Speaker 1: Arguments are over, question time is about to begin, and
Speaker 1: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he doesn't have the
Speaker 1: votes to end impeachment. Away we go. This is Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. Before we get started, I am
Speaker 1: seeing reports on Twitter. I want to hear it straight
Speaker 1: from you that Mitch McConnell called the senators into a
Speaker 1: room and said he does not have the votes to
Speaker 1: stop witnesses. He does not have the votes to end impeachment. Well,
Speaker 1: I think those reports overstated a little bit. The votes
Speaker 1: are up of the air. It's not clear where the
Speaker 1: votes are, but it is absolutely true. We finished finished
Speaker 1: opening arguments today, finished it relatively early, about three o'clock
Speaker 1: in the afternoon, and afterwards all the Republicans went back
Speaker 1: to a conference room to talk about okay, what next
Speaker 1: and next two days or questions. But then on Friday
Speaker 1: is the vote, and it's the vote on whether to
Speaker 1: hear additional witnesses. And by the way, that we're additional
Speaker 1: is important. The media when they reported keep describing it
Speaker 1: as the vote whether or not to hear witnesses. Right,
Speaker 1: But it's worth noting the House heard testimony from seventeen
Speaker 1: witnesses and they played that testimony for us. They relied
Speaker 1: on those documents, they laid it forward. So the question
Speaker 1: is is any additional evidence or any additional witnesses necessary.
Speaker 1: That is a close question. I don't know where the
Speaker 1: votes are. All forty seven Democrats are going to vote yes,
Speaker 1: So the question is are there going to be four
Speaker 1: Republicans to join them? You've had there could be. It
Speaker 1: is close. And so this was a meeting, and we
Speaker 1: have these periodically. It where leadership kind of brings the
Speaker 1: conference together and is trying to whip everyone and get
Speaker 1: everyone in line. You know, I have to admit afterwards,
Speaker 1: Mike Lee and I were laughing because we've been to
Speaker 1: a bunch of those meetings, and usually it's leadership unloading
Speaker 1: on the conservatives. Mike, Mike and I are used to
Speaker 1: being being the bad guys and being like, you know,
Speaker 1: just they're pounding on us, going why why are you
Speaker 1: guys like like causing trouble? In this instance, it was
Speaker 1: actually leadership trying to the folks that are threatening to
Speaker 1: vote with the Democrats. Are the more more moderate Republicans,
Speaker 1: and so it was very much a on effort designed
Speaker 1: to bring them along. That must have felt nice to
Speaker 1: be the good guy in one of these conference meetings. Yeah, nice,
Speaker 1: although a little terrifying. But but but look, I think
Speaker 1: there were a lot of good arguments that were made.
Speaker 1: The folks who are wobbly, the folks who haven't made
Speaker 1: up their mind where they're gonna be, they were essentially quiet.
Speaker 1: So these are the people that you call the rhinos,
Speaker 1: the squishes, that's the those are the mean jokes. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna throw any epithets rum but us and I
Speaker 1: think is a constitutional matter. As a legal matter, this
Speaker 1: is a very easy decision. The House managers haven't proven
Speaker 1: their case. They have the bird to proof, they have
Speaker 1: a bird approof to prove the president committed high crimes
Speaker 1: or misdemeanors, and you haven't done that. And in terms
Speaker 1: of the structure here, I mean the reason that this
Speaker 1: meeting is crucial now is you had the House Democrats
Speaker 1: make their arguments for impeachment. They got their time to
Speaker 1: do that. Then the Trump team got its time to
Speaker 1: defend the president against impeachment. Now, over the next couple days,
Speaker 1: we're heading into question time. That is when the senators
Speaker 1: get to ask questions of the two legal teams. So
Speaker 1: this is the moment now where everybody's got to sort
Speaker 1: of circle the wagons and get the strategy well. And
Speaker 1: in this huddel, I mean, a bunch of us stood
Speaker 1: up and had different things to say. So I stood
Speaker 1: up and I tried to present three arguments to the
Speaker 1: conference as to why we should say we've heard enough,
Speaker 1: we don't need addition to witnesses. The first I said is, look,
Speaker 1: as we've seen from the New York Times with this
Speaker 1: John Bolden stuff, there's going to be a bombshell a day.
Speaker 1: This is the game they're gonna play. There's going to
Speaker 1: be a bombshell tomorrow. I don't know what it is,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be something, and they're going to
Speaker 1: do it again the next day. And I relate, Look,
Speaker 1: this is this is what the game they played during
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh hearings, where they held all the accusations to
Speaker 1: the end, and then they rolled out one after the
Speaker 1: other after the other. And I said, the media wants
Speaker 1: to browbeat Republicans into extending this. So that was my
Speaker 1: first point. My second points, listen to Democrats. They haven't
Speaker 1: proven their case. They're losing right now, so their game
Speaker 1: is just delay. They just want to delay this, keep
Speaker 1: it going as long as possible, and engage in a
Speaker 1: fishing expedition. So bring in another witness. Maybe they'll get
Speaker 1: something from a witness, but just extend it out. And
Speaker 1: in particular, Chuck Schumer has not been subtle about trying
Speaker 1: to put Senate Republicans in purple states who are up
Speaker 1: for reelection in a hard position where whatever they vote,
Speaker 1: It's interesting Schumer actually doesn't care, I think how the
Speaker 1: purple state Republicans vote, because if they vote against the
Speaker 1: president on any witness question, that'll do more allies their
Speaker 1: base and make it easier to beat them. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, if if they vote with the president and
Speaker 1: all the questions, then that'll let in a purple state
Speaker 1: that may not be solidly Republican. That then gives an
Speaker 1: opening for the Democrats who are running against them to
Speaker 1: attack them. And interestingly enough, a number of the folks
Speaker 1: they're described how they're Democratic opponents were staying silent on
Speaker 1: impeachment that it's clear Schumer sent out the word just
Speaker 1: stay out of impeachment and will drag it on. But
Speaker 1: the third point I made, and this is an important
Speaker 1: point that on the question of do we need additional witnesses,
Speaker 1: most of that's focused on John Bolton. There's a point
Speaker 1: that there's been so much talking and yabbering it gets
Speaker 1: lost and it's really important, which is in the House.
Speaker 1: John Bolton went to a district court and he said
Speaker 1: he was willing to testify, and he asked a district
Speaker 1: judge what should I do because the White House has
Speaker 1: told me not to, the House wants me to, and
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives affirmatively went to the district court
Speaker 1: in writing right and said we don't need John. They
Speaker 1: withdrew their request. It wasn't a big already got seventeen
Speaker 1: other people do. They never subpoenaed him, and they withdrew
Speaker 1: their requests. They said we're not asking for him, and
Speaker 1: so I put it out. I said, look, I understand
Speaker 1: for senators they're agonizing and the media will beat up
Speaker 1: at on you, and said, don't you really want to
Speaker 1: be fair and call them. If they wanted to call
Speaker 1: John Bolton, they could have tried, and they decided they
Speaker 1: didn't need his testimony. This is not about John Bolton
Speaker 1: or any one witness this is about delay it and
Speaker 1: engage in a fishing expert. Now, you said that right
Speaker 1: now the Democrats are losing. Do you mean they're losing
Speaker 1: in terms of the arguments they're making. Do you mean
Speaker 1: they're losing politically because they do not have the votes
Speaker 1: to remove the president? What's the relationship between the two?
Speaker 1: All of the above, all of the above look on
Speaker 1: substance that they haven't they haven't proven their case in interest.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the American people have checked out. Yes, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I got to admit, like, like today, the
Speaker 1: number of if it weren't the middle of the afternoon,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure half the Senate wouldn't have been napping
Speaker 1: at their desks. This has gone on already a long time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and there's no there there. You know, it was interesting, Michael.
Speaker 1: I was thinking, so we've heard both sides opening, We've
Speaker 1: heard twenty twenty four hours was allocated to each And
Speaker 1: after hearing it, I was thinking, all right, well, what
Speaker 1: are the what are the main arguments the Democrats had
Speaker 1: of what did the president do wrong? Right? So twenty
Speaker 1: four hours into you know, a few bullet points, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and as I can see it, they're five things, five
Speaker 1: big things that the Democrats say the President did wrong.
Speaker 1: Here's the crazy irony, every single one of them. It
Speaker 1: is objectively true. The Democrats have done worse. So let's
Speaker 1: go through them what at a time. So one thing
Speaker 1: they say the President did wrong was delay aid to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So they've talked a lot about that, and so they had,
Speaker 1: you know, all these moments of you know, people are
Speaker 1: dying in Ukraine and it's terrible. What is disputed, yes,
Speaker 1: the President paused aid to Ukraine. But what is undisputed
Speaker 1: is that Barack Obama never gave lethal military aid defensive
Speaker 1: weapons to ukra But we're all told in the news.
Speaker 1: I've seen in the news that Obama gave aid to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Obama gave blankets and mries meals. And in fact, look,
Speaker 1: I was sitting on the House floor when President Poor
Speaker 1: shank of, the President of Ukraine came and addressed us,
Speaker 1: and he said explicitly, he said, blankets are fine, but
Speaker 1: you can't stop a Russian tank with a blanket. So
Speaker 1: what you're saying, though, is that the Obama administration did
Speaker 1: not give lethal aid, meaning aid they could use in
Speaker 1: the aggression against Russia. But the Trump administration did give
Speaker 1: The Trump administration gave Javelin missiles which can take out
Speaker 1: a Russian tank. So you want to talk about, like,
Speaker 1: all right, bad thing? Number one delaying military aid to
Speaker 1: Ukraine on any measure, Obama much not even a little bit, much,
Speaker 1: much worse than Trump. Trump has been much stronger on Ukraine.
Speaker 1: How about number two? Quid pro quo. Lots of discussion
Speaker 1: about quid pro quo on the president. There's conflicting witness testimony.
Speaker 1: There's there's testimony on both sides. But you know what,
Speaker 1: there isn't a conflicting testimony on Joe Biden. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: admitted a quid pro quote, a much more serious quid
Speaker 1: pro quo. You know what I've been calling the son
Speaker 1: of a bitch clip where he said, played it the
Speaker 1: other night we did where he said, you know, he
Speaker 1: threatened Ukraine he'd cut off a billion dollars in aid
Speaker 1: unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Barismo. The natural gas
Speaker 1: company paying his son at least a million bucks a year.
Speaker 1: So what what President Trump might have considered doing but
Speaker 1: didn't actually do in the end? Did she didn't do it?
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter whether there was a quid pro quote
Speaker 1: for Trump doesn't matter legally. But if they think quid
Speaker 1: pro quos are bad, they have Joe Biden admitting it,
Speaker 1: right and being proud of the quid pro quote unequivocally
Speaker 1: and a much more serious quid pro quo. All right.
Speaker 1: How about number three? The cover up. That's a word
Speaker 1: the Democrats have said over and over again, cover up,
Speaker 1: cover up, cover up, because the White House asserted executive privilege. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what, there has been a cover up of
Speaker 1: all of the evidence on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: and Barissma. The House blocked all those witnesses. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to hear any of it. They didn't talk about
Speaker 1: it at all. You didn't give me they and they
Speaker 1: keep saying you Trump couldn't even investigate. They want to
Speaker 1: cover this up because look, Joe Biden is their front runner.
Speaker 1: They don't want the evidence that and it's important to
Speaker 1: note this is not about Hunter Biden corruption. This is
Speaker 1: about whether Joe Biden, right, the vice president, was involved
Speaker 1: in corruption. But number four, investigate the rival, that's another thing. Okay,
Speaker 1: So he was trying to investigate his political right all right,
Speaker 1: So let me get this straight. You're saying it's inappropriate,
Speaker 1: it's wrong to want to investigate your political rival. Well,
Speaker 1: you know who did that. Got named Barack Obama in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, who launched a major investigation of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: sent in spies, put wire taps on the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: had the FBI and DOJ lying in fabricating evidence, as
Speaker 1: the Inspector General laid out. So if you're saying, I
Speaker 1: just feel like for a Democrat, Okay, So you're saying
Speaker 1: it's wrong to investigate your political rival like Barack Obama did. Because,
Speaker 1: by the way, regardless of how Democrats would justify the
Speaker 1: Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign, we know that
Speaker 1: it happened. We know that that occurred. So regardless of
Speaker 1: how you could justify or attack President Trump's asking for
Speaker 1: an investigation in Ukraine, the same principle, any measure, Obama
Speaker 1: did it more than Trump on any measure, Like if
Speaker 1: you put them side by side, who did more to
Speaker 1: investigate their rivals? It's not gosh, it's kind of close.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a little bit. It's Trump said, how
Speaker 1: come no one's investigating this thing? Look, Joe's bragging about
Speaker 1: fire in the prosecutor. I mean, that was it, and
Speaker 1: all appearances, Ukraine didn't do anything with Obama. They got
Speaker 1: wire taps and did an investigation. They I mean they
Speaker 1: went all in. And then number five cheating on an election.
Speaker 1: So that's the big you know, it's interesting. I bet
Speaker 1: you the Democrats a focus group this, yeah, because cheat's
Speaker 1: a very simple word. It's a word people can understand,
Speaker 1: you know it since the first grade. And they talk
Speaker 1: about that's what Trump was trying to do is cheat.
Speaker 1: The irony is what is this impeachment all about. It's
Speaker 1: about wanting to cheat on the twenty twenty election. Because
Speaker 1: the Democrats have been real candid if they think if
Speaker 1: the American people have the chance to vote for President Trump,
Speaker 1: they will, so this is all about get him off
Speaker 1: the ballot. So if you're just assessing who's trying to
Speaker 1: cheat to win an election, abusing the constitution to try
Speaker 1: to impeach a president because you're afraid the voters will
Speaker 1: elect him re elect him, that is election fraud. Cheating
Speaker 1: at the highest level. And so all five of the
Speaker 1: things they say the president did wrong, I don't think
Speaker 1: the president did wrong. But if those things are wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you can coherently argue anything other
Speaker 1: than the Democrats are much much worse on all five
Speaker 1: and on that fifth point, on the cheating point, the
Speaker 1: Democrats have actually been consistent on this. You heard Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: the House Impeachment Manager, the other day, he said, we
Speaker 1: can't let this go to the ballot box in November
Speaker 1: because we're probably gonna lose. And you had Democratic Representative
Speaker 1: Al Green in twenty seventeen say we need to impeach
Speaker 1: this president because if we don't, I fear he may
Speaker 1: be reelected. Look, you remember Freshman Representative to Lead coming
Speaker 1: in to be sworn in, was caught on video screaming
Speaker 1: we're going to impeach the m effort Rush. She didn't
Speaker 1: abbreviate it. That's literally like coming in what she promised
Speaker 1: to do. So then, as you say, it's pretty clear,
Speaker 1: I think for any any of the ten Americans who
Speaker 1: have been watching all of these endless impeachment hearings, and
Speaker 1: for the many many Americans who are listening to this show,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty clear how the argument stands. So there
Speaker 1: is actually one guy locked in a grain silo with
Speaker 1: clips on his windows on his eyelids, and it's like
Speaker 1: a clockwork orange somewhere someone is playing every moment of
Speaker 1: this impeachment trial, and and it's just it's just probably
Speaker 1: scientist experience, and it is cruel and unusual punishment without
Speaker 1: a question. Is there a chance though, because it is
Speaker 1: clear that you will see any Democrats break from their
Speaker 1: party and vote to acquit the president in this trial.
Speaker 1: So I think there is a chance. I think the
Speaker 1: most likely would be a Joe Mansion, Okay, Democrat from
Speaker 1: West Virginia. I remember he voted for Brett Kavanaugh, that
Speaker 1: probably got him reelected. What about Diane Feinstein from California,
Speaker 1: who just just reports were coming out that she may
Speaker 1: acquit Look, who knows there there was La Times reported
Speaker 1: that today, but then she issued a hasty retraction. Look,
Speaker 1: I think a I'd be pretty surprised if she voted
Speaker 1: to a quit. I think the so far the Democrats
Speaker 1: have been party line on everything, so you haven't seen
Speaker 1: any cracks in their facade. I think you could see
Speaker 1: a Christen Cinema, the new Senator from Arizona. I could
Speaker 1: see a universe where she votes, she votes to acquit um.
Speaker 1: It's not impossible that Doug Jones votes to acquit the
Speaker 1: Democrat from Alabama, although I don't think he will, but
Speaker 1: it's not impossible. Why don't you think he will? Because
Speaker 1: he's a Democrat in a very red state. I think
Speaker 1: he realizes he's gonna lose in November, and so he's
Speaker 1: wanting to do what Hide Hyde Camp? Remember Hide Hyde Camp,
Speaker 1: who was a Democrat elected forth Dakota, yep. So last
Speaker 1: cycle she just voted liberal on everything and went down
Speaker 1: on lost bad, go down swinging. And I think Jones
Speaker 1: has basically made that same call that he's gonna lose,
Speaker 1: and so he wants to go back and be lionized
Speaker 1: in liberal circles. Speaking of efforts that seem futile but
Speaker 1: are probably worth the shot. You did not spend your
Speaker 1: whole day in the Capitol, you, I noticed, headed over
Speaker 1: to the White House, where a new plan for peace
Speaker 1: in the Middle East was being announced. Can you, I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously you can if physically, But is it appropriate now
Speaker 1: for you to tell a little bit about what happened? Sure?
Speaker 1: And actually, as it so happens today, I went to
Speaker 1: the White House not once, but twice. So I started
Speaker 1: the day with a meeting in the White House with
Speaker 1: with Jared Kushner, who's been the President's point person on
Speaker 1: the Middle East peace process, and a number of other senators,
Speaker 1: and he was talking to us about the substance of
Speaker 1: their proposal and walking through it, and so it was
Speaker 1: essentially a prebrief of here's what's going to be announced.
Speaker 1: And I gotta say the White House did a remarkable
Speaker 1: job of keeping the details quite quiet, which pretty much
Speaker 1: nothing in this town as quiet. So for them to
Speaker 1: do that was well done. And then I left and
Speaker 1: went to a couple of meetings, and then I came
Speaker 1: back at noon for the big announcement and President Trump
Speaker 1: was there, but all so Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin nat
Speaker 1: Yahoo was there and they had a big announcement at
Speaker 1: the White House, and you know, it was interesting. I
Speaker 1: think there were several several points that were powerful. Number
Speaker 1: one was just the contrast that President Trump is standing
Speaker 1: up and announcing major efforts trying to achieve peace in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Now that's hard, you want to talk
Speaker 1: about it, really really hard. That's hard, But you actually
Speaker 1: have a president who's working and trying to advance American
Speaker 1: interest and trying to support our friend and ally Israel
Speaker 1: and the contrast, the Democrats are just in this impeachment circle.
Speaker 1: And by the way, at the announcement today with President
Speaker 1: Trump and Piter Yahoo, you know how many Democrats were
Speaker 1: there at the announcement zero. Well, they were so busy
Speaker 1: having fun at the impeachment trial. They they're focus just
Speaker 1: on partisan politics. And listen, the deal, the terms of
Speaker 1: it are still not I don't know all the details
Speaker 1: of the terms. Is there any sense of what this
Speaker 1: deal includes. So what Jared walked through and some of
Speaker 1: what the President Netnyah who walked through also is it
Speaker 1: is a deal that gives Israel a great deal. So
Speaker 1: it recognizes the legitimacy of settlements that Israel has had
Speaker 1: settlements in what's called Judean Samaria, which which are beyond
Speaker 1: the lines what are called the nineteen sixty seven lines,
Speaker 1: and so that for Israel's a big deal. Israel was
Speaker 1: attacked and in nineteen sixty seven expanded the map of
Speaker 1: Israel in a defensive war where they were defending their borders.
Speaker 1: And this map recognizes israel sovereignty over land that they've
Speaker 1: been in for a long long time. But that's a major,
Speaker 1: a major acknowledgement of Israel's rights of sovereignty. It also,
Speaker 1: with regard to Jerusalem, keeps the core city of Jerusalem undivided.
Speaker 1: That is a big deal. So there's some proposals that
Speaker 1: would divide Jerusalem between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Now this proposal keeps a portion of East Jerusalem, but
Speaker 1: it's outside of what has technically been the city, so
Speaker 1: the Palestinians could call what they had Jerusalem, but it
Speaker 1: preserves what is actually Jerusalem to be an Israeli city, okay.
Speaker 1: But it also ensures that that that Muslims have access
Speaker 1: to the Mosque in Jerusalem and to the Holy Site,
Speaker 1: so it is it. But at the same time it
Speaker 1: sets up conditions for creating a Palestinian state, a two
Speaker 1: state solution, okay. And it also promises fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: in investment capital from Arab countries primarily. And but it's
Speaker 1: a lot of capital into the new Palestinian state. Oh well,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty pretty nice carrot stick there to try
Speaker 1: to bring people to the table for peace. And look
Speaker 1: that the devil is in the details. Palestinian authority refused
Speaker 1: to show up, so you didn't have the leader of
Speaker 1: the Palestinians there, but he was invited, he was he
Speaker 1: wouldn't take the phone call. So so this deal, while
Speaker 1: it may be a step forward, probably is not going
Speaker 1: to go anywhere. Well maybe maybe not. I'll say the
Speaker 1: Trump administration did a couple of things that are pretty impressive.
Speaker 1: Number One, they got the support not only of Benjamin
Speaker 1: net and Yahoo, the Prime minister, but also Benny Gantz,
Speaker 1: who is his principal rival, and the two of them,
Speaker 1: they keep having election after election to determine who's going
Speaker 1: to be the next prime ministrate, and they're from different parties,
Speaker 1: they're different, very different politically, and both Neat and Yahoo
Speaker 1: and Gantz supported this proposal. So the two big sides
Speaker 1: in Israel are are behind this deal. That's a big
Speaker 1: deal that the Trump administration was able to unify the
Speaker 1: kind of range of Israeli politics that that was not easy.
Speaker 1: And secondly, we've seen some early signs of support from
Speaker 1: the Arab world for this proposal. There were three different
Speaker 1: Arab ambassadors, a Muslim ambassadors who were there at the announcement,
Speaker 1: which which is a big deal as well, and part
Speaker 1: of the White House's strategy. It is to try to
Speaker 1: get broad support so that the Palestinians feel more pressure
Speaker 1: to come to the table. Now, the White House has
Speaker 1: been very open that the details are negotiable, but you
Speaker 1: got to sit down and start negotiating, and you know
Speaker 1: my view and a two state solution, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans who insist there's got to be a
Speaker 1: two state solutions. A two state solution would be a
Speaker 1: state of Israel and then a new state for Palestine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that used to be kind of Republicans were adamant.
Speaker 1: Democrats were adamant about it, but a lot of Republicans
Speaker 1: were adamant about it. I had been pretty vocal in saying,
Speaker 1: who the hell are we to tell them how they
Speaker 1: should resolve their security issues. That's a decision. Israel's a
Speaker 1: sovereign nation. They should decide. If Israel thinks a two
Speaker 1: state solution is a good idea, that that's fine by me,
Speaker 1: but we shouldn't force it down their throat. I was
Speaker 1: encouraged today because you had net and Yahu and Ghants
Speaker 1: supporting it. You had Israel pretty enthusiastic about it. If
Speaker 1: they make that determination, I think we should be supportive
Speaker 1: of that. And I will say, listen, I'm I have
Speaker 1: long been pessimistic that Middle East piece is going to
Speaker 1: burst out anytime soon. I don't think the Palestinian authority
Speaker 1: wants peace, it would seem that way. I think they
Speaker 1: still refuse to recognize even that Israel has a right
Speaker 1: to exist as a Jewish state, and they continue to
Speaker 1: embrace terrorism. I mean, they are in a unity government
Speaker 1: with hamas a terrorist organization. But even though I'm pessimistic
Speaker 1: that because I don't think the Palestinians want peace, what
Speaker 1: I have urged the Trump administration for three years is
Speaker 1: because they've been very focused on trying to produce Middle
Speaker 1: East piece. You're more likely to get it if you're
Speaker 1: unequivocal in saying we stand with Israel. We're not going
Speaker 1: to waffle, We're not going to blow in the wind,
Speaker 1: We're not going to be Oh. I don't know, because
Speaker 1: if that's the case, the Palestinians have demonstrated for decades,
Speaker 1: they'll play world opinion, They'll attack us in the New
Speaker 1: York Times and let the US flat back and forth,
Speaker 1: and I will say the President has agreed with what
Speaker 1: I've said. So, for example, the Trump administration moved our
Speaker 1: embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Republican and Democratic presidents had
Speaker 1: promised to do that. Nobody did it. Trump did it.
Speaker 1: That was a big deal. The President Trump recognized the
Speaker 1: Golon Heights in the north of Israel as part of Israel.
Speaker 1: I had urged the President to do that. The President
Speaker 1: did it. And the President pulled out of the Iran
Speaker 1: nuclear deal, right, big big deal. The Defense Department and
Speaker 1: State Department both opposed that. I made the case vigorously
Speaker 1: the president. He did it, and I do think the
Speaker 1: dynamic we are now negotiating from a position of strength
Speaker 1: where the President can say we stand with Israel, but
Speaker 1: will facilitate a discussion for peace. And you know what,
Speaker 1: Palising and authority didn't show up, but the Democrats didn't either.
Speaker 1: Quite a comparison, and it would seem, you know, obviously
Speaker 1: the White House has some credibility on this issue. So well,
Speaker 1: we may not, unfortunately, resolve Middle East peace tonight. We
Speaker 1: can and in our last moment or two here get
Speaker 1: to a couple of questions in the mailbag right from Jay,
Speaker 1: who breaks the tie if the impeachment vote on witnesses
Speaker 1: comes in fifty fifty, so that's a complicated question. It's
Speaker 1: it's not entirely clear from the rules, So it's not
Speaker 1: I would think there'd be a simple answer in the
Speaker 1: Constitution or something. Well, so there's normally a simple answer.
Speaker 1: So for most Senate votes, the vice president breaks the tie.
Speaker 1: The problem is the vice president isn't presiding, right, so
Speaker 1: you don't have and by the way, you wouldn't want
Speaker 1: the vice president presiding in the impeachment of the president
Speaker 1: gets impeached, he literally gets the job of president. So
Speaker 1: so that would be the framers knew what they were
Speaker 1: doing when they didn't put the vice president in the chair, right, Um,
Speaker 1: that'd be an interesting discussion if the vice president cast
Speaker 1: the tie breaking Well, sorry but sorry, tell you're out here.
Speaker 1: You know my office is square. It's not nearly as
Speaker 1: interesting as yours. U. Look, it is somewhat ambiguous. If
Speaker 1: you go back to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice who was presiding there, tried to cast a
Speaker 1: couple of tie breaking votes. Then the Senate pressed back
Speaker 1: on him, and so it's it's unclear. Well, it is
Speaker 1: possible the Chief Justice could try to cast a tie
Speaker 1: breaking vote, but there is ambiguity and uncertainty. We also
Speaker 1: adopted a scheduling rule, the language of which I think
Speaker 1: permits both sides to argue they win in the case
Speaker 1: of a tie. If we get to a tie, it's
Speaker 1: bad news. The best the best thing to do is
Speaker 1: don't have any ties, get win by fifty one vote,
Speaker 1: right right. As with so many aspects of this though,
Speaker 1: it does seem we may be in uncharted territory. Question
Speaker 1: from Matt Senator, where did you get your boots? And
Speaker 1: where can I get a pair? So these are are
Speaker 1: Lukeze boots. They're made nel Paso, Texas, and I'm a
Speaker 1: huge fan of Lukez. I have a bunch of pairs
Speaker 1: of Lucas and it's got the Senate the Senate seal
Speaker 1: on the front, but then on the back. I don't
Speaker 1: know if the camera can get it or not. But
Speaker 1: there's what's called the come and Take It flag, which
Speaker 1: in Texas it was. It was pivotal for Texas independence.
Speaker 1: When Texas was part of Mexico, part of the Nation
Speaker 1: of Mexico. Santa Ana was the dictator in Mexico, and
Speaker 1: he issued an order to the town of Gonzales, a
Speaker 1: little town in South Texas. He said, hand over your
Speaker 1: guns and hand over the cannon that guards the city.
Speaker 1: And the Texians, that's what they called Texans back then,
Speaker 1: was Texians, the Texians and Gonzales. They made a flag
Speaker 1: and they hoisted above the city and it had a
Speaker 1: picture of the cannon and underneath it the legend come
Speaker 1: and take it. And that was the beginning of the
Speaker 1: Texas Revolution where it we fought a revolution, had the Alamo,
Speaker 1: but ultimately won at San Jacento, and Texas became our
Speaker 1: own nation. For nine years we were the Republic of
Speaker 1: Texas and independent nation, and then we joined the United States.
Speaker 1: So that's why I wear that flag. I love Texans
Speaker 1: and I love Texians too, but I love Texans. Last
Speaker 1: question is for me from by the way, A quick aside.
Speaker 1: Heidi and I go to church at First Baptist Church
Speaker 1: in Houston. Something our pastor said a few years ago,
Speaker 1: do you know our church was founded by American missionaries
Speaker 1: abroad m because it was founded when they were the
Speaker 1: Republic of Texas, and they were literally American missionaries who
Speaker 1: had gone to the foreign country of Texas as missionaries
Speaker 1: and they started a church, the First Baptist Church of Houston,
Speaker 1: and so in our charter it was it was American
Speaker 1: missionaries visiting us that and look, their activities clearly worked,
Speaker 1: and you know they're also part of the country. Last
Speaker 1: question before we go from Steve for me, Michael, what's
Speaker 1: it like talking to the Zodiac Killer. It is great
Speaker 1: talking to the Zodiac Killer because true crime podcasts tend
Speaker 1: to do very well on the charts, and I think
Speaker 1: that may explain some of our success, remaining even today
Speaker 1: the number one podcast in the country. Look, I will
Speaker 1: say so, I remember campaigning and I want this. One
Speaker 1: young guy held up a sign that said, are you
Speaker 1: the Zodiac Care? And I just I stopped and asked him.
Speaker 1: I said, sign if I was, would you really want
Speaker 1: to bring that sign here today? That I'm sufficiently terrified
Speaker 1: that I have to end the show. Make sure to
Speaker 1: get your mailbag questions in the Senate will now be
Speaker 1: asking questions of the legal teams, and we want to
Speaker 1: pass your questions along. So tweet it at Ted Cruise
Speaker 1: hashtag Verdict and you can also email it in mailbag
Speaker 1: at verdicts podcast dot com. 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, Job's
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.