Speaker 1: The media have declared Joe Biden the winner of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty presidential election. But under our constitutional system, it
Speaker 1: turns out that the media don't actually get to pick
Speaker 1: who the president is. Fortunately, we are joined by a
Speaker 1: constitutional expert, somebody who knows a lot about elections. He
Speaker 1: will help us understand the nitty gritty and who, in
Speaker 1: fact will be the president. This is a verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I
Speaker 1: am Michael Knowles, Senator. I am no constitutional expert. I
Speaker 1: did not go to law school, but I think I
Speaker 1: am right in saying this. The media don't get to
Speaker 1: pick the president, right, thankfully, although lord knows they're trying.
Speaker 1: It is the voters who decide. And you know, I
Speaker 1: got to say so. You and I are filming this
Speaker 1: on Tuesday night. Election Day was a week ago. We
Speaker 1: haven't done a podcast since before election Day. I kind
Speaker 1: of feel like Thomas Jefferson in the musical Hamilton coming
Speaker 1: back saying so what did I miss? Like, Holy crap,
Speaker 1: what a week this has been. There's never been a
Speaker 1: week like this in politics, in media, in life, and
Speaker 1: the consequence for the nation are enormous. You know, we've
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of messages of people asking why didn't
Speaker 1: you do an episode during the election or the day
Speaker 1: after the election. And I think people sometimes forget you
Speaker 1: are a sitting US senator. You know, you do have
Speaker 1: a pretty busy schedule, and the events have been changing
Speaker 1: in real time. Obviously, on election night, you had certain
Speaker 1: cable networks calling Arizona, for instance, for Joe Biden. Then
Speaker 1: it seems like people were walking that back. Now it
Speaker 1: seems unclear who's going to get Arizona. You had a
Speaker 1: lot of vote coming really late in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin
Speaker 1: and Michigan, you had the polls counting stopping just at
Speaker 1: ten o'clock at night, and then it was supposed to
Speaker 1: not resume until the morning. Other reports that resumed in
Speaker 1: the middle of the night. There's just so much disinformation, misinformation,
Speaker 1: and on the legal front, obviously, there are so many questions.
Speaker 1: So I know you have been through this actually before.
Speaker 1: You were a lawyer on President George W. Bush's team
Speaker 1: during the Florida recount and the questions of the two
Speaker 1: thousand presidential election. What are we looking at here in
Speaker 1: terms of President's Trump's chances for a second term in
Speaker 1: terms of the ability to find fraud in Philadelphia, for instance.
Speaker 1: Where are we on the legal front. Well, I'll start
Speaker 1: with a radical proposition, which is that elections are decided
Speaker 1: when the results have been counted and the legal proceedings
Speaker 1: are over that that didn't used to be a controversial proposition.
Speaker 1: You know, think back to election night. I was here
Speaker 1: in Houston, was an election party with a number of friends.
Speaker 1: That night was a great night. Republicans were winning, We
Speaker 1: were winning the Senate, we were winning House seats, and
Speaker 1: President Trump was winning re election. Early on Florida was
Speaker 1: called for the president. Early on Ohio was called for
Speaker 1: the president, and we were leading. I went home to
Speaker 1: go to bed about two in the morning, and we
Speaker 1: were leading in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin. I mean,
Speaker 1: it looked like a really strong night. And then I
Speaker 1: suspect a lot of us went to bed and we
Speaker 1: woke up in the morning and it's like what happened.
Speaker 1: There are multiple lawsuits all over the country right now
Speaker 1: playing out. There were going to be recounts in multiple states.
Speaker 1: All of those proceedings have to be concluded before we
Speaker 1: know who actually will be the winner state by state.
Speaker 1: By state, and that's going to take, in all likelihood
Speaker 1: several weeks. It's not going to take six months, but
Speaker 1: the litigation is not going to be over by tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And the night of the election. Number one, the media,
Speaker 1: two outlets, Fox News and AP were really precipitous calling Arizona.
Speaker 1: That was clearly a mistake. You know, when when CNNA
Speaker 1: is calling out Fox for being too anti Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: somebody's jumped the shark somewhere. I mean, I mean that
Speaker 1: that's a problem. But the instant the vote totals shifted
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden. We've seen virtually the entire mainstream media
Speaker 1: try to engage in an immediate coronation, big tech engage
Speaker 1: in total censorship of any view to the contrary. And
Speaker 1: and they're behaving with this weird you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's almost like their persecuting heritage. If you dare say, well,
Speaker 1: let's wait till the litigation is resolved, they scream at
Speaker 1: you your undermining democracy. That's nutty. No democracy means if
Speaker 1: they're legal challenges, you resolve the legal challenges. And by
Speaker 1: the way, this happens in elections all the time. We
Speaker 1: see recounts, we see litigation. We see disputes over if
Speaker 1: there were votes that were illegally cast, that litigation has
Speaker 1: to be resolved. And you know the way it plays out.
Speaker 1: Their cases in state court, their cases in federal court.
Speaker 1: The cases in state court will be adjudicated in a
Speaker 1: trial court. They will, they will in many instances go
Speaker 1: up to an intermediate court of appeals. They would go
Speaker 1: up maybe to the state Supreme Court, and then the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court can take it from the state system.
Speaker 1: There will also be cases in federal court that start
Speaker 1: in federal district court, maybe go up to the Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals, and they can go up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So if you look at Bush versus Gore, as you
Speaker 1: know my book One Vote Away, it's a whole chapter
Speaker 1: on Bush versus Gore, and it goes into great detailed
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore took thirty six days when we arrived
Speaker 1: in Florida. Within days, we had a chart of seven
Speaker 1: different cases that we're all pending just in one state,
Speaker 1: justin Florida, any one of which could have cost the
Speaker 1: presidency of the United States. And it was chaos. We
Speaker 1: went to the Florida Supreme Court twice. We went to
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court twice. And when I say went
Speaker 1: to the US Supreme Court, I mean brief the case,
Speaker 1: argued it, and got a written decision from the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court twice in those thirty six days. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we also tried a full case in the Florida Trial
Speaker 1: Court in addition to multiple other arguments. So the court
Speaker 1: system can operate, but all of us should expect the
Speaker 1: courts to resolve these claims. There are lots of claims
Speaker 1: of voter fraud. I don't know which claims are accurate
Speaker 1: and which aren't. You don't know which claims are accurate
Speaker 1: and which aren't. That's why we have a legal system.
Speaker 1: That's what courts do. And in today's world where you
Speaker 1: see you know, this Twitter allegation, that Twitter allegation, all
Speaker 1: sorts of things, it's really hard to know, all right,
Speaker 1: what really is the state of affairs? Well, we ought
Speaker 1: to allow the legal system to actually hear evidence, to
Speaker 1: examine the data, to listen to witnesses, to examine evidence,
Speaker 1: and to make factual determinations. That's why we have a
Speaker 1: judicial system, of course, And the idea that there was
Speaker 1: no fraud whatsoever seems to me very difficult to believe.
Speaker 1: You called this out right, and I have to tell you,
Speaker 1: I don't mean to flatter you, Senator, but you were
Speaker 1: one of the few elected Republicans who actually came out
Speaker 1: strongly on this. Specifically in Philadelphia, you had Republican poll
Speaker 1: watchers show up every election. You got poll watchers from
Speaker 1: both campaigns. They show up, they make sure there are
Speaker 1: no shenanigans going on. Republican poll watchers were turned away.
Speaker 1: There was then a court order that said you have
Speaker 1: to let the Republican poll watchers in. What happened, they
Speaker 1: still encountered resistance trying to take a look at these polls.
Speaker 1: That is outrageous, That is illegal, and who knows if
Speaker 1: that's through an election. We can't know that. Obviously a
Speaker 1: legal process has to play out. But to say that
Speaker 1: there is no evidence whatsoever and we need to certify
Speaker 1: these results and move on and waiting even five days
Speaker 1: is too long and unprecedented. That just seems to be
Speaker 1: not in correspondence with reality. Well, and let's take that
Speaker 1: component for a moment. I've been trying to be very
Speaker 1: active both on social media and also on media media,
Speaker 1: engaging in these issues and leading the fight it's interesting
Speaker 1: the media talking points and the dem talking points on
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania ballot observers is, well, no, no, no, they
Speaker 1: were in the room. What they ignore is that they
Speaker 1: were being kept twenty feet away or twenty five feet away.
Speaker 1: If you've ever tried to actually look at a ballot
Speaker 1: twenty five feet away, you can't see the damn ballot.
Speaker 1: You are not actually an observer if you're twenty five
Speaker 1: feet away. Ultimately, they went to a Pennsylvania state court
Speaker 1: and got an order to be six feet away. To
Speaker 1: be honest, it's hard to observe a ballot six feet
Speaker 1: away if you're trying to see are the guy's cheating?
Speaker 1: And that's a second point to understand. It couldn't sound like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a technicality. It's a procedural issue whether there were
Speaker 1: observers there. But the reason that the law mandates the
Speaker 1: observers be there is to prevent people from engaging in fraud,
Speaker 1: to prevent people from stealing votes. You look at Bush
Speaker 1: versus Gore. One of the first things the Democrats did
Speaker 1: is they sought recounts in four overwhelmingly Democratic counties in Florida,
Speaker 1: and I talk about in my book one vote away.
Speaker 1: How on the Bush legal team and I was a
Speaker 1: young lawyer at the time. I was in my late
Speaker 1: twenties and was part of it. Was an incredible legal
Speaker 1: team that came together for George W. Bush. We had
Speaker 1: a big debate about, Okay, do we counter by asking
Speaker 1: for recounts and four overwhelmingly Republican counties. So if they're
Speaker 1: going to go seek recounts and Democratic counties, does it
Speaker 1: help us to do get recounts and Republican counties? We
Speaker 1: didn't do so we decided no, let's not do so.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you the reason why. Because we believe
Speaker 1: to a person that in the Democratic recounts that the
Speaker 1: hard leftist partisans would cheat, that they'd be sitting there
Speaker 1: those had chads that they literally we've poked them out
Speaker 1: with their fingernails, like if you didn't look, boom, there
Speaker 1: you go another vote for Gore. And what we said is, look,
Speaker 1: our guys won't cheat. Like, if we do a recount
Speaker 1: in a Republican county, it doesn't help us because the
Speaker 1: guys counting us are going to come up with basically
Speaker 1: the same count that. Thankfully, I'm glad our guys won't cheat.
Speaker 1: Now look, some observers may say, oh, that's a pretty
Speaker 1: partisan view of things. I can't prove as a conclusive
Speaker 1: fact that the Democratic counters cheat significantly more than the
Speaker 1: Republican accounters do. What I can tell you is the
Speaker 1: reason we didn't seek a recount in the Republican counties
Speaker 1: is that all of our lawyers, all of George W.
Speaker 1: Bush's lawyers, believe that right, and so we didn't seek
Speaker 1: a recount. It. As they recounted it, you kept seeing
Speaker 1: the numbers for Gore grow and grow and grow. I mean,
Speaker 1: it clearly played out in the pattern we anticipated. And
Speaker 1: just for people who think there isn't historical president here,
Speaker 1: obviously you've got Bush, bigre you've got the two thousand recount,
Speaker 1: but actually your predecessor in the Senate from Texas, Lyndon Johnson,
Speaker 1: who obviously went on to become president. There's great controversy
Speaker 1: about his nineteen forty eight election to the Senate, where
Speaker 1: I think it was about a million votes cast and
Speaker 1: he won by something like eighty seven votes. You know,
Speaker 1: it was fewer than one hundred votes, and it all
Speaker 1: came from back thirteen Box thirteen, a box of ballots
Speaker 1: from a notoriously corrupt county, and there's allegations that it
Speaker 1: had been stuffed at. President Roosevelt actually joked about stuffing
Speaker 1: ballot boxes at the time. This is an American tradition.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately it is. There has been significant voter fraud. And
Speaker 1: by the way, in these big democratic cities, cities like Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: cities like Philadelphia, cities like Detroit in Michigan. In Detroit,
Speaker 1: they put poster board and covered up the ballot county
Speaker 1: areas to hide them. You know, an analogy I use
Speaker 1: this weekend on one of the Sunday shows, I said, listen,
Speaker 1: if someone goes into a bank and shuts off all
Speaker 1: the security cameras, what is the natural inference that leads
Speaker 1: It's not that they're intending to do nothing wrong. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're shutting off the mechanism for observing it, that
Speaker 1: people naturally say, well, there's a reason you don't want
Speaker 1: people to see what you're doing. But but let me say, okay,
Speaker 1: in terms of where we are, I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of people are asking, all, right, where do we go?
Speaker 1: What's next? Let me give you good news and bad news. Okay,
Speaker 1: give me the good news first. Okay, the good news. First,
Speaker 1: there is reason for some optimism because listen, this was
Speaker 1: a weird election with COVID and you had massive mail
Speaker 1: in votings and in person voting. The data show that
Speaker 1: on election day the people that went physically to the
Speaker 1: polls and voted in person, that Trump won those by
Speaker 1: a significant margin. The data also show that in many
Speaker 1: states on the mail in votes that Biden won those
Speaker 1: by a significant margin. So here's the good news, and
Speaker 1: a recount or in an election contest litigation, in person
Speaker 1: election day votes are significantly less likely to be deemed
Speaker 1: illegal rights it's hard to cheat those votes. Generally, the
Speaker 1: count is what it is, and the in person election
Speaker 1: good point votes rarely change mail in votes if you
Speaker 1: look at recounts. If you look at election contests, some
Speaker 1: significant percentage of mail in votes fairly predictably are excluded
Speaker 1: as this doesn't meet the legal standards. This is whether
Speaker 1: it's you know someone, a dead person, whether it is
Speaker 1: someone who didn't sign the thing like for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: That varies state by state, but mail in voters have
Speaker 1: a significantly higher percentage of being excluded. In this instance,
Speaker 1: mail in voters are predominantly for Joe Biden, so we
Speaker 1: may well see as these recounts go forward, a larger
Speaker 1: percentage of Biden votes being deemed illegal than Trump votes.
Speaker 1: We don't know that, but there's reason to have optimism.
Speaker 1: Now let me give you the flip side. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: braced for it. What's the bad news for the Trump
Speaker 1: team to prevail? They can't just win in one state.
Speaker 1: They've got to run the table. So let me give
Speaker 1: you some of the numbers, because it's this is the
Speaker 1: challenging piece. So right now, all right, I'm using the
Speaker 1: New York Times election results as one source. New York
Speaker 1: Times has Biden with a two seventy nine electoral lead
Speaker 1: to two hundred and fourteen. You need two seventy to
Speaker 1: be elected president. So it has Biden with two seventy nine.
Speaker 1: So the Times hasn't called Georgia right now. Biden has
Speaker 1: a fourteen thousand vote lead in Georgia, so we need
Speaker 1: to pick up fourteen thousand votes in Georgia. The Times
Speaker 1: hasn't called Arizona right now. Biden has a twelve thousand
Speaker 1: vote lead in Arizona. Now let's talk about the states
Speaker 1: that they have called for Biden. Wisconsin with ten electoral votes.
Speaker 1: Biden has over a twenty thousand vote lead in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Nevada with six electoral votes. Biden has over a thirty
Speaker 1: six thousand vote lead in Nevada. Michigan with sixteen electoral votes.
Speaker 1: Biden unfortunately has one hundred and forty eight thousand vote
Speaker 1: lead in Michigan. That's a big lead. And then Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: which is the big Enchilada in terms of the most
Speaker 1: electoral votes of the states we're talking about, Biden has
Speaker 1: right now about a forty five thousand vote lead. That
Speaker 1: is a lot of votes to shift in a recount
Speaker 1: or a contest litigation. If you look at Florida and
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore, the whole course of it, we were
Speaker 1: talking about a few thousand votes. Right at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, George W. Bush won by five hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty seven votes. Right, the totals in Florida started
Speaker 1: out much much closer than where these totals are, And
Speaker 1: if we were talking about one state, you could be
Speaker 1: more optimistic about what the result would be. In this instance,
Speaker 1: the Trump team's got to win in a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of states, right, I suppose even when you hear those numbers,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's amazing how thin some of Michigan accepted,
Speaker 1: how thin some of the margins are in Georgia, for instance,
Speaker 1: or Arizona or Wisconsin even But you know that that
Speaker 1: is very tricky because time is running out. I suppose
Speaker 1: one cause for hope is that we are in this
Speaker 1: bizarre year of the universal unsolicited maland so perhaps that
Speaker 1: gives a greater opportunity to flip them, but perhaps not.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a lot of votes in a lot
Speaker 1: of states. So what you're saying is, let the legal
Speaker 1: process play out. Do not in no way declare the winner,
Speaker 1: you know it, or go along with the media, but
Speaker 1: maybe don't pop the champagne. Yet, there's still a long
Speaker 1: hill to climb. Well, and look there instances. Let's take
Speaker 1: there was a county in Michigan that has publicly admitted
Speaker 1: that there was a what they called a software glitch
Speaker 1: that shifted six thousand votes from Trump to Bide. Now,
Speaker 1: thankfully they caught it. They caught it and they did
Speaker 1: a hand recount and discovered weight our results are way
Speaker 1: off what we anticipated. And they said it's a glitch.
Speaker 1: This software is used I believe in forty seven counties
Speaker 1: in Michigan. So look, if there were six thousand votes
Speaker 1: shifted in all forty seven counties, that would be enough
Speaker 1: to move the margin. What the Michigan officials are arguing, however,
Speaker 1: is that this quote glitch is idiosyncratic to just this
Speaker 1: county and that it's not present more widely. Now, this
Speaker 1: is an example of there's a reason to be skeptical
Speaker 1: of their sort of self serving explanation. But it actually
Speaker 1: is going to take the lawyers proving this in court.
Speaker 1: It's going to take right now. And I've been on
Speaker 1: the phone with the President. I've been on the phone
Speaker 1: with Jared Kushner. I've been on the phone with the
Speaker 1: White House. I have been urging them to bring in
Speaker 1: a stronger legal team, more curious, high powered litigators, and
Speaker 1: to go make their case. At this point, yelling about
Speaker 1: it isn't going to change it. You got to go
Speaker 1: into court, Yeah, and you got to put on evidence
Speaker 1: and demonstrate to a court a legal basis that the
Speaker 1: margins we're talking about state by state, that that portion
Speaker 1: of the votes were illegally cast and that's got to
Speaker 1: be proven with cross examination, with evidence. And we're not
Speaker 1: there yet. I hope we get there but that's not
Speaker 1: an easy task and it takes some real hard, careful,
Speaker 1: diligent work, right right, Okay, you have not completely thrown
Speaker 1: me into despair. There is still some cause for hope,
Speaker 1: and obviously we'll see that play out. One of the
Speaker 1: reasons I think a lot of people want President Trump
Speaker 1: to get reelected is because they are so infuriated at
Speaker 1: the blob, the deep state, the administrative state, the out
Speaker 1: of control agencies, whatever you want to call it. And
Speaker 1: you know, speaking of legal questions, I was wondering if
Speaker 1: you were going to be arrested for murder earlier today
Speaker 1: because you eviscerated mister Andrew McCabe, one of these corrupt
Speaker 1: officials who was involved in the entire hoax and the
Speaker 1: scandals of twenty sixteen surrounding that election and thereafter. It's
Speaker 1: not getting any play. I noticed the testimony of Andrew
Speaker 1: McCabe is not getting any play because everyone's focused on
Speaker 1: the presidential But I thought it was extraordinarily telling. It's
Speaker 1: one of the most important issues of the past four years.
Speaker 1: And maybe going forward, could you just take us through
Speaker 1: a little bit of what happened. First, we'll just play
Speaker 1: a little clip of your grilling of mister McCabe. Mister mcabe.
Speaker 1: Yesterday on MSNBC, Ben Roods, the former deputy National Security
Speaker 1: advisor to President Obama, said that foreign leaders are already
Speaker 1: having conversations with Joe Biden quote, talking about the agenda
Speaker 1: they're going to pursue January twenty. It's mister McKay. Based
Speaker 1: on that testimony, do you believe Joe Biden is violating
Speaker 1: the Logan Act. I'm not aware of Ben Rhodes's statements,
Speaker 1: or take it on faith he said what I read,
Speaker 1: assuming he's that quote is accurate, and so a verbatim quote,
Speaker 1: is that a violation of the Logan Act under any
Speaker 1: plausible theory? I am not prepared to take your statement
Speaker 1: on faith, and I am also not prepared to conduct
Speaker 1: legal analysis. All right, you're a lawyer. Have you ever
Speaker 1: answered a hypothetical in court? If it is correct that
Speaker 1: I am accurately quoting, it's something the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: frequently did wrong in this investigation. If that is what
Speaker 1: Ben Rhodes said, If Joe Biden is talking with foreign
Speaker 1: leaders right now, does it violate the Logan Act? Yes?
Speaker 1: Or no. I'm not going to opine on a hypothetical
Speaker 1: question about what him he is talking with foreign leaders,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't violate the Logan Act because the Logan
Speaker 1: Act is unconstitutional, which is why it's never been used
Speaker 1: to prosecute anyone. You authorized using it to go after
Speaker 1: General Flynn as part of a political persecution. I can
Speaker 1: give you the answer. Hell, no, Joe Biden is not
Speaker 1: violating the Logan Act. The reason you won't say it
Speaker 1: is because that was your flimsy political basis to go
Speaker 1: after a decorated war hero because you disagreed with politically
Speaker 1: with President Trump. Well, look, McCabe was the deputy director
Speaker 1: of the FBI. Today was significant because there's been a conflict.
Speaker 1: There's been a conflict for a couple of years between
Speaker 1: McCabe and James Coomy, his boss, over whether Comy authorized
Speaker 1: him and directed him to leak to the press. Comy's
Speaker 1: testified now repeatedly under oath under penalty of perjury, that
Speaker 1: he did not, that he never has, that he didn't.
Speaker 1: McCabe had told the press that Comy had authorized to
Speaker 1: But today was the first time McCabe ever said that
Speaker 1: under oath. So that's a big deal. It's one thing. Look,
Speaker 1: it ain't a crime. Delight of the press. May i'd
Speaker 1: be a good idea. It may not be honorable or ethical,
Speaker 1: but it is not. It doesn't carry a prison term
Speaker 1: to lie to the press. If you lie to Congress
Speaker 1: under oath, that is a crime. And so my objective
Speaker 1: in this cross examination was to get and and Comy
Speaker 1: testified before the election. I got him on record again saying, no,
Speaker 1: he didn't authorize McCabe to do this. McCabe, now he
Speaker 1: you want to talk about a slippery witness. Boy, This guy,
Speaker 1: he's smarmy and political and hates Trump and is a
Speaker 1: hardcore Democrat and it was up to his eyeballs in
Speaker 1: the political persecution of the president. But finally, after trying
Speaker 1: to wriggle away repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, he said on the record, Yes,
Speaker 1: Coomy did authorize me. And critically. I ended this cross
Speaker 1: examination by saying, mister McCabe, the FBI has the records
Speaker 1: to demonstrate who's telling the truth. Either you're telling the
Speaker 1: truth or Comy's telling the truth. You can't both be
Speaker 1: one of you's lying. Do you think the FBI should
Speaker 1: release the records, whether emails or remember and or whatever
Speaker 1: documents they have to if you're telling the truth, to
Speaker 1: vindicate you, to tell show that you're telling the truth,
Speaker 1: and if Comey's telling the truth, to vindicate him. Do
Speaker 1: you think the FBI should release the materials? And McCabe said, yes,
Speaker 1: they should release the materials. Well, hot diggity damn, I
Speaker 1: can tell you. I pulled my chief counsel aside right
Speaker 1: after the hearing and said, all right, I want you
Speaker 1: to draft a letter to Bill Barr and to Chris Ray,
Speaker 1: which we will send in the next day or two,
Speaker 1: quoting Comy's testimony, Quoting McCabe's testimony, pointing out there directly
Speaker 1: in conflict that the FBI has records demonstrating who's lying
Speaker 1: and who's telling the truth. And now even McCabe is
Speaker 1: calling for them to be released. And I'm going to
Speaker 1: ask Barr and Ray release them now and let us
Speaker 1: know who committed perjury because they can't both be true true.
Speaker 1: One said yes, one said no. It is impossible for
Speaker 1: both to be testifying truth truthfully. And this is the issue.
Speaker 1: We hope, in Secretary of State Mike Pumpey's words, we
Speaker 1: hope for a smooth transition into a second term for
Speaker 1: the president. But in any case, there is no reason
Speaker 1: not to get this information out. Now you know that
Speaker 1: you won't get it under a democratic administration, So very important,
Speaker 1: I thought. I thought the grilling was just terrific to watch,
Speaker 1: and I do hope that we can see the release
Speaker 1: of this kind of material, and I do hope that
Speaker 1: these people are held to account. Speaking of these agencies
Speaker 1: that are out of control, we'll want to get to
Speaker 1: two mail bad questions. First, one from Kim Joe. Biden,
Speaker 1: if he is named president, wants to issue a lot
Speaker 1: of executive orders that would overturn Trump's executive orders. How
Speaker 1: easy is that to do? After the Supreme Court upheld
Speaker 1: one of Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, doesn't that make it
Speaker 1: harder for Biden to overturn Trump's owes if Biden actually
Speaker 1: gets elected. That is what is the deal here. We've
Speaker 1: always told, you know it lived by the executive order,
Speaker 1: die by the executive order, that they're easy to overturn.
Speaker 1: But sometimes the court has shown us that they're not
Speaker 1: so easy to overturn. So that is a really smart,
Speaker 1: savvy question. If we were living in a world of
Speaker 1: principle and reason, the answer to that should be yes,
Speaker 1: it does make it harder. All right, let me step
Speaker 1: back and answered a little bit differently. In any ordinary
Speaker 1: world where you're following the law, a president condissue an
Speaker 1: executive order, the next president can rescind the executive order,
Speaker 1: and the power to do so is unlimited. Now it's
Speaker 1: a different question whether the executive order is legal, but
Speaker 1: the power to rescind an executive order is complete in total.
Speaker 1: And an executive order, by the way, should not be
Speaker 1: making law. It is directing the executive their executive orders,
Speaker 1: going back to George Washington. But those are instructions from
Speaker 1: the president to the executive branch. Here's how you are
Speaker 1: to execute the law. So it's so, and that's an authority.
Speaker 1: Obama abused it by trying to change the law, which
Speaker 1: an executive order can't do. The Supreme Court lawlessly, and
Speaker 1: the most egregious example of it was this past summer
Speaker 1: in June, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's revoking
Speaker 1: Obama's amnesty executive order, and it was John robertson the
Speaker 1: Four Liberals, and John Roberts wrote what I think was
Speaker 1: a deeply unprincipled opinion where the Chief Justice didn't dispute
Speaker 1: that Obama had no authority to issue the executive order,
Speaker 1: and he said, of course Trump can rescind it, but
Speaker 1: he didn't provide enough explanations as to why. So we're
Speaker 1: going to call a process foul and send it back.
Speaker 1: And the thing that is utterly and completely hypocritical is
Speaker 1: the chances that John Roberts holds a Joe Biden presidency
Speaker 1: to the same standards or zero. It was clearly a
Speaker 1: pretext to reinstate amnesty, and it's frankly it's the same
Speaker 1: pretext John Roberts and the four liberals did the prior
Speaker 1: term in the census case, where the Trump administration was
Speaker 1: going to ask in the census, are you a US citizen?
Speaker 1: A question that has been asked for two hundred years.
Speaker 1: It's been asked over and over and over again in censuses.
Speaker 1: Are you a citizen? Well, left wing activists don't like
Speaker 1: that question because they don't want how many people are
Speaker 1: here illegally? Yeah, and Roberts played the same game, said, well,
Speaker 1: of course you can ask that question, but the memo
Speaker 1: laying it out you didn't have good enough reasons, So
Speaker 1: we're striking it down and saying, show your work, Go
Speaker 1: show your homework a little more. And it was a
Speaker 1: political game because they ran out of time, and so
Speaker 1: I didn't ask the question. That game has been ship
Speaker 1: will only apply to Trump Biden? Will I think repeal
Speaker 1: executive orders? I think if Biden as president, he will
Speaker 1: re enter the Paris Climate Agreement. If Biden as president,
Speaker 1: I think he will reinstate many aspects, if not the
Speaker 1: entirety of the Iran nuclear deal. There's a lot the
Speaker 1: president can do unilaterally. If Republicans keep the Senate, we
Speaker 1: can stop the worst legislative things. That's also something I
Speaker 1: supposed to hope for now. Senator, I know you don't
Speaker 1: want me to bug you about future plans, so I
Speaker 1: will not. But I felt this was a very important question,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to include it. This is from Tommy.
Speaker 1: If Senator Cruz ever seeks higher office, will he keep
Speaker 1: the beard? I think he should. Senator. Your answer, damn
Speaker 1: define out. The Beard's been fun. I grow it on
Speaker 1: a whim. I've had fun with it. At some point.
Speaker 1: Heidi is not crazy about the beard, so there is
Speaker 1: some pressure to get rid of it. Well, we'll see
Speaker 1: how it shakes out. I'm fun with it, right now, Senator,
Speaker 1: I would like on the record you know I won't
Speaker 1: be like Andy McCabe here. I won't try to be
Speaker 1: weasily about my answers. I am fully one hundred percent
Speaker 1: pro beard. I think if for the Verdict listeners, if
Speaker 1: you agree with my position on this, please let us
Speaker 1: know on Twitter. I think it's great, it's very has
Speaker 1: lots of Abraham Lincoln vibes. I think it's cool. If
Speaker 1: I were able to grow a beard, I would. Unfortunately
Speaker 1: it doesn't quite work out on me, but maybe someday
Speaker 1: in the future. Well, I will say that the baby
Speaker 1: face is a good look for you. Well, that's very kind,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that very much, and I
Speaker 1: will I will try to keep the baby face. We will.
Speaker 1: I'm sure the next time we speak have a million
Speaker 1: more developments in this crazy, crazy end to a crazy
Speaker 1: crazy year. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and
Speaker 1: Security Pack, 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 the Republican Party across the nation.