Speaker 1: Hey guys, Liz Wheeler here. In addition to this week's
Speaker 1: episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, which you heard earlier
Speaker 1: this week, we wanted to bring you a bonus sneak
Speaker 1: preview of The Cloakroom, a series I cohost with Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz each week over on the Verdict Plus community on locals.
Speaker 1: Did you know we do so much more each week
Speaker 1: than just bringing you the main Verdict episode. Senator Cruz
Speaker 1: takes mailbag questions, he posts memes, he interacts with subscribers,
Speaker 1: and more over on Verdict Plus. In this preview of
Speaker 1: a Cloakroom, we're talking about John Stewart calling Senator Cruz
Speaker 1: a mother effort, and on the more intellectual side of things,
Speaker 1: we're talking about how the United States should respond in
Speaker 1: the event that China invades Taiwan. If you like what
Speaker 1: you hear, you can get more of Senator Cruz and
Speaker 1: more of the Cloakroom every week over on Verdict Plus.
Speaker 1: You can head over to Verdict with Ted Cruise dot
Speaker 1: com slash Plus, and if you use my promo code,
Speaker 1: which intuitively as Cloakroom, you can get one month free.
Speaker 1: That's Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com Slash Plus. And
Speaker 1: promo code Cloakroom to check out all the episodes of
Speaker 1: The Cloakroom right now. We'll see you over there. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, please enjoy this preview of the Polkroom. Hey guys, welcome,
Speaker 1: I'm Liz Wheeler. This is The Cloakroom on Verdict. Plus
Speaker 1: we have a lot to talk about tonight. There's so
Speaker 1: much happening with Taiwan this week. But first, Senator Crews,
Speaker 1: we have big news, a big announcement to make Baby
Speaker 1: Knowles number two has arrived. Huge congratulations to Michael and
Speaker 1: his wife and his entire family on the arrival of
Speaker 1: their new baby boy. Obviously, Michael is out this week
Speaker 1: spending time with his family, as he should be. I'm
Speaker 1: so excited for him. This is his second son. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's awesome. He's got a second baby boy and they
Speaker 1: are celebrating and enjoying. And you know, when Michael comes back,
Speaker 1: we'll do everything we can to make him feel at home,
Speaker 1: which means we'll do lots of crying and drooling, which
Speaker 1: frankly is a lot of what happens in the Senate too,
Speaker 1: so there's a consistency to it. But it's it's great news.
Speaker 1: And we're celebrating with Michael. Yeah, Michael posted some pictures
Speaker 1: publicly on Instagram of a little guy in man. Is
Speaker 1: he a dull? Michael's wife's did a fabulous job. Huge
Speaker 1: congratulations to them. We're actually going to do two Cloakroom
Speaker 1: episodes this weekend of Michael's new baby. Also because Michael
Speaker 1: is out this week. It'll be an inside look into
Speaker 1: what you and I Senator Crews do on the cloak
Speaker 1: Room every week. Today we are going to talk about Taiwan,
Speaker 1: but before that, I want to talk with you about
Speaker 1: John Stewart. You seem to make John Stuart pretty mad
Speaker 1: this week. He actually made a video calling you a
Speaker 1: mother effort and he was standing in front of people
Speaker 1: chanting when senators lie, veterans die. So, Senator Crews, maybe
Speaker 1: you can tell me to say, what exactly did you
Speaker 1: do to piss off John Stewart. Yeah, Now, this was
Speaker 1: a pretty surreal week on that front. John Stewart kind
Speaker 1: of lost his mind and did an awful lot of
Speaker 1: demagoguing and very little actually truthtelling. So let's unpack this
Speaker 1: because what happened in the past week was confusing, and
Speaker 1: I got to say the corporate media did a horrible
Speaker 1: job reporting on any of it. The underlying bill that
Speaker 1: the Senate was considering is a bill called the pac
Speaker 1: dec And what the pack Deck does is it focused
Speaker 1: on veterans healthcare, and in particular veterans who have gotten
Speaker 1: diseases from burn pits, these giant pits that were very
Speaker 1: common in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We're all sorts of
Speaker 1: toxic chemicals and all sorts of garbage was burned, just
Speaker 1: lit on fire, and unfortunately it led off a lot
Speaker 1: of toxic fumes. And now we've got veterans who are
Speaker 1: coming back with all sorts of health problems, including cancers
Speaker 1: and other diseases that there's significant science tracing back to
Speaker 1: inhaling the toxic fumes from these burn pits. And I
Speaker 1: have long been an advocate of providing healthcare for those
Speaker 1: veterans who were injured from exposure to burn pits. It's
Speaker 1: something I've advocated for a long time. In this bill,
Speaker 1: in particular, is a bill that creates two hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty billion dollars in new funding for healthcare for our
Speaker 1: veterans for exposure to burn pits, and I emphatically support
Speaker 1: that bill. This bill also has four hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: in existing funding that's our in the funding stream for
Speaker 1: healthcare for veterans. So all told, the total price tag
Speaker 1: of the bill was six hundred and seventy nine billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I supported that in June, I voted for it. I
Speaker 1: agreed with it, and I think it's a good idea. Now,
Speaker 1: after we voted on in June, we subsequently last week
Speaker 1: we're voting on what's called cloture, which a vote on
Speaker 1: cloture is a vote to cut off debate to disallow
Speaker 1: any amendments. This was the second time the bill had
Speaker 1: come up, and this second time it came up. Pat Toomey,
Speaker 1: my colleague from Pennsylvania, raised a very specific concern about
Speaker 1: one element that was in this bill, which is an
Speaker 1: accounting gimmick that the Democrats used within this bill. I
Speaker 1: mentioned that the bill has two components four hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars of pre existing funding for veterans two hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy nine billion, and new funding for those exposed to
Speaker 1: burn pits. Well, the four hundred billion pre existing funding
Speaker 1: is currently what's called discretionary funding and discretionary funding Discretionary
Speaker 1: spending is spending that has to be reauthorized by each Congress,
Speaker 1: and discretionary funding is subject to an overall cap in
Speaker 1: terms of how much discretionary spending is allowed. What the
Speaker 1: Democrats did with this bill is they shifted that four
Speaker 1: hundred billion from discretionary spending to mandatory spending. Now, why
Speaker 1: does that matter, Well, mandatory spending. The way the federal
Speaker 1: budget works, mandatory spending is on autopilot. It goes automatically.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be appropriated, it doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be reauthorized. It's mandatory, and so it's just an autopilot.
Speaker 1: Why does that matter, Well, it doesn't matter in terms
Speaker 1: of ensuring that the money will be spent because look,
Speaker 1: Congress is going to spend money for veteran sealthcare. There's
Speaker 1: no prospect that Congress is going to fail to provide
Speaker 1: the funding for veterans healthcare. The reason the Democrats wanted
Speaker 1: to do that is by shifting it from discretionary to mandatory,
Speaker 1: they as a bookkeeping matter, cut discretionary spending by four
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars the four hundred billion they moved to mandatory. Suddenly,
Speaker 1: it created a hole on discretionary spending where our total
Speaker 1: aggregate discretionary spending is four hundred billion below the cap.
Speaker 1: The reason they wanted to do so is they want
Speaker 1: to spend four hundred billion more in unrelated pork. Has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with veterans, has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: this bill, but the whole they just created and discretionary spending.
Speaker 1: It was their intention to fill that hole and to
Speaker 1: fill it with whatever pork projects they wanted to spend.
Speaker 1: And so Pat Toomey had an amendment, a very simple amendment,
Speaker 1: just to shift the spending back to discretionary, so so
Speaker 1: to reverse the budget gimmick that they had employed last
Speaker 1: week when we voted on Culture. Pat had spent the
Speaker 1: entire week making the case to the conference at lunch
Speaker 1: that the only way we could get a vote and
Speaker 1: try to force them to shift it back to discretionary
Speaker 1: is if we stood together and at least forty one
Speaker 1: of us voted to deny Culture. And if we did that,
Speaker 1: if we blocked Schumer from going ahead on the bill,
Speaker 1: we would have the leverage to force a vote on
Speaker 1: the amendment. That happens a lot in the Senate. That's
Speaker 1: how you get leverage to get a vote is you
Speaker 1: block cloture well, we did that last week, and John
Speaker 1: Stewart lost his mind and the corporate media lost their minds.
Speaker 1: John Stewart proceeded to go on this this profanity lace tirade,
Speaker 1: blasting me, blasting other Republicans, and basically his thesis was
Speaker 1: that apparently Republicans hate veterans. Were just you know, when
Speaker 1: you think about Republicans, what is it that characterizes Republicans
Speaker 1: in the mind of a wild eyed leftist demagogue, It's
Speaker 1: that we don't like veterans. Mind you, that is facially absurd.
Speaker 1: But the problem was Stuart is not being a legitimate advocate,
Speaker 1: He's not being an honest broker, He's being a partisan
Speaker 1: hack and he saw an opportunity to use this to
Speaker 1: scream and curse an attack and try to deceive Look,
Speaker 1: people who are not paying much attention. But just here
Speaker 1: Stuart screaming Republicans hate veterans. Some of them might be
Speaker 1: deceived into believing that it was dishonest when Stuart started.
Speaker 1: It remains dishonest today. And so what happened today as
Speaker 1: we just we voted on Pat Toomey's Amendment. I voted
Speaker 1: for Pat Toomey's Amendment. It narrowly failed, so unfortunately, the
Speaker 1: budget gimmick is still there. And then we voted on
Speaker 1: the bill, and I voted for it. We ended up
Speaker 1: having eighty six Senators vote for it because we support
Speaker 1: the underlying bill. But it was an amazing illustration of
Speaker 1: how dishonest the press is because almost none of the
Speaker 1: corporate media actually covered the substance of what the dispute
Speaker 1: was about. So this is actually interesting because the truth
Speaker 1: of the matter is, you can correct me if this
Speaker 1: is inaccurate. The truth of the matter is it was
Speaker 1: actually the Democrats who were temporarily, I guess, holding this
Speaker 1: money hostage from veterans to pay for their healthcare because
Speaker 1: they wanted an additional four hundred billion dollars to spend
Speaker 1: on things unrelated to veterans or healthcare, just their own
Speaker 1: political pet projects. That's exactly right. And so actually last
Speaker 1: week when we were voting on cloture, we made very
Speaker 1: clear to Schumer, if you adopt Toomey's amendment, will prove
Speaker 1: this instantaneously, So we could have passed this last week.
Speaker 1: And one of the things Steward and the rest of
Speaker 1: the media we're saying is it's Republicans who have delayed
Speaker 1: this and veterans are dying. Well, we could have passed
Speaker 1: this last week, but the Democrats love their pork so
Speaker 1: much they didn't want to pass it last week. And
Speaker 1: by the way, one of the reasons the media went
Speaker 1: really crazy is I was skeptical we'd get forty one
Speaker 1: Republicans to stand together try to stop yet another four
Speaker 1: hundred billion in pork spending unrelated to veterans, and we
Speaker 1: did miraculously hold hold Republicans together. And so when that happened,
Speaker 1: Steve Danes, Republican from Montana, he and I did a
Speaker 1: fist bump on the Senate floor, which caused Stuart's pretty
Speaker 1: little head to explode and caused all of the leftists
Speaker 1: to say, you know, Twitter is covered with you know, cruizes,
Speaker 1: fist bumping, veterans dying. Yeah, that's it, Johnny boy. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what it was about, not cruises, fist bumping, trying
Speaker 1: to stop Democrats from bankrupting the country. The four hundred
Speaker 1: billion and unrelated pork that, by the way, is fueling
Speaker 1: inflation that is making people's lives really really suck, including
Speaker 1: veterans lives who are having to pay seven eight dollars
Speaker 1: per gallon for gas. It is amazing the deception that
Speaker 1: the media played in this. And so I'll tell you tonight,
Speaker 1: when I voted yes on the bill and Steve Danes
Speaker 1: voted yes on the bill, we did another fist bump
Speaker 1: in the exact same spot. We purposely did it again
Speaker 1: to illustrate the point. But I'll tell you something else
Speaker 1: I said at lunch. So we were discussing at lunch
Speaker 1: today before the vote what the next steps were, and
Speaker 1: we were able to get a vote on Toomey's amendment
Speaker 1: because we denied cloture last week. But I said, listen,
Speaker 1: it looks like we're going to lose the vote on
Speaker 1: Toomey's vote amendment. We knew that by lunch time that
Speaker 1: it looked like the way the whip was coming out,
Speaker 1: we were not going to win the vote. And I said,
Speaker 1: this was still a good and worthwhile fight to have.
Speaker 1: Why because we've now increased the political cost of the
Speaker 1: Democrats trying to use that political gimmick to fill that
Speaker 1: four hundred billion dollar hole that by focusing the fight
Speaker 1: on it, the Republican conference is now much more focused
Speaker 1: on that four hundred billion dollar fake hole that they
Speaker 1: made just by moving the money to the other side
Speaker 1: of the ledger, of the mandatory side, and maybe we've
Speaker 1: made it radioactive for the Democrats to come back in
Speaker 1: another bill and add that pork spending of that four
Speaker 1: hundred billion in the hole. And what I also urged
Speaker 1: the conference is when Republicans take over, hopefully in January,
Speaker 1: we ought to fill the hole. In other words, we
Speaker 1: ought to lower the cap to basically eliminate this budget gimmick.
Speaker 1: And because we had this fight, I don't know if
Speaker 1: we'll succeed in lowering the cap to erase this budget gimmick,
Speaker 1: but our chances of doing so are much higher because
Speaker 1: we fought this fight and endured the dishonest demagoguery of
Speaker 1: the left over the weekend. And by the way, I
Speaker 1: looked on Twitter right now to see if the mainstream
Speaker 1: media was giving equal coverage to your fist bump fist
Speaker 1: bumping for this healthcare for veterans, and no, it's not
Speaker 1: trending anywhere. It's it's of course nowhere, So that shows
Speaker 1: you exactly what you need to know. But speaking you know,
Speaker 1: what is trending on Twitter right now actually is Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. And I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about this because in a previous episode of Verdict, you
Speaker 1: gave the chances of China invading Taiwan to be fifty fifty.
Speaker 1: Do you would you change your calculation given Nancy Pelosi's
Speaker 1: visit and China's threat probably an empty threat in my opinion,
Speaker 1: their empty threat of shooting down her plane or responding
Speaker 1: with their army. Do you think that they'll use that
Speaker 1: as justification to invade Taiwan? Is their higher likelihood, So
Speaker 1: it remains a very real risk. You know, rewind over
Speaker 1: a year ago when bidenhead is disastrous surrender and withdraw
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. The weakness and appeasement of this administration encouraged
Speaker 1: every one of our enemies. I said at the time,
Speaker 1: as you'll recall the chances of Russia invading Ukraine of
Speaker 1: risen tenfold, the chances of China invading Taiwan of risen tenfold.
Speaker 1: Our enemies are emboldened because they see the commander in
Speaker 1: chief is weak in NFL. Now, let's get to this
Speaker 1: week and Nancy Pelosi. It is astonishing how badly the
Speaker 1: Biden administration has screwed this up. It's breathtaking. I'm a
Speaker 1: hard pressed to think of an analog in recent times.
Speaker 1: So Pelosi announced she was going to go to Taiwan.
Speaker 1: We actually had a classified briefing yesterday with senior officials
Speaker 1: from State and DD talking about this, and I chewed
Speaker 1: them out. I mean, I lit into them. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you what they said, but I can tell you
Speaker 1: what I said because what I said isn't classified. And
Speaker 1: I chewed them out, saying it is hard to overstate
Speaker 1: how badly you guys have screwed this up. Number one,
Speaker 1: when Pelosi said she was going to Taiwan, the Biden
Speaker 1: administration leaked that the Department of Defense opposed her going.
Speaker 1: We don't know who leaked it. We don't know if
Speaker 1: it was DoD We don't even know if it was
Speaker 1: State or if it was the White House. My guesses
Speaker 1: it was the White House. I think was probably the
Speaker 1: Biden National National Security Council that did so, but I
Speaker 1: don't know that that that's inference. I have known somebody
Speaker 1: from the administration leaked it. Um. That was spectacularly stupid. Um.
Speaker 1: And one of the things I pressed the administration on
Speaker 1: is do you think it was beneficial or harmful to
Speaker 1: leak that the Department of Defense is telling the Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House, oh, oh please, please please don't go
Speaker 1: to Taiwan and and and make the Chinese communist angry.
Speaker 1: Of course it was harmful because it shows this White
Speaker 1: House is so weak and terrified that that that that
Speaker 1: they're scared. But then it got and you mentioned in
Speaker 1: your question, it got truly Monty Python esque level absurd
Speaker 1: because a Chinese government run newspaper publicly called on the
Speaker 1: Chinese military to shoot down Nancy Pelosi's plane when she
Speaker 1: tried to land, And then at the White House press conference,
Speaker 1: the White House Press Secretary was asked, what do you
Speaker 1: make what is the administration's position on this Chinese government
Speaker 1: run newspaper calling for Chinese missiles to shoot down Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's plane, And the White House Press Secretary said, oh,
Speaker 1: we have no position on that, which I got to admit,
Speaker 1: Liz is friggin nuts. Listen. I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: but the only answer to that question should be anyone
Speaker 1: attacking and trying to murder the Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: of the United States of America if they shot down
Speaker 1: her plane, it would be an act of war and
Speaker 1: the result would be overwhelming and catastrophic. That is the
Speaker 1: only answer you can give, whether you like Pelosi or not.
Speaker 1: And the level of weakness that you asked the Biden
Speaker 1: White House, what's your position on China murdering the Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House of the United States. Oh, we don't
Speaker 1: have a you you know's what's a little murder of
Speaker 1: senior government officials between friends? Like holy crap, that statement
Speaker 1: increase the chances of China invading Taiwan dramatically because they're
Speaker 1: taking a measure of does Joe Biden have the backbone
Speaker 1: to do anything? And if they're not even willing to say, please,
Speaker 1: don't shoot down our speaker the House, what are the
Speaker 1: chances they're going to do much of anything else. It's
Speaker 1: it's so unreal to watch this unfolding. You and I
Speaker 1: did an episode a while back on The Cloak Room
Speaker 1: talking about your foreign policy philosophy, and you described it
Speaker 1: as on the spectrum of isolationists to interventionists. You said,
Speaker 1: it's not somewhere in between on the spectrum, it's a
Speaker 1: third point on a triangle where you analyze what the
Speaker 1: interests of the United States are before getting involved in
Speaker 1: a foreign conflict to make sure that it's it's particularly
Speaker 1: within our interests and not just something that something that
Speaker 1: we're interested it in when we get involved, and especially
Speaker 1: our military getting involved. So taking that and by the way,
Speaker 1: anybody watching this who hasn't watched that episode, I highly
Speaker 1: recommend you go back and look at it. Very interesting,
Speaker 1: one of our best if I do say so myself.
Speaker 1: But how would you apply that foreign policy philosophy to
Speaker 1: a scenario where China invades Taiwan? Should the United States
Speaker 1: get involved? Should they? Should we not? And if so,
Speaker 1: how much? In what way? What are our interests? So
Speaker 1: it's a highly complicated question. And should we get involved?
Speaker 1: Absolutely yes, And actually the Taiwan Assistance Act obligates us
Speaker 1: to get involved. Now, the Act does not specify what
Speaker 1: get involved means, so there's a whole range of involvement.
Speaker 1: Anytime you're dealing with a superpower that is a threat
Speaker 1: on the order of communist China or on the order
Speaker 1: during the Cold War of the Soviet Union, your best
Speaker 1: hope is to deter aggression, and you deter aggression from
Speaker 1: a position strength and not a position of weakness. So
Speaker 1: during the Cold War, nobody in the right mind wanted
Speaker 1: to get into shooting war with the Soviet Union. Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan did not want to get into a shooting war
Speaker 1: with the Soviet Union, but he believed in peace through strength,
Speaker 1: that if we build up our military and we create
Speaker 1: enough to terrence, that we can defeat them without having
Speaker 1: to go to war with them. Likewise, look, only a
Speaker 1: lunatic wants to go to war with Communist China. That
Speaker 1: a full out war with Communist China would result in
Speaker 1: massive casualties on both sides. No one in the right
Speaker 1: mind wants to see that happen Taiwan. Taiwan poses an
Speaker 1: enormous threat to the Chinese government for a number of reasons.
Speaker 1: One because it demonstrates that Chinese people can live in
Speaker 1: freedom and prosperity and with human rights. Look, the people
Speaker 1: in Taiwan are ethnically Chinese. There's no difference in the nationality,
Speaker 1: the ethnicity, the history of the people on Taiwan from
Speaker 1: the people in mainland China. But what terrifies she and
Speaker 1: the Communist Party is the one point three billion Chinese
Speaker 1: living under communist tyranny and oppression. Look across the Taiwan
Speaker 1: straight and say, hey, wait a second, they're Chinese, just
Speaker 1: like us, but they are free, they have elections, they
Speaker 1: have free speech, they have prosperity. Their standard of living
Speaker 1: is much much better than ours. Wait a second, that system,
Speaker 1: that free enterprise system, is a lot better than our
Speaker 1: crappy communist system. That's why the Chinese government is so
Speaker 1: terrified at Taiwan, because it emboldens their system. Now, for
Speaker 1: the same reason, we should speak out vigorously in support
Speaker 1: of Taiwan, vigorously in support of Hong Kong, because they
Speaker 1: both have demonstrated the power of freedom and free enterprise.
Speaker 1: And what's in our interest is seeing the Chinese communist
Speaker 1: government fall, just like it was in our interest to
Speaker 1: see the Soviet Union fall. And so what I think
Speaker 1: we should be doing is number one, vigorously speaking out
Speaker 1: for Taiwan. That I think using the bully pulpit of
Speaker 1: America is really powerful and it undermines totalitarian regimes. But
Speaker 1: number two, providing weaponry, selling weaponry to Taiwan. Look, Taiwan
Speaker 1: is an incredibly successful economy. They can afford to buy
Speaker 1: our weapons. We're not giving them stuff. It's not a
Speaker 1: case of welfare. They're incredibly successful. But we should be
Speaker 1: selling them military weaponry, sophisticated with military weaponry that they
Speaker 1: can use to defend Taiwan against China and to change
Speaker 1: that cost benefit analysis. So the Chinese generals are saying, well,
Speaker 1: wait a second, if we launch an amphibious attack, these
Speaker 1: guys have sophisticated enough weapons that they can drive up
Speaker 1: the cost a lot. In particular, what you want is
Speaker 1: is asymmetric weaponry, the ability to have not just a
Speaker 1: bunch of tanks that are sitting stationary and are really
Speaker 1: easy to take out, but you want things that are mobile.
Speaker 1: You want things that some of the things we're seeing
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, like javelins and stingers and minds that you
Speaker 1: can put in the Taiwan strait, all of which make
Speaker 1: an amphibious assault much more difficult. I'll mention, by the way,
Speaker 1: another reason why a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be
Speaker 1: enormously harmful to the United States is a very large
Speaker 1: percentage of advanced semiconductors that are made worldwide are made
Speaker 1: in Taiwan. America produces very little of it. Hopefully we'll
Speaker 1: see more. And the Senate just passed a big bill
Speaker 1: that has tax incentives to create manufactured semiconductors. Here, I
Speaker 1: support the tax incentives. It also had corporate welfare for
Speaker 1: big multinationals. I don't support that, so I voted against
Speaker 1: the overall bill. But if China invaded Taiwan tomorrow, it
Speaker 1: would have a stranglehold on a semiconductors on a global scale.
Speaker 1: Our military is dependent on those semiconductors. Our technology industry phone, satellites, computers, cars,
Speaker 1: the level of our economy that would be held hostage
Speaker 1: to China if China took over Taiwan would be devastating.
Speaker 1: So the right answer is not let's send in the
Speaker 1: navy to go fight the Chinese navy. That's a very
Speaker 1: bad outcome the level. The response instead is let's be
Speaker 1: smart and proactive and deter the invasion in the first
Speaker 1: place by making clear that the cost to China will
Speaker 1: significantly exceed the potential benefits. This is why it's so
Speaker 1: important to have a foreign policy philosophy, because you can
Speaker 1: identify US interests and then you can moderate our response
Speaker 1: and how to be a deterrent first based on that structure,
Speaker 1: that framework, and not based on just the emotion of
Speaker 1: the moment. Okay, we have a mail back question. And
Speaker 1: some contacts for this question this week. The Senate is
Speaker 1: set to vote at the end of the week on
Speaker 1: the Mansion Schumer so called Inflation Reduction Act of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. We know that Mansion caved to Schumer after
Speaker 1: Mansion had torpedoed build back better. This is kind of
Speaker 1: build back better light. They claim it's addressing inflation. We
Speaker 1: know that that's not true. Craig Alexander asks, do you
Speaker 1: believe Senator Cruz that Senator Christen Cinema will vote yes
Speaker 1: for this bill? I genuinely don't know. It is the
Speaker 1: only hope of defeating it. So they're forty nine Democrats
Speaker 1: who are yes. I'm confident there are fifty Republicans who
Speaker 1: are now. So the only one who will decide it
Speaker 1: is Kirsen Cinema. I will tell you. Cinema was playing
Speaker 1: pretty coy aday. So she was on the Senate floor.
Speaker 1: She was in the cloak room today. We were all
Speaker 1: asking her, saying, you know, gosh, a no would be
Speaker 1: a really great vote. We'd love to see it. She
Speaker 1: wouldn't tell us, so we asked her. She wouldn't tell us.
Speaker 1: She is not publicly committed, so she has not said
Speaker 1: one way or another. I think it is possible she
Speaker 1: may insist on some changes to it. If I were
Speaker 1: to guess what's most likely, I think it's most likely
Speaker 1: she votes for something, but it's not this exact version,
Speaker 1: and I don't know what her conditions will be, but
Speaker 1: I think she will probably put a price on her
Speaker 1: yes vote, and I hope the price makes it less
Speaker 1: bad on these issues she has been Look, she's had
Speaker 1: real guts taking on Schumer and the craziest inner parties,
Speaker 1: and so I don't know what that'll be. But if
Speaker 1: I were to predict, she will have some condition and
Speaker 1: make them change it somehow. And if they do that,
Speaker 1: I think she probably gets to yes at the end
Speaker 1: of the day. But I don't know. We'll find out
Speaker 1: in the next couple of days. Well, I think we're
Speaker 1: all going to be sitting here waiting with bated breath
Speaker 1: to see what she decides. I hope and I pray
Speaker 1: that she has the courage to reject this tremendously bad bill.
Speaker 1: But what do you guys think? Let me post tell me.
Speaker 1: Do you think Cinema's gonna vote yes? Do you think
Speaker 1: she's gonna vote no? Do you think She's gonna put
Speaker 1: conditions on it that will be given to her and
Speaker 1: then she will vote yes. What do you think post
Speaker 1: let me know. Also, don't forget we have two episodes
Speaker 1: of The Cloakroom this week and our next episode, we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about a topic that I promised you
Speaker 1: a couple weeks we would talk about. We're finally getting
Speaker 1: to it. We're gonna talk about George Soros funded progressive
Speaker 1: prosecutors around the nation. You don't want to miss this one, Senator.
Speaker 1: As always, it was good to chat with you. I'm
Speaker 1: Liz Wheeler. This is The Cloakroom on Verdict Plus