places. You had a great tweet earlier today.
Speaker 1: This was in regard to Betsy DeVoss, the Education Secretary,
Speaker 1: who said that Betsy DeVoss is now issued these policies
Speaker 1: that will protect the accused on college campuses. But the
Speaker 1: ACLU is now going after Betsy divoce for protecting civil liberties,
Speaker 1: even though the ACLU is supposed to be the American
Speaker 1: Civil Liberties Union. So you tweeted out, ACLU moves to
Speaker 1: delete the C and the L from their name. Hereafter
Speaker 1: it shall be the ADPU, the American Democratic Party Union.
Speaker 1: They are for all criminal defendants unless they're Republicans, and
Speaker 1: they are for all sexual assault victims unless they are
Speaker 1: accusing Democrats. Can you just tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about the Betsy divorce decision, what that means on campus,
Speaker 1: and how on earth the ACLU now opposes civil liberties. Look,
Speaker 1: it is crazy. Let's start with Betsy Divace's Secretary of Education,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration when it came to college campuses, that
Speaker 1: they really got radicalized and sexual assault is a horrific evil.
Speaker 1: I've spent a lot of my life in law enforcement,
Speaker 1: secuting those who commit sexual assault. It has been a
Speaker 1: lifelong passion of mind. It is a grotesque evil that
Speaker 1: should be punished. What criminal defendants have rights, We have
Speaker 1: due process, we have a bill of rights. We have
Speaker 1: where people are an accusers entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: What the Obama Department of Education did is they use
Speaker 1: the federal education dollars to try to course frankly, a
Speaker 1: bunch of radicals on campuses who were happy to do
Speaker 1: this anyway into creating these start chambers where where if
Speaker 1: there's an accusation of sexual assault, the accused is presumed
Speaker 1: guilty and has little or no rights, can't confront their accuser,
Speaker 1: can't even know what the charge is in some cases,
Speaker 1: I mean it really is. It's cough gas. Where where
Speaker 1: you have been charged, we will not inform you what
Speaker 1: the charge is, We will not inform you who is
Speaker 1: raising the allegations. You can't call witnesses in your defense
Speaker 1: because you don't know what you're charged with. But here
Speaker 1: are the consequences. Okay, that's not fair, that's not right,
Speaker 1: that's not just. But but in the radical leftist world,
Speaker 1: it was politically expedient. The Department Education said, no, we're
Speaker 1: going to follow federal law, and that means we're not
Speaker 1: going to force colleges just to just to immediately summarily
Speaker 1: execute anyone who's facing an accusation. Instead, there should be
Speaker 1: a fair fact fighting proceeding that respects due process. Now,
Speaker 1: in any ordinary circumstance, you take the ASLU a SLU.
Speaker 1: I disagree with a lot of the things they do,
Speaker 1: but they were formed to protect civil liberties, and in fact,
Speaker 1: to protect civil liberties of those who have been charged
Speaker 1: with something. Those who have been accused with something, many
Speaker 1: times they're guilty, and if they're guilty, they should be punished.
Speaker 1: But you're entitled to have due process protections. Here's the
Speaker 1: problem the ASILU, like most of the left, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has driven the nuts. I mean that they're they're just
Speaker 1: that they're in straight jackets, babbling bugs, bunny. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, they just they don't make any sense anymore.
Speaker 1: And so ASO used to support all criminal defendants. Okay,
Speaker 1: I understand that. Sometimes I don't like it if it's
Speaker 1: mass murders, that they've taken it too far. But okay,
Speaker 1: that's at least a coherent position is I'm going to
Speaker 1: support criminal defendants against government prosecution, defend their rights. A
Speaker 1: cl you hadn't doing that anymore. Where is the ACLU,
Speaker 1: And Michael Flynn show me the ACOU coming in and saying, judge,
Speaker 1: if the prosecution is just missing the case, you can't
Speaker 1: become judge, prosecutor and presumably execution. I don't know if
Speaker 1: the judge is gonna lock him in his own jail
Speaker 1: cell too. Any reasonably coherent ACOU would be standing alongside
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn. But god forbid, he's a Republican and worked
Speaker 1: for Trump. Oh no, no, no no, no, a CLU has
Speaker 1: got nothing to do with it. On the flip side,
Speaker 1: you know they want a virtue signal on sexual assault.
Speaker 1: Where's the ACLU on the allegations against Joe Biden? I
Speaker 1: don't recall the ACLU. And by the way, you remember
Speaker 1: the lieutenant governor of Virginia, pretty serious allegations rape against him.
Speaker 1: But but but he's a Democrat. Of course you've forgotten him.
Speaker 1: Has any media outlet covered that for six months? It's disappeared?
Speaker 1: Why because he's a Democrat. Where's the ILU on that?
Speaker 1: And so it is at this point so shamelessly partisan
Speaker 1: that it ought to be possible to defend principles, defend
Speaker 1: the Constitution, defend the Bill of Rights with coherency and
Speaker 1: and fairness. Let's look, when there's a sexual assault allegation.
Speaker 1: I believe the alleged victims should be treated with respect,
Speaker 1: should be listened to, should the allegations should be treated seriously.
Speaker 1: But it still depends on the evidence. The accused deserves
Speaker 1: a presumption of innocence, and you should look to the
Speaker 1: facts that that's actually a fair and neutral way to
Speaker 1: apply it. It's not the way these hardcore lefty partisans are.
Speaker 1: That's right. We have kangaroo courts on college campuses that
Speaker 1: are trampling over the due process rights of the accused,
Speaker 1: and that for some reason, these panels of professors are
Speaker 1: dealing with one of the most serious crimes you can commit,
Speaker 1: not our criminal justice system, but for some reason, these
Speaker 1: random professors and deans. You've got the kangaroo courts there.
Speaker 1: You got the kangaroo courts at the federal level now
Speaker 1: trying to continue the persecution of Michael Flynn. We're looking around,
Speaker 1: We're saying, what happened to our civil liberties and I
Speaker 1: think for most Americans, the way it really affects our
Speaker 1: lives is we were told fifteen days to slow the spread.
Speaker 1: We're going to give up some of our civil liberties
Speaker 1: because obviously there's this epidemic going around and we want
Speaker 1: to keep everybody safe. Now, you know, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of states are being very reasonable about this, reacting
Speaker 1: to evidence some states some cities are becoming downright arbitrary
Speaker 1: in their power grabs. They're saying that these power grabs
Speaker 1: are going to go on indefinitely, or have those places
Speaker 1: just simply lost our civil liberties. Well, let me make
Speaker 1: two points, one on sexual assault and then one more
Speaker 1: generally on individual liberty and civil liberties. Yeah, on sexual assault. Look,
Speaker 1: I have argued and one numerous cases dealing with prosecuting
Speaker 1: and in some cases seeking the death penalty for child
Speaker 1: rapists and those who committed sexual assault. I think it
Speaker 1: needs to be punished very seriously. I've also been leading
Speaker 1: the fight, along with New York Democrat Kirsten Jellabrand, to
Speaker 1: change the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the military.
Speaker 1: The military, unfortunately has been a long problem where the
Speaker 1: decisions charging decisions right now are made by the commanding officer,
Speaker 1: and the problem is you get conflicts of interest and
Speaker 1: victims of sexual assault the military don't don't feel confident
Speaker 1: to come forward with those allegations. So I've long been
Speaker 1: an advocate of changing the charging decisions from the commanding
Speaker 1: officer to a military rear prosecutor, so keeping it within
Speaker 1: the military, but not in the immediate change of command,
Speaker 1: so the prosecutor can fairly evaluate the evidence, be credible
Speaker 1: and decide whether or not there's sufficient evidence to charge
Speaker 1: sexual assault. The reason I bring that up is all
Speaker 1: of the virtue signaling lefties. For eight years Barack Obama
Speaker 1: was president. He could have changed it any day, he
Speaker 1: could have changed how sexual assault in the military is prosecuted,
Speaker 1: and Barack Obama for eight years refused to do it.
Speaker 1: That actually would make a difference, and it needs to
Speaker 1: be done. So your second point about about individual liberties
Speaker 1: we are seeing in any crisis. You remember the movie
Speaker 1: Wall Street. Yes, there's a great Saint scene where where
Speaker 1: Lou the old broker, says says to Charlie Sheen. You
Speaker 1: know I'm going to paraphrase this and mess this up,
Speaker 1: but something to the effect of there comes a time
Speaker 1: in a crisis when a man stares into the abyss,
Speaker 1: and in the abyss is where he finds his character,
Speaker 1: and that is what saves him from the abyss. That's
Speaker 1: close to it. It's a good rendition. Look in a
Speaker 1: ton in a time of crisis, you see someone's character. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we are seeing the character of these petty authoritarian
Speaker 1: tyrants who are running around stripping away civil liberties. You know.
Speaker 1: Just earlier today, I saw a video of a woman
Speaker 1: in New York, an African American bomb who was walking
Speaker 1: with her son. He's I don't know, maybe three or
Speaker 1: four years old, young child, walking through the subway and
Speaker 1: she committed apparently the cardinal sin of She wasn't wearing
Speaker 1: a mask, and she was surrounded by police officers who
Speaker 1: threw her to the ground, wrestled her to the ground,
Speaker 1: pushed her into number one, the nasty, dirty subway station floor,
Speaker 1: which I can't imagine anyone laying down and handcuffed her.
Speaker 1: And her little son is sitting there watching this. By
Speaker 1: the way, where's the AA you you want to talk about?
Speaker 1: But like, okay, and I'm not saying it's so easy
Speaker 1: for people to embrace extremes. I'm not saying never wear
Speaker 1: a mask ever. I wear a mask when I'm on
Speaker 1: an airplane. I wear a mask when I'm go to
Speaker 1: the grocery store. I'm wearing a mask. I want to
Speaker 1: be respect public safety. But it could have been really
Speaker 1: different if they had given her a mask, if they hadn't, Like,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be throwing young moms to the ground in
Speaker 1: front of their little kids and handcuffing them for not
Speaker 1: wearing a mask. That's just stupid. But these authoritarian tyrants,
Speaker 1: they believe in government power. They hate liberty. It's the
Speaker 1: same numbskulls. It's different numbskulls, but the same type of
Speaker 1: numbskulls who sent in bulldozers in California to fill a
Speaker 1: skate park with sand. Like what I mean that video,
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it, you ought to watch it.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I think it would be perfectly
Speaker 1: reasonable for the local officials to have a police officer
Speaker 1: there and say say, kids, you guys need to socially distanced.
Speaker 1: Don't all gather together, spread apart and be safe. But
Speaker 1: you know, look, if a kid wants to go skateboarding, like,
Speaker 1: it's only malicious tyranny. Yes, that fills a skatepart with sand,
Speaker 1: that's just dumb. And it's the same malicious tyranny that
Speaker 1: throws a mom on the floor and handcuffs her in
Speaker 1: front of her little kid. And of course, the people
Speaker 1: who filled that skatepark should have known that teenage skateboard
Speaker 1: punks are not exactly known for following the rules, so
Speaker 1: they were obviously going to dig the sand out and
Speaker 1: go right back to skateboarding. More power to them. I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it. And lest I checked a skateboarders are
Speaker 1: are loaners, certainly, all the skateboarders I've known. And by
Speaker 1: the way, for anyone who who's sort of young and
Speaker 1: hip and rebellious, remember it is the lefty Dems ye,
Speaker 1: that are trying to strip away your freedom. Remember who's
Speaker 1: doing it, Remember the tyrants. And by the way, you
Speaker 1: know you're in California right now, I don't see actually
Speaker 1: the monitors watching you, although I kind of expect a
Speaker 1: Skynet drone to come in any moment now and like
Speaker 1: find you. But but I gotta say, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of Californians looking to flee, including some pretty prominent players.
Speaker 1: You know. I noticed Elon Musk was it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's one of the wealthiest guys, one of the most
Speaker 1: successful guys in California. I think he's put his houses
Speaker 1: on the market. He said he's going to move to
Speaker 1: either Nevada or Texas. You're seeing a number of other people, Senator,
Speaker 1: is this an invitation or we should we all just
Speaker 1: go down to Texas? Now? Yes, with a caveat. So
Speaker 1: you're all invited, but there needs to be an entrance exam.
Speaker 1: If you're going to vote for the sort of lefty
Speaker 1: commies that screwed up California, please stay where you are
Speaker 1: and enjoy what you voted for. If you're willing to
Speaker 1: come for freedom, we would welcome you. And so Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Look his Tesla factory. He wants to open, as workers
Speaker 1: want to open, and the petty tyrant said, no, you
Speaker 1: can't work. And by the way, there was a Democratic
Speaker 1: state legislator who sent out a tweet that was fu
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, what on earth is going on that elected
Speaker 1: officials are tweeting expletives at their constituents. These are the
Speaker 1: same clowns who last week we talked about the elected
Speaker 1: Democratic judge in Dallas that demanded of Shelley Luther the hairdresser.
Speaker 1: Apologize to your elected officials. You guys are not frigging overlords.
Speaker 1: Get off your power trip and don't curse at your constituents.
Speaker 1: And so I sent out a tweet to Delon Musk saying,
Speaker 1: come to Texas. We welcome you. We love jobs, we
Speaker 1: like making cars and trucks down here. We'd love to
Speaker 1: have Tesla. By the way, I gotta say Tesla's I
Speaker 1: don't have a test save some friends who have it.
Speaker 1: They're amazing drives. And my girls desperately want us to
Speaker 1: get a Tesla because so the coolest thing is on
Speaker 1: the giant TV screen in the middle. I guess there's
Speaker 1: a button that makes a fart noise from each of
Speaker 1: the seats, which to a nine year old and twelve
Speaker 1: year old and even to a forty nine year old
Speaker 1: year old really damn funny that is. I don't know
Speaker 1: about that. Well, how do I want? And you know
Speaker 1: who also it was talking of moving to Texas. Is
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan? That's right now, Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan said,
Speaker 1: all right, I can't stand it. I may move to Texas.
Speaker 1: I said, Joe, we'd welcome you here now you and
Speaker 1: I know Joe had been the number one podcast until
Speaker 1: till Joe Rogan was dethroned by yours truly and this
Speaker 1: podcast here right, Yes, I do remember that. Well. I
Speaker 1: hope I hope he didn't take it so hard that
Speaker 1: he realized that, you know, really that huge podcast is
Speaker 1: in Texas. It's at the Cruise Residence. So he's got
Speaker 1: to go go see where the magic is. And look,
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan had his flirtation with Bernie Sanders. And if
Speaker 1: he thinks that that big government status or the way
Speaker 1: to go, then to day where you are, Joe, We
Speaker 1: don't want you if you want to bring that that
Speaker 1: that that that kind of tatalitarianism to us. But but
Speaker 1: if if this has made you realize, you know, people
Speaker 1: like to be free, leave me the hell alone. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean anarchy. It means respects civil liberties, respect freedom.
Speaker 1: If you're willing to stand for freedom, come to Texas.
Speaker 1: We want. And you know, the Joe Rogan move and
Speaker 1: the Elon Musk move are both interesting because I know
Speaker 1: that Joe was a Bernie bro for a while, but
Speaker 1: he really is a sort of independent thinker. You can't
Speaker 1: always nail him down on one political party or the other.
Speaker 1: And the fact that the effect of this government overreach
Speaker 1: has been to tell people who like Elon Musk or
Speaker 1: like Joe Rogan, who are a little more independent minded,
Speaker 1: maybe the left is really not where the future is.
Speaker 1: Maybe the left is not not where your interests are.
Speaker 1: That could have some serious effects for November. Obviously, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of a lot of variables are found. Well,
Speaker 1: am I remembering right that that that Joe Rogan had
Speaker 1: an episode that he had Elon Musk on where they
Speaker 1: both smoke pot. I believe he's on the podcast. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he inhaled, but they did both smoke pot,
Speaker 1: so I don't know if if maybe there's sort of
Speaker 1: a libertarian streak that's coming out that's okay, You're welcome
Speaker 1: to come here to you and I might have an
Speaker 1: episode in which, you know I was asking you before
Speaker 1: if you owned a smoking jacket, I can see you
Speaker 1: pull it out like a Sherlock Holmes pipe or something.
Speaker 1: That's true. We could that's I guess that's one thing
Speaker 1: I could bring from California to Texas. Well. I'll have
Speaker 1: to save that for a future episode. Obviously, Before we go,
Speaker 1: we got to get to some mailbag questions. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who have questions all over the place,
Speaker 1: so let's get right into it. From Nick, Senator, what
Speaker 1: do you think, if you think anything at all about
Speaker 1: that video that came out of Georgia, the shooting of
Speaker 1: the man Ahmad Arbory by those two guys in the truck.
Speaker 1: Do you have any take on this? This is being
Speaker 1: On one hand, people are saying that these were crypto
Speaker 1: clansmen and it's a modern day lynching. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: people are saying even possibly it was justified. I think
Speaker 1: most people are not taking either of those extreme positions.
Speaker 1: What is your take? Look, I saw the video of
Speaker 1: the shooting. I think I think it's really troubling, and
Speaker 1: so I'm glad to see that the prosecution is moving forward.
Speaker 1: Based on what I've seen, what happened seems wrong. Now, now, look,
Speaker 1: this whole theme has of this show. We focused on
Speaker 1: civil liberties, and so the defendants have a right to
Speaker 1: presumption of it is since they have a right to
Speaker 1: do process, and so so the trial ought to go forward.
Speaker 1: They ought to look at what the actual evidence is.
Speaker 1: We don't know all the evidence but I got to say,
Speaker 1: you know, anytime you have two people driving up in
Speaker 1: a truck and shooting an unarmed man, that's really problematic,
Speaker 1: and certainly with the tragic history of race in our country,
Speaker 1: it raises it's messed up. So I'm glad that the
Speaker 1: prosecutors are moving forward based on what I've seen, there's
Speaker 1: certainly enough evidence to move forward. But the process needs
Speaker 1: to play out, and we need to find out the truth.
Speaker 1: That's too reasonable, Senator. That has no place on Twitter
Speaker 1: or anywhere else on the Internet. You have to have
Speaker 1: a very extreme position, or else you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: voice it on the Internet. From Vince, is there any
Speaker 1: legislation planned or being proposed to curtail the suppression of
Speaker 1: content on social media platforms? Or could or should this
Speaker 1: be a private citizen endeavor to sue where needed or
Speaker 1: where possible all of the above. Yes. As you know,
Speaker 1: a huge focus of mine has been the power of
Speaker 1: big tech, and big tech is engaging in censorship. It's
Speaker 1: a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires who frankly are too
Speaker 1: often petty tyrants and authoritarians themselves, and then they feel unchecked.
Speaker 1: You know, I shared a hearing a number of months
Speaker 1: ago on censorship a Big Tech where we put up
Speaker 1: an internal PowerPoint from Google and it was entitled the
Speaker 1: Good Censor. And by the way, that Google's own term,
Speaker 1: that's not my term, that's how they entitled it. And
Speaker 1: they described how the Internet used to be believe in
Speaker 1: laise fair free speech. Yeah, but instead Big Tech they said,
Speaker 1: had made a decision to move towards what they called
Speaker 1: a European style censorship model. And they identified Google, Facebook, YouTube,
Speaker 1: Twitter as the kind of major players. That's exactly right,
Speaker 1: and I think it is a profound threat to democracy.
Speaker 1: I give you a recent example, YouTube which has been
Speaker 1: Google and YouTube have been the worst offenders. By the way,
Speaker 1: I mean Google, they used to have their motto be
Speaker 1: do no Evil. Now I think they've just deleted the
Speaker 1: first two words. Now their motto is just evil, like
Speaker 1: they're just shameless. Yeah, you know, Google's gone after Prager University.
Speaker 1: One of the more absurd examples they restricted as adult content.
Speaker 1: Prager use episode on the Ten Commandments. You really can't
Speaker 1: make this crap up the Ten Commandments because it discuss murder.
Speaker 1: I mean I guess it does. Like you know, you
Speaker 1: would think that that that that these techy autocracts would
Speaker 1: actually pause and say, Okay, maybe we're beclowning ourselves too
Speaker 1: much here, let's stop. But YouTube's latest and in the
Speaker 1: midst of the pandemic they said they're going to block
Speaker 1: and pull down any video that disagrees with the health
Speaker 1: recommendations from the World Health Organization. Now, the WHO, as
Speaker 1: you know, has really disgraced itself, yeah, by its willingness
Speaker 1: to be a puppet for the communist government in China
Speaker 1: to repeat Chinese communist lies to repeat. In January, the
Speaker 1: WHO was loudly saying that the Chinese lie there is
Speaker 1: no human to human transmission of coronavirus. Okay, if YouTube
Speaker 1: followed that, that that plan if you were one of
Speaker 1: the communists, the Chinese physician whistleblowers who heroically stood up
Speaker 1: against it, stood up and pointed out the coronavirus if
Speaker 1: you made a video on YouTube, apparently are YouTube's policies,
Speaker 1: they pull you down because the WHO says coronavirus cannot
Speaker 1: pass from person to person. What uttered garbage. And so
Speaker 1: we need to do much more to go after big tech.
Speaker 1: That includes potentially repealing Section to thirty the Communications Decency Act.
Speaker 1: Which gives them a special protection from liability that Congress
Speaker 1: has passed nobody else gets. I've been leading the edge
Speaker 1: on that. It also includes looking at antitrust litigation or
Speaker 1: a case from the Department of Justice. These are monopolies
Speaker 1: that are abusing their monopoly power. I think we've got
Speaker 1: to do more, and I think it's a profound threat
Speaker 1: to our democracy. It is, it's an urgent threat. It
Speaker 1: does happen a lot on YouTube. Maybe they'll take this
Speaker 1: episode down. I don't know. I hope they don't. And
Speaker 1: if they do, I bet the ACLU will be nowhere
Speaker 1: in sight to defend us so much. No, no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: the a sail you will be with big tech saying yes,
Speaker 1: we're all for silencing speech because we are partisan lefties.
Speaker 1: It really, it's sad. It's a sad thing to see.
Speaker 1: That's the ACLU, the ADPU. As you say that that
Speaker 1: will be the next one, will probably be even further
Speaker 1: into the upside down by then, but we'll we'll just
Speaker 1: have to wait until next time. That's our show. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode
Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you
Speaker 1: by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee
Speaker 1: dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans
Speaker 1: to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help
Speaker 1: the Republican Party across the nation.