Speaker 1: Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the US Supreme
Speaker 1: Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises
Speaker 1: serious legal issues, and I believe the court should hear
Speaker 1: the case on an expedited basis. I do believe that.
Speaker 1: But I did not write those words. Those words come
Speaker 1: from our intrepid co host, Senator Cruz. As we continue
Speaker 1: this election mess, I'm Michael knows. This is Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. It
Speaker 1: is excellent to be here, Senator, with you in person
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. We haven't done this because what
Speaker 1: we had to spend some time with our families or something.
Speaker 1: It has been too long, and we should apologize to
Speaker 1: all the great listeners of Verdict. But last week I
Speaker 1: was home with my family and my kids and we
Speaker 1: were eating turkey and relaxing, and so it's good to
Speaker 1: be about. It is good to be back. We want
Speaker 1: to thank all of the subscribers who have stuck with
Speaker 1: us through some of those virtual shows, and thank you
Speaker 1: to everybody who has listened in. If you haven't subscribed already,
Speaker 1: please do so on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, on Google Play,
Speaker 1: on YouTube. We're still on those platforms for now, although
Speaker 1: I suppose a little bit later we'll get to the
Speaker 1: threats that we might face Senator First, the election is
Speaker 1: still dragging on. Some people are saying the president should
Speaker 1: concede immediately. Some people are saying we should let the
Speaker 1: legal process play out. Some people are saying Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is the president elect. Some people are saying the electors
Speaker 1: won't vote until December fourteenth. What is the state of
Speaker 1: the race and the legal challenges, Well, it's not resolved
Speaker 1: right now. There are multiple lawsuits all across the country,
Speaker 1: and those lawsuits need to be resolved. And until then,
Speaker 1: you don't have to say the media kind of stamping
Speaker 1: their feet and insisting it's over now because we say
Speaker 1: it's over. That's a little weird. We're going to have
Speaker 1: a clear and definitive result. Anytime you have an election
Speaker 1: and the election is contested, you wait until the results
Speaker 1: of that contest are over. You know, you remember think
Speaker 1: back to the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and
Speaker 1: Al Franken. We're Al Franken litigated, fought, and by hook
Speaker 1: or by crook, managed to get enough votes to beat
Speaker 1: Norm Coleman. Good choice of words there. You know, when
Speaker 1: when Democrats are filing the lawsuits, everything's hunky dorry that
Speaker 1: they can challenge it. But in this instance, because it's
Speaker 1: President Trump and his legal team that's challenging it, the
Speaker 1: media is treating it like it is the most unimaginable
Speaker 1: thing we've ever seen for a legal team to bring
Speaker 1: cases and to try to litigate their claims. And now
Speaker 1: I know there have been a lot of claims of fraud.
Speaker 1: There's been some evidence of irregularities of poll watchers not
Speaker 1: being able to see the vote count, and this has
Speaker 1: gone on in various states. We've heard about Arizona, We've
Speaker 1: heard about Georgia, We've heard about Michigan. I want to
Speaker 1: focus on Pennsylvania because it just seems as though there
Speaker 1: are so many narratives going on about fraud or how
Speaker 1: now it's being stolen in the other direction or whatever.
Speaker 1: What is the deal in Pennsylvania and what's the status
Speaker 1: of that claim. Well, let me say two things on
Speaker 1: this one. Just speaking more broadly, it is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent clear there was fraud this election cycle, and there's
Speaker 1: been fraud and prior election cycles. Election fraud is a
Speaker 1: challenge we deal with, and it occurs. The question that
Speaker 1: we don't know the answer to is whether or not
Speaker 1: the Trump team is going to be able to present
Speaker 1: sufficient evidence of fraud to change the outcome. And that's
Speaker 1: really a question. That's why we have a judicial system.
Speaker 1: We have a system to resolve those claims. They don't
Speaker 1: get resolved by wild allegations on Twitter. They don't get
Speaker 1: resolved by TV pundits screaming at the camera. They get
Speaker 1: resolved by evidence and witnesses and expert witnesses and facts,
Speaker 1: and the judicial process exists to determine what can be
Speaker 1: proven and what can't. That hasn't happened yet. I very
Speaker 1: much hope we see a different outcome in the presidential
Speaker 1: than we have right now. It's a tough road, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to say. It is an uphill road to get
Speaker 1: there because there are multiple states where the outcome needs
Speaker 1: to flip, and so the president's legal team to change
Speaker 1: the ultimate outcome needs to prevail not just in one state,
Speaker 1: but in several. That's hard, it's not an easy thing.
Speaker 1: But he is absolutely entitled to litigate it, and I
Speaker 1: think it is important to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: what happened. Now you asked about Pennsylvania in particular. Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: is the biggest of the states whose outcome is in dispute,
Speaker 1: and there are serious legal issues at the core of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: One of the problems you've got in Pennsylvania, you've got
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court that consists of partisan Mamocrats. Democrats have
Speaker 1: a five to advantage on the Supreme Court. Is the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of Pennsylvania. Yes, And and they
Speaker 1: have been they have not been good actors. That they
Speaker 1: have behaved in a nakedly partisan way. So we saw
Speaker 1: before the election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots
Speaker 1: that were received after election day, even potentially ballots that
Speaker 1: were mailed after election day, could be counted. And it
Speaker 1: was a decision. It was a partisan decision. They were
Speaker 1: rewriting state election law because they thought it benefited the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And and and actually the US Supreme Court, Justice sam
Speaker 1: Alito wrote an opinion he was joined by Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: and Justice Gorsuch, where he said that the decision of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court very likely violated the US Constitution. That
Speaker 1: was before the election. The US Supreme Court declined to
Speaker 1: resolve that issue before the election, which they should have. Yeah. Okay,
Speaker 1: so fast forward to down the statement you read at
Speaker 1: the opening the pod. I wrote yesterday, and I wrote
Speaker 1: it because I read the Supreme Court pleading that was
Speaker 1: filed in Pennsylvania. So they've asked the US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to take the case. The central claim in this case
Speaker 1: is a little bit different from the one the Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decided before the election. Right, the state of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: the state legislature in March of this year change the
Speaker 1: election law pretty dramatically in Pennsylvania to allow universal mail
Speaker 1: in balloting with no excuse, no basis. Anyone can mail
Speaker 1: in ballot. And so this is distinct from the traditional
Speaker 1: system of absentee, which is you go, you request, you say,
Speaker 1: I've got this reason that I need an absentee ballot. Right.
Speaker 1: This is a new system that they instituted, which is
Speaker 1: you just get mail to ballot. Yes, and they did so.
Speaker 1: Now what's interesting is the Pennsylvania State Constitution explicitly lays
Speaker 1: out the circumstances in which you can have a see Valady,
Speaker 1: and the Pennsylvania State Constitution is pretty strict on it.
Speaker 1: As a general matter, the Pennsylvania Constitution requires in person voting.
Speaker 1: And then they're a handful of exceptions that are specified,
Speaker 1: things like military service, things like if you're sick or
Speaker 1: have a serious disability, and those are written into the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And there's actually a long history in Pennsylvania where the
Speaker 1: legislature has multiple times previously past laws expanding absentee vality,
Speaker 1: and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck them down over
Speaker 1: and over again and said, no, the Pennsylvania Constitution says
Speaker 1: you can't do that. So what happened here here the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania legislature rewrote the law in direct contradiction to the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Constitution. So this claim that is at the center
Speaker 1: of this case is arguing that the universal mail in
Speaker 1: law that Pennsylvania passed contradicts the Constitution of Pennsylvania. Now
Speaker 1: District Judge in Pennsylvania agreed with that claim. Okay, and
Speaker 1: the secretion seems clearer, doesn't, I mean, it's it's and
Speaker 1: and there are two different Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases from
Speaker 1: decades past clearly holding that, explicitly holding that the text
Speaker 1: of the Constitution explicitly says that. And so a Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: district judge said, you're likely to prevail on this claim
Speaker 1: that what the legislature did is contrary to the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that claim, and they rejected it
Speaker 1: under a legal doctrine called latches. Now know what the
Speaker 1: heck is latches. Latches are very common doctrine, and it
Speaker 1: essentially means you slept on your rights. Another way of
Speaker 1: putting it as you waited too long. Yeah, And the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, look, you guys waited till after
Speaker 1: the election to bring this case. You should have brought
Speaker 1: it earlier. Smester, you can't bring it. You missed your chance.
Speaker 1: So yesterday morning I printed out and read the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court pleading and I was actually it was it raises
Speaker 1: some very serious legal issues. One of the points they
Speaker 1: made is they said, look, Pennsylvania Supreme Court said through
Speaker 1: a case out based on latches, but they also have
Speaker 1: ruled that a candidate lacks standing to challenge an election
Speaker 1: law before the election. So they put us in a
Speaker 1: catch twenty two where we can't challenge it before the
Speaker 1: election because we don't have standing, and we can't challenge
Speaker 1: it after the election because they say we waited too long.
Speaker 1: It can't be the case that you could never challenge
Speaker 1: a law that's facially on constitutional. Right now, that's a
Speaker 1: pretty damn good argument. Yeah. I mean you read it
Speaker 1: and you're like, okay, wait a second, that's pretty strong.
Speaker 1: When the Pennsylvania Legislature changed their election law, they also
Speaker 1: put on the ballot a referendum to amend the constitution
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania to allow universal mail in voting. So that's
Speaker 1: going to be on the ballot. Here's one of the
Speaker 1: weird things when it's on the ballot, whether or not
Speaker 1: to allow universal mail in voting. Pencil Vania is going
Speaker 1: to have it voted on using universal mail in voter So,
Speaker 1: I mean, it really is. That's actually a footnote in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court pleading that just I laughed out loud,
Speaker 1: he said, this is frigging nuts. You're so I wrote
Speaker 1: a statement and the statement you read, it's it's about
Speaker 1: a page long. Yeah. By the way, you know, look,
Speaker 1: most press releases that I put out, I've got a team,
Speaker 1: a staff of very tallenge you're telling you don't write
Speaker 1: every single word of every single press release. That one
Speaker 1: I did, That that one I sat down and hammered
Speaker 1: it out on the keyboard and tried to explain, Look,
Speaker 1: these issues are serious, and the US Supreme Court, I believe,
Speaker 1: should hear it. Now. There's a very good chance they
Speaker 1: say no, they decline to hear it. Frankly, if you're
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice and you're trying to protect your
Speaker 1: own backside, the natural instinct is not to take the case.
Speaker 1: But the reason I wrote that statement was to say
Speaker 1: to them, I think the US Supreme Court has a
Speaker 1: responsibility that the degree of distrust in this election. Yeah, um, yeah,
Speaker 1: Well you actually give the number in the statement. According
Speaker 1: to Reuters and IPSOS polling, thirty nine percent of Americans believe,
Speaker 1: quote the election was rigged, thirty almost forty percent of
Speaker 1: Americans that That is the next sentence I think, I say,
Speaker 1: and that is that that is not healthy for our democracy.
Speaker 1: That is now. I know you really did write the statement,
Speaker 1: But part of the reason I urged the Court to
Speaker 1: take the case is I think this the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has a responsibility to try to ensure we're following the
Speaker 1: law and the Constitution and to take a step to
Speaker 1: calm the acrimony in the division. Having so many Americans
Speaker 1: distrust our entire system as rigged, as fake, as bogus.
Speaker 1: That ain't good. Right. Well, you know it's funny because
Speaker 1: your reaction was the same as mine, which is, if
Speaker 1: I were on the court, I sure wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: take the case. I don't want to be accused of
Speaker 1: politicizing anything. But it does seem that there's an irony
Speaker 1: where the court that's so reticent to be seen as
Speaker 1: political actually seems very very political. You know, if they
Speaker 1: were to take the case. First of all, it very
Speaker 1: likely would not change the outcome of the presidential election,
Speaker 1: but at least, for goodness sakes, it would restore some
Speaker 1: confidence that we're not just all playing partisan politics, that
Speaker 1: we actually will follow the state constitutions and the law. Well,
Speaker 1: and look, let me be candid. The Pennsylvania case their
Speaker 1: challenge is also so there's number one, there's a jurisdictional
Speaker 1: doctrine at the US Supreme Court, which is, the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court cannot take an appeal if there is what
Speaker 1: is called an adequate and independent state ground. In other words,
Speaker 1: on a question of Pennsylvania state law, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is the final arbitry the US Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 1: decide issues of state law, right, and so if a
Speaker 1: state supreme court has decided a case on an issue
Speaker 1: of state law and that's sufficient, the US Supreme Court
Speaker 1: can't take it. And so a tough question in this
Speaker 1: case is what is the federal question that gives the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court jurisdiction? Well, you know, actually from your
Speaker 1: own state. I think we'd mentioned this in a prior podcast.
Speaker 1: There was a Senate race in nineteen forty eight when
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson stole an election and it went all the
Speaker 1: way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said,
Speaker 1: we don't have jurisdiction here, we don't want to settle,
Speaker 1: we don't want to interfere in this state election. And
Speaker 1: that was it, and they they gave Johnson the seat. Now, look,
Speaker 1: they're obviously counterpoints Bush versus Gore, And as you know,
Speaker 1: I was part of the legal team litigating that. We've
Speaker 1: talked on the podcast before about my book One Vote Away,
Speaker 1: where I talk at great length about Bush versus Gore
Speaker 1: about the inside strategy there. Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court
Speaker 1: twice issued rulings that was also a partisan democratic court.
Speaker 1: They were lawless rulings, and the US Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore stepped in and ultimately resolved the case,
Speaker 1: and they did the right thing. A challenge here is,
Speaker 1: even if the Trump team wins in Pennsylvania, that alone
Speaker 1: is not enough to switch the outcome, right, So that
Speaker 1: may well, that will certainly be a basis that encourages
Speaker 1: the justices not to take the case. Is either way,
Speaker 1: the outcomes the same. It's why I wrote what I
Speaker 1: did that Listen, this dynamic of so many Americans not
Speaker 1: having faith in the integrity of our democratic system. That's
Speaker 1: a real problem, and I think the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: a responsibility to cure the claims and decide them pursue
Speaker 1: it to the law. Well, there are other issues in
Speaker 1: other states, and we do have to touch on not
Speaker 1: just the presidential race, but and not just Pennsylvania, but
Speaker 1: Georgia and specifically the Georgia Senate races, because whatever happens
Speaker 1: with the presidential race there, you've got these runoff races.
Speaker 1: This will decide who controls the Senate. You laid out
Speaker 1: the Democrats plan for if they do take control of
Speaker 1: the Senate in the White House, it's pretty radical. Stuff.
Speaker 1: It could end the Republican Party in many ways as
Speaker 1: a national party. What is the state of play there?
Speaker 1: It's David Purdue and Kelly Laffler are the Republicans and
Speaker 1: the incumbents. You sit next to David Purdue in the Senate,
Speaker 1: so you've got a very close view of all of this.
Speaker 1: How do things stand in Georgia? So where we are
Speaker 1: right now in the Senate, as Republicans have a fifty
Speaker 1: two forty eight majority, but two of those seats, the
Speaker 1: Georgia seats, there's a runoff on January fifth. Ye, if
Speaker 1: we lose them both, the Senate becomes fifty fifty. If
Speaker 1: we win them both, we stay at fifty two forty
Speaker 1: eight and fifty fifty. By the way, if Joe Biden
Speaker 1: does as send to the presidency, the tiebreaker then is
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. So the Democrats have it. So it means
Speaker 1: if we lose them both and Joe Biden as president,
Speaker 1: it means Chuck Schumer as the majority leader. And I
Speaker 1: got to say, in our lifetimes, I don't believe there
Speaker 1: has been a Senate race as consequential as the Georgia
Speaker 1: Senate race on January fifth, because the two outcomes are
Speaker 1: radically different. World Number One, the Democrats win if we
Speaker 1: have a Biden Schumer Pelosi government. There's no check on
Speaker 1: the radicals in the Democratic Party. Here's what I believe
Speaker 1: will happen with a Biden Schumer Pelosi government. I think
Speaker 1: they'll end the filibuster, which means there is no ability
Speaker 1: the minority to stop the most radical policy proposals they
Speaker 1: put forward. I think they will pass a massive tax increase,
Speaker 1: not just repealing the Trump tax cut, but massively increasing taxes.
Speaker 1: I think they will pass all or major components of
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, which will be absolutely crushing too
Speaker 1: small businesses and jobs. I think they will grant amnesty
Speaker 1: to every single illegal alien in America and try to
Speaker 1: make them voters as quickly as possible, and has more
Speaker 1: or less said that already. And I think they will
Speaker 1: add two new states to the Union. They will add
Speaker 1: the district to Columbia and Puerto Rico because they believe
Speaker 1: they'll elect four Democratic senators immediately, which means we could
Speaker 1: start January with fifty Democratic Senators and in the year
Speaker 1: with fifty four. And this is all about power, This
Speaker 1: is about locking in their power. And I believe if
Speaker 1: we lose these two Georgia seats, I believe that the
Speaker 1: Democrats will pack the US Supreme Court. They'll put on
Speaker 1: four radical judicial acts. So you think that the remainder,
Speaker 1: there's really only one even sort of quasi moderate Democrat left,
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion from West Virginia. When Joe Mansion says I'm
Speaker 1: going to vote against all the radical stuff, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be the stop against AOC, you think that's just a
Speaker 1: lot of talk. I don't believe him. I think what
Speaker 1: Joe is doing is politicking in Georgia. He's trying to
Speaker 1: convince Georgians vote for the Democrats. Listen, Joe is someone
Speaker 1: I've served with for eight years now. Joe is a
Speaker 1: very Mansion is a very nice guys, a very affable guy.
Speaker 1: It's it's nobody dislikes Joe. It's hard to dislike it.
Speaker 1: He's got he keeps a vote on the Potomac, and
Speaker 1: he invites senators to go out, you know, go out
Speaker 1: on like sunset cruise in the Potomac, which is fun
Speaker 1: to do. You look, I mean, I've I've gone out
Speaker 1: with him and and hung out with him. Joe when
Speaker 1: I was first elected to the Senate. One of the
Speaker 1: one of my colleagues said to me, he said, Joe
Speaker 1: is like a purple unicorn. He will always always be
Speaker 1: with you, right up until the moment you need him.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you in eight years in the Senator,
Speaker 1: I cannot think of a single issue where Joe Joe
Speaker 1: Mansion was the deciding vote. Um. He will occasionally vote
Speaker 1: with Republicans when his vote doesn't matter, Yeah, but when
Speaker 1: when push comes to shove, I don't believe he will
Speaker 1: stand up to Chuck Schumer. Um. Now I could see
Speaker 1: him doing. I think he'll vote with Schumer to end
Speaker 1: the filibuster, and he'll vote with Schumer to add DC
Speaker 1: in Puerto Rico. And then if they have fifty four Democrats,
Speaker 1: maybe he votes against packing the court right right after,
Speaker 1: ensuring that they can win and they lock in this majority.
Speaker 1: And it's worth pointing out to the opponents here are
Speaker 1: pretty radical people. You have John Assoff, who if that
Speaker 1: name is familiar to any of the listeners, it's because
Speaker 1: Hollywood propped him up to run for Congress just a
Speaker 1: few years ago, and he lost that race. But he
Speaker 1: was the sort of Hollywood darling. He's just come out
Speaker 1: and said we need to basically empower the bureaucracy to
Speaker 1: make all of the decisions for us and basically have
Speaker 1: government by experts, so much for we the people. And
Speaker 1: then the other candidate in this race, Raphael Warnock, is
Speaker 1: as radical as they come. He is openly embraced socialism.
Speaker 1: He's said that one cannot serve God and be in
Speaker 1: the United States military. For goodness sakes, this guy is
Speaker 1: forget we talk about AOC or whoever. This guy is
Speaker 1: maybe the most radical politician I've seen in our in
Speaker 1: our national discourse. He is quite radical. He is a
Speaker 1: preacher in the mold of Jeremiah Right and and in
Speaker 1: fact his former church welcomed and embraced Fidel Castro Right.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party, particularly in Georgia, has decided to go far,
Speaker 1: far left. But to be honest, I actually don't think
Speaker 1: even though these candidates are extreme, yea, in some ways,
Speaker 1: it doesn't even matter. The Democrats are disciplined. Look, they're collectivists,
Speaker 1: they believe in Stadism, they believe in Some of them
Speaker 1: are markraists. They obey orders. Yeah, that's I was talking
Speaker 1: with talking today with Lamar Alexander. Lamar Alexander is retiring.
Speaker 1: He gave his farewell speech today, And so I was
Speaker 1: talking with Lamar on the Senate floor, and we were
Speaker 1: talking about the challenge that the Democrats. They always have message, discipline,
Speaker 1: they're always together. Look on the Republican side, for good
Speaker 1: or for ill, we've got a bunch of individualists. We've
Speaker 1: got a party with Rand Paul and Susan Collins. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of diversity, and we're running all sorts
Speaker 1: of different crazy directions. I mean it's it's we don't
Speaker 1: follow orders, right, they're a virtues to that. But on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, if they get a majority, Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: Pelosi will dictate the agenda in Congress, which means AOC
Speaker 1: and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will dictate the agenda,
Speaker 1: in particular because Schumer will be terrified of being primaried
Speaker 1: from the left by AOC. Yeah, right, I think this
Speaker 1: is a good I remember you had warned about this
Speaker 1: point a while ago. Yeah, and I sort of thought, oh, no,
Speaker 1: I don't know, he'll stand up. No, there's no incentive
Speaker 1: for him too. You know, if this is a unified government,
Speaker 1: the left is going to be calling shots. Well and
Speaker 1: Schumer's a political animal through and through. That's just who
Speaker 1: he is. He lives for politics, and he's seen Democrat
Speaker 1: after democrat beaten from the left and primaries. I don't
Speaker 1: think there will be any appetite to stand up to
Speaker 1: the demands of the far left. Now with a Republican majority,
Speaker 1: if we win in Georgia, it's not all going to
Speaker 1: be you know, Honey and Roses. If we win, we
Speaker 1: will have a narrow Republican majority. If we have a
Speaker 1: Biden presidency. Look, there will be some bad things that
Speaker 1: Republicans join with Democrats to pass that I will fight
Speaker 1: hard against, and we'll have podcasts with me raving about him.
Speaker 1: But the reason majority matters so much is ball control.
Speaker 1: So in the majority, you're you're the chairman of every committee,
Speaker 1: and you can control what bills are voted on and
Speaker 1: what or not. So I can tell you with a
Speaker 1: one hundred percent certainty that if there's a Republican majority
Speaker 1: in the Senate, we will not see a massive tax increase. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can tell you with one hundred percent certainty, DC
Speaker 1: will not become a state. I could tell you with
Speaker 1: one hundred percent certainty the US Supreme Court will not
Speaker 1: be packed all of those if we have the majority,
Speaker 1: they ain't happening. Will there be some other bad things?
Speaker 1: Will there be some trillion dollars spending bills that are
Speaker 1: horrific and drive up the debt? Yes? Will there be
Speaker 1: some terrible immigration deal. Probably I'll fight hard against those.
Speaker 1: But you know what, I'd rather be in those fights
Speaker 1: where I'm trying to fight against policies that are bad
Speaker 1: versus fundamental permanent structural Taking the US Supreme Court from
Speaker 1: nine justices to thirteen that does damage to the Constitution,
Speaker 1: not just for a year but forever, right right, or
Speaker 1: increasing the number of senators or the makeup absolutely, it
Speaker 1: shows you what's on the ballot in Georgia. I know
Speaker 1: that there are some people who feel a bit demoralized
Speaker 1: by the election and by people not taking certain examples
Speaker 1: of fraud. Seriously, I get that. I actually understand the demoralization.
Speaker 1: But one thing that you've done that I've been so
Speaker 1: pleased to see is keeping up the fight and keeping
Speaker 1: up the fight in a lot of different realms. You know,
Speaker 1: going to the Supreme Court and saying you've got to
Speaker 1: hear this Pennsylvania case. And also while you're doing that
Speaker 1: make sure the Republicans win in Georgia. And President Trump
Speaker 1: has said that also, he said, got to go out
Speaker 1: there and vote for Laffler and for Purdue. It's a
Speaker 1: very important battle. It's there's not just one phase. There's
Speaker 1: not just one stage of this battle. It's on money fronts.
Speaker 1: And we could look up and if we lost the Senate,
Speaker 1: we're in a very bad situation. Now that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: So Georgia. I'm going to be going to Georgia. I'm
Speaker 1: going to be campaigning on the ground in December. I'm
Speaker 1: campaigning on the ground in January. I'm working with the
Speaker 1: Club Growth that is launched a plan to knock on
Speaker 1: one million doors in Georgia. It's entirely a turnout election
Speaker 1: getting conservative. We're going to do a bus tour where
Speaker 1: the plan is to hit all of the biggest counties
Speaker 1: in Georgia where the population is and I'm going to
Speaker 1: be there campaigning on the ground to say you've got
Speaker 1: to come out and you've got to show up. And
Speaker 1: I'm all in because the damage that comes from a
Speaker 1: Schumer majority, I don't want to see what comes from that.
Speaker 1: Right before we go, we've got to get to a
Speaker 1: mail bad question. I want to thank as always the
Speaker 1: subscribers who send these in some of them, all of
Speaker 1: them excellent questions, some of them pretty funny as well.
Speaker 1: Let's take a look at Daniel. I think this actually
Speaker 1: ties in very well to what we're talking about Deer
Speaker 1: Senator and Michael, what is the best way to counter
Speaker 1: accusations of conspiracy theorism when discussing the ongoing lawsuits and
Speaker 1: the associated indisha of voting irregularity and election Friday because
Speaker 1: the media won't cover them. They seem fringe and made
Speaker 1: up ideas to democrats and liberals and leftists hashtag verdict.
Speaker 1: We hear this all the time. Anytime you contradict the media,
Speaker 1: they call you a conspiracy theorist. Um, well, that's because
Speaker 1: they're twelve media guys who are planning a conspiracy in
Speaker 1: the control of the world. It is, by the way,
Speaker 1: that's a joke for so whoever they're gonna pay that
Speaker 1: crew conspiracy you know, Um, look, they're gonna say that.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I read Twitter. I read all
Speaker 1: of the accusations. I don't know what's true and what's not.
Speaker 1: I mean, some of them sound pretty far out, so
Speaker 1: others sound quite plausible. Others are somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 1: I think the best answer is, you know what, in
Speaker 1: the United States, we have a system to resolve those claims.
Speaker 1: So the answer is not gonna be which claim got
Speaker 1: the most retweets. Yeah, it's not decided by likes. We've
Speaker 1: got courts that hear evidence. The only thing that is
Speaker 1: going to impact the outcome of these elections is whether
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign can present sufficient evidence to build a
Speaker 1: factual case and convince a court. Yeah, some of the
Speaker 1: more far reaching theories, I don't know if there's a
Speaker 1: factual basis for them or not. I hope the lawyers
Speaker 1: present them. I hope they present it effectively. Hope they
Speaker 1: convince the court. You know, when we were litigating Bush
Speaker 1: versus Gore, we couldn't just assert things. We had to
Speaker 1: go and prevail in court. And so saying that the
Speaker 1: system should work, saying that our legal system should operate
Speaker 1: the way the Constitution designed it, that's not a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: That's actually believing in rule of law and we'll get
Speaker 1: a determination as to what the evidence shows, and that
Speaker 1: are those determinations perfect. Now that there are things that
Speaker 1: go on in the world for which there is an evidence,
Speaker 1: of course, but it's the best system, you know. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of what Churchill said about democracy. It's the
Speaker 1: worst form of government except for every other. You know.
Speaker 1: Our judicial system has challenges, but by and large it's
Speaker 1: a pretty effective vehicle for determining the facts and weighing
Speaker 1: and considering evidence that is not a conspiracy theory. That
Speaker 1: is a constitutional theory. And I think probably the people
Speaker 1: who are attacking us for following the process, they probably
Speaker 1: hate the constitutional theories much more than the conspiracy ones.
Speaker 1: I will have to leave it there, but we will
Speaker 1: address even more of those excellent questions. As this process
Speaker 1: is certainly not going to be resolved today, We'll do
Speaker 1: it next time. I'm Michael Knowles. This is verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz.