Speaker 1: Unhinged, extreme, the worst kind of bigot. Those are the
Speaker 1: words that the establishment media used to describe my co
Speaker 1: host because they were shocked, They were appalled to find
Speaker 1: out that there is at least one Republican in the
Speaker 1: country who has not completely changed his views of the
Speaker 1: Constitution over the last seven years. This is a Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: is sponsored by American Hartford Gold. If you're like me,
Speaker 1: then you are growing more and more concerned about the
Speaker 1: state of our country and about your own future. Inflation
Speaker 1: is at the highest rate that we've seen in forty years,
Speaker 1: and interest rates are skyrocketing. In fact, market experts like
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond, who is the CEO of JP Morgan, are
Speaker 1: not only predicting that we will face an economic recession,
Speaker 1: they're using phrases like economic hurricane and unprecedented. If you
Speaker 1: want to protect your future, then do what I did.
Speaker 1: Call the only precious metal dealers that I trust American
Speaker 1: Heart for Gold. They can show you how to hedge
Speaker 1: your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion
Speaker 1: of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. All it
Speaker 1: takes to get started is a short phone call and
Speaker 1: they'll have physical gold and silver shipped directly to your
Speaker 1: door or perhaps into your IRA or four oh one
Speaker 1: K and they make it easy. They're the highest rated
Speaker 1: firm in the business, with an A plus rating from
Speaker 1: the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. And
Speaker 1: if you call them right now, they will give you
Speaker 1: up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver and a
Speaker 1: free safe on your first qualifying order. So don't wait,
Speaker 1: call them now. Call eight five five seven six eight
Speaker 1: one eight eight three. That's eight five five seven six
Speaker 1: eight one eight eight three. Or if you prefer text messaging,
Speaker 1: you can text the word cactus to six five five
Speaker 1: three two. Again, the phone number is eight five five seven,
Speaker 1: six eight one eight eight three. Or you can send
Speaker 1: the word cactus via text message to six five five
Speaker 1: three two. You'll be glad you did. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. Before we begin,
Speaker 1: I want to get to a ton of mailbag questions
Speaker 1: today because we have a ton of new subscribers because
Speaker 1: you and this show and even the series, the subscriber
Speaker 1: only series Cloakroom of this show have been all over
Speaker 1: the news all week because you had the goal, the
Speaker 1: temerity to express the view on marriage that was held
Speaker 1: by it literally every single person in the country, including
Speaker 1: Barack Obama about ten or eleven years ago. And you
Speaker 1: expressed a view of the constitution that has been held
Speaker 1: by conservatives since time immemorial. How dare you, sir? We
Speaker 1: are living in a strange and bizarre land. I will
Speaker 1: say we crossed a threshold. So multiple times on Verdict,
Speaker 1: this podcast has driven the agenda and discussion, and indeed
Speaker 1: we've seen the Biden White House from the press room
Speaker 1: podium responding to this podcast in multiple times this week. However,
Speaker 1: we crossed a dou threshold. It wasn't just Verdict that
Speaker 1: was driving the news. It was Cloakroom, which is, as
Speaker 1: you noted, the paid subscriber service on Verdict. Plus that
Speaker 1: one eighteen second snippet that got put out and it's
Speaker 1: actually it's a fascinating illustration of the lefty Twitter media world.
Speaker 1: So one lefty hack on Twitter put out this eighteen
Speaker 1: second snippet of Cloakroom, every other blue check lefty immediately
Speaker 1: amplified it, and within minutes just about every corporate media
Speaker 1: outlet was running with it as their key story, and
Speaker 1: it culminated amusingly enough this week in Chuck Schumer, the
Speaker 1: Senate majority leader, denouncing me on the Senate floor as
Speaker 1: unhinged based on that eighteen second snippet from Cloakroom the
Speaker 1: Paige Show on Verdict Plus that that we just need
Speaker 1: to mark that that new territory because left wing twitter
Speaker 1: verse media industrial complex. It is truly remarkable. And apparently
Speaker 1: they're not as cheap as I thought they work, as
Speaker 1: they're shelling out for the extra service so they can
Speaker 1: watch the subscriber only show. So, and I do need
Speaker 1: to say to every communist, every leftist, to every Marxist,
Speaker 1: every person trying to destroy the country, obviously you need
Speaker 1: to subscribe to Verdict Plus because you can't know what
Speaker 1: these nefarious conservative constitutionalist are doing unless you subscribe. And
Speaker 1: so I will take great pleasure at at the Marxist
Speaker 1: helping fund our podcast and keep this operation going spreading
Speaker 1: truth through their absolute sea of lies. That's right, you'll
Speaker 1: really show us Libs by subscribing and watching all of
Speaker 1: the content that we put out here. Not only did
Speaker 1: your comment drive the news cycle, Senator, it also led
Speaker 1: to a vote in the House of Representatives to codify
Speaker 1: the Obergefell decision. Actually go a little further as a podcast.
Speaker 1: Ever driven a vote the next week in the US
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. I'm not aware of that threshold ever
Speaker 1: being crossed. So the House Deems bring this up, and
Speaker 1: it was obviously a ridiculous vote. There is absolutely no
Speaker 1: risk of the Supreme Court over ruling Oberghafell. The Court majority,
Speaker 1: and Dobbs said as much. Clarence Thomas and his concurrence suggested,
Speaker 1: perhaps we should revisit that in some other cases. He
Speaker 1: couldn't get a single other justice, including any of the Conservatives,
Speaker 1: to sign on to that. So there's really nope. As
Speaker 1: a political matter, there's no risk of this whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: then the Democrats bring this bill out of their sheer
Speaker 1: shock and anger that you haven't changed your view on
Speaker 1: marriage from the view that's been held for all of
Speaker 1: human history and your view of the Constitution. Even more importantly,
Speaker 1: the boy the Constitution should be interpreted and understood. And
Speaker 1: the vote comes up in the House and forty seven
Speaker 1: House Republicans vote to enshrine a new definition of marriage. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so let's take those water to time. Let's let's start
Speaker 1: with what actually I said on the cloak room. So
Speaker 1: the eighteen second snippet that they seized upon is where
Speaker 1: I said that a Burgha Fell was clearly wrong, it
Speaker 1: was wrongly decided, which is exactly what I said the
Speaker 1: day it came down. It's what I believed then and
Speaker 1: every day since then, and it's what virtually every conservative
Speaker 1: in the planet believe then and still believes now, even
Speaker 1: if there's some Republicans scared to say it now. In
Speaker 1: a Burgher Fell, the Supreme Court struck down the marriage
Speaker 1: laws of states across the country, invented a brand new right.
Speaker 1: The proper way, I believe under the Constitution to decide
Speaker 1: the question of marriage and whether marriage should extend the
Speaker 1: same sex couples is through the democratic process. And actually
Speaker 1: the democratic process was moving in that direction. The advocates
Speaker 1: of gay marriage were winning in multiple states. They were
Speaker 1: persuading the voters, and the democratic process was operating. Those
Speaker 1: who disagreed were making their case, and there was a
Speaker 1: full fledged democratic debate until the Supreme Court said no, sorry,
Speaker 1: silly people, there's only one right answer. You must adopt
Speaker 1: what we decree. What they left out is you and
Speaker 1: I had actually it was Liz Wheeler and I had
Speaker 1: an extended discussion where she asked me. The entire cloak
Speaker 1: Room focused on Clarence Thomas's concurrence in the Dab's decision,
Speaker 1: where he called into question the subset of due process jurisprudence,
Speaker 1: and he mentioned a number of other cases dealing with contraception,
Speaker 1: dealing with sodomy, and dealing with gay marriage, and he
Speaker 1: suggested that those opinions should be revisited. And what I
Speaker 1: articulated at great length in the full Cloakroom podcast is
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court said, repeatedly, explicitly, unambiguously, no, we
Speaker 1: are not revisiting these precedents. Nothing in this decision calls
Speaker 1: him into question. We're not going to do it. At
Speaker 1: one point, the majority opinion says, we don't know how
Speaker 1: we can say this any clearer. No, no, no, As
Speaker 1: you noted Justice Thomas, yes, he raised the issue. He
Speaker 1: was not joined by a single justice, so eight justices
Speaker 1: declined to join that opinion. I said that at great length,
Speaker 1: all of the lefty Twitter activists, all of the corrupt
Speaker 1: corporate media, ignored that entire discussion. We actually put out
Speaker 1: the entire six minute segment we put it out on
Speaker 1: social media to say, look, if you want to know
Speaker 1: what the discussion was, here's a radical and crazy idea.
Speaker 1: Maybe you could actually listen to what it was. I said.
Speaker 1: Almost no one in the media could be bothered to
Speaker 1: do that. And there's a reason they seized upon this
Speaker 1: is there's a broader political point and when we've talked
Speaker 1: about this sum on the podcast, but it's worth underscoring.
Speaker 1: Democrats know that abortion is a political loser for them.
Speaker 1: So they're a handful of left wing activists in DC
Speaker 1: who are thinking, Okay, maybe the decision on row is
Speaker 1: going to be the hail Mary that saves the mid
Speaker 1: terms from the disaster it's going to be for Democrats otherwise.
Speaker 1: But real and serious Democrats don't actually think that. Elected
Speaker 1: democrats don't think that. And how do we know that
Speaker 1: because their immediate reaction is not to focus on the
Speaker 1: fact that their policy preference of unlimited abortion on demand
Speaker 1: in all circumstances with no limits is now no longer
Speaker 1: mandated by the federal courts, because that's a really unpopular
Speaker 1: position in America, But it's rather to suggest, you know
Speaker 1: what this means, they're going to take away birth control.
Speaker 1: They're gonna take away the right to consensual sodomy, They're
Speaker 1: going to take away gay marriage laws. Now, those are
Speaker 1: all issues that pull much better than the Democrats radical
Speaker 1: view on abortion, and when they immediately shift to those issues,
Speaker 1: they're giving you a tell. They're telling it just like
Speaker 1: in poker when someone is bluffing and they whether they
Speaker 1: twist their ring or they sweat or they fidget, they
Speaker 1: you know, people have tells that let you know what
Speaker 1: they really think and believe. That's what the Democrats are
Speaker 1: doing and the reason they hyper ventilated in every media outlet.
Speaker 1: I got to say, CNN, I sort of feel like
Speaker 1: you and I deserve a credit on CNN shows because
Speaker 1: they filled their shows this week just with us. That
Speaker 1: was all of their content, apparably there was nothing else
Speaker 1: happening in the world, because it let them tell the
Speaker 1: story that a burgher Fella is going to be reversed,
Speaker 1: even though the Supreme Court said emphatically it's not going
Speaker 1: to be reversed. Right, and then, as you noted, it
Speaker 1: predicated the vote in the House of Representatives to say,
Speaker 1: if bilbergha Fell is reversed, we're voting to enshrine gay
Speaker 1: marriage and federal law, and to repeal the Defensive Marriage Act,
Speaker 1: which had passed overwhelmingly in Congress and which that crazed
Speaker 1: right wing radical Bill Clinton signed into law. So you
Speaker 1: get this vote in the House. I'm no expert here, Senator.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't work at the Capitol, but I
Speaker 1: think that means it's going to your place. I think
Speaker 1: that means it's going to the Senate for a vote.
Speaker 1: If you had asked me three days ago, I would
Speaker 1: have said, this doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere
Speaker 1: the Senate. Republicans are going to stand firm. This is
Speaker 1: an obvious this is an obvious issue. And yet after
Speaker 1: that vote in the House, I have to wonder, is
Speaker 1: this thing actually going to make it out of the Senate. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not clear if it's going to get floor time.
Speaker 1: And we've got just a couple of weeks left before
Speaker 1: the August recess when Democrats want to get home in campaign,
Speaker 1: they've got a bunch of Democrats on the ballot, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of other bad things Democrats are trying
Speaker 1: to do. So they've got a lot of legislation they're
Speaker 1: trying to ram through, including their last gasp at build
Speaker 1: back broke, and so there's a limited number of days
Speaker 1: of floor time. That being said, Schumer said this week
Speaker 1: he intends to take this up for a vote, which
Speaker 1: will burn several days of floor time. That was the
Speaker 1: speech where he also described me as unhinged for cloak room.
Speaker 1: And if it comes up to move to proceed to
Speaker 1: the bill, we'll take sixty votes. That's the standard rule
Speaker 1: in the Senate. It presumably will get all fifty Democrats.
Speaker 1: So the question is does it get ten Republicans. It
Speaker 1: got what was at forty five Republicans in the House
Speaker 1: forty seven? I think forty seven. At least one of
Speaker 1: my colleagues is old reporters publicly intends to vote yes.
Speaker 1: That's Tom tell Us from North Carolina who's told reporters
Speaker 1: he's going to be a yes. I could tell you
Speaker 1: we had a discussion today in the Senate Republican conference
Speaker 1: at lunch where there were multiple Republicans who, if they
Speaker 1: didn't say yes, they sure we're showing a lot of
Speaker 1: leg to use a euphemism, I don't know that this
Speaker 1: ought to be This ought to be a really easy
Speaker 1: vote Number one, because it's pure empty political messaging. Supreme
Speaker 1: courts said they're not going to overturn a Burger fell.
Speaker 1: So the entire reason Democrats are having this vote is
Speaker 1: for political messaging and really to distract from every other
Speaker 1: aspect of their agenda that's a train wreck, which is
Speaker 1: inflation and crime and immigration and everything else. But secondly,
Speaker 1: look my views on the substance. I believe marriage is
Speaker 1: the union one man and one woman. And that's what
Speaker 1: I have always believed. It's what I believe now. There
Speaker 1: are people who disagree with me, and the people who
Speaker 1: disagree with me are entitled to their views, and they're
Speaker 1: entitled to participate in the democratic process, and they're entitled
Speaker 1: to prevail in the democratic process if their arguments carry
Speaker 1: a majority vote. It is interesting. I hope it's not
Speaker 1: the case that a bunch of Republicans who used to
Speaker 1: say that quite emphatically no longer believe that. But to
Speaker 1: be honest, I don't know, Michael, of course, I mean
Speaker 1: this is I'm with you. I hold the view of
Speaker 1: marriage that has existed forever. I sometimes say I hold
Speaker 1: the view of marriage that Obama and Hillary and Biden
Speaker 1: and all the prominent Democrats of today held until very
Speaker 1: very recently, and by the way, that the voters of
Speaker 1: California in two thousand and eight, bright blue left wing
Speaker 1: California voted for in two thousand and eight. So I
Speaker 1: don't know that there has been a public policy issue
Speaker 1: on which views have changed more dramatic than the issue
Speaker 1: of gay marriage. And it's on the question of life.
Speaker 1: Views of the American voters have been moving in the
Speaker 1: direction of life, but on the question of marriage, they
Speaker 1: clearly are moving in the other direction. And that's indisputable.
Speaker 1: And it's really quite quite a remarkable journey from where
Speaker 1: even a decade the debate was, of course, but I
Speaker 1: just think even for people who disagree, even for Republicans
Speaker 1: who for whatever reason, have changed their views over the
Speaker 1: last five or seven years, this is such a nakedly
Speaker 1: obvious political trap being pointlessly as in terms of the
Speaker 1: substance of the policy being pointlessly laid out by the Democrats.
Speaker 1: The only reason is to trap Republicans. Why on earth
Speaker 1: would any of these these Republican senators take it. Those
Speaker 1: forty seven in the House took at hook line and Sinker.
Speaker 1: I hope, senator, I hope your colleagues are wiser than that.
Speaker 1: You know, you know who I know is wiser the
Speaker 1: subscribers to this podcast, so I do want to get
Speaker 1: to some of their questions for enough of CNN, Enough
Speaker 1: of Nancy Pelosi. A first question up from Jeff. This
Speaker 1: actually does have to do with another piece of legislation
Speaker 1: that's making its way around the Capitol. Jeff says, I've
Speaker 1: been reading about a proposed reform to the Electoral Count Act.
Speaker 1: All I really know about it is that it's being
Speaker 1: pushed by Democrats and Rhinos. So I instinctively don't like it,
Speaker 1: but I want to keep an open mind. What is
Speaker 1: the act and should we support it? So, Jeff, a
Speaker 1: great question, and that's frankly a good instinct is if
Speaker 1: the people pushing it are not reliable conservatives that ought
Speaker 1: to give you a really big hint the direction it's going,
Speaker 1: what is the act? To be honest, I'm not sure. Look,
Speaker 1: Democrats and a lot of wabbly Republicans who are really
Speaker 1: unhappy about January sixth and the fact that I stood
Speaker 1: up and objected. I objected under the Electoral Count Act,
Speaker 1: an act that has been on the laws for one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years, and I objected on the grounds
Speaker 1: that the Electoral votes were not made consistent with law.
Speaker 1: That's what the statute sets out that you can make
Speaker 1: an objection on. And you'll recall I based my objection
Speaker 1: on calling for the appointment of an election commission to
Speaker 1: consider the evidence of voter fraud on the merits on
Speaker 1: the substance to an emergency ten day audit, and determined
Speaker 1: the extent to which fraud occurred in the extent to
Speaker 1: which it impacted the outcome of the election. That was
Speaker 1: modeled after what Congress did in eighteen seventy six, the
Speaker 1: election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. In that election,
Speaker 1: as in twenty twenty, there were serious allegations of voter
Speaker 1: fraud in eighteen seventy six, Congress didn't throw up its
Speaker 1: hands and say we're powerless, we can't do anything about it. No,
Speaker 1: they appointed an election commission. It consisted of five Senators,
Speaker 1: five House members, five Supreme Court justices, and they did
Speaker 1: exactly what I recommended. All the Democrats and some of
Speaker 1: the Republicans don't like that idea, and so this is
Speaker 1: a proposal to change that. I don't know the details
Speaker 1: of how they're going to change it, because they literally
Speaker 1: have just announced it today and so I haven't seen
Speaker 1: what they've announced. I will say, as I was walking
Speaker 1: in to film this podcast, some left wing not on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and I really do spend too much time reading what
Speaker 1: left wing not say on Twitter. We all do. But oh,
Speaker 1: actually it was a lefty reporter for the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: He tweeted out, So the only question in this bill
Speaker 1: is do you want the decision about presidential electors made
Speaker 1: by the federal courts or made by Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House Jim Jordan and Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz. And
Speaker 1: I promptly retweeted him, and I said, sounds good to me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I'm sure that's their nightmare scenario. I was okay
Speaker 1: with it. That sounds that sounds just just fine to me.
Speaker 1: Next question from Wanda, why are January sixth speaking of
Speaker 1: January sixth? Why are January sixth defendants being held in
Speaker 1: terrible conditions on ridiculous charges when Stephen Colbert's staffers get
Speaker 1: off the hook for doing basically the same thing. That's
Speaker 1: referring to Stephen Colbert's staffers who broke into parts of
Speaker 1: the capital that they weren't supposed to be in in
Speaker 1: order to embarrass Republican politicians because the Biden Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is fundamentally corrupt and political. It is politicized, it
Speaker 1: is weaponized. As you know. I've got a book coming
Speaker 1: out in September, the title of which is Justice Corrupted.
Speaker 1: How the Left has weaponized our legal system. It goes
Speaker 1: into this in great detail, sadly Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: was someone who spent over two decades on the Federal
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals. He built a reputation as a fairly
Speaker 1: a political, reasonable judge. I don't know that I've ever
Speaker 1: seen anyone trash their reputation faster than Merritt Garland has
Speaker 1: done in the year and a half he's had his
Speaker 1: Attorney general. It's reminiscent of what the NFL did when
Speaker 1: they declared war on their fans and like just lit
Speaker 1: themselves on fire. Like The degree to which Garland is
Speaker 1: willing to allow DOJ to be the frontline soldiers for
Speaker 1: the Partisans in the White House is unprecedented and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you when it comes to people who
Speaker 1: are wrongfully in prison. For January sixth, I have been
Speaker 1: pressing on it repeatedly. I've been pressing DJ for answers.
Speaker 1: Who is imprisoned, What are their charges? How many of
Speaker 1: them are violent? If they committed acts of violence, they
Speaker 1: should be prosecuted. And that's my view, regardless of whether
Speaker 1: I agree or disagree with their politics. If you commit
Speaker 1: an act of violence, if you assault a police officer,
Speaker 1: you ought to go to jail. But if they didn't
Speaker 1: commit acts of violence, then peaceful protest is fully protected
Speaker 1: by the Constitution. And this Department of Justice is being
Speaker 1: used as a political weapon to persecute those who exercise
Speaker 1: their First Amendment rights in peaceful protests without committing acts
Speaker 1: of violence because the Biden White House disagrees with them.
Speaker 1: And it is shameful. It is disgraceful. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you every time I press the Department of Justice for
Speaker 1: answers on the January six protesters comparing them, say to
Speaker 1: how DJ handled the violent rioters in the Antifa and
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter riots, This Department of Justice essentially says,
Speaker 1: go jump in a lake. We won't tell you. It's
Speaker 1: none of your business. We're not going to answer it.
Speaker 1: It is And our corrupt corporate media has zero, zero,
Speaker 1: zero interest in reporting on any of this no. Of course, Now,
Speaker 1: assuming Republicans do retake the House, maybe the Senate in
Speaker 1: the midterms. Will that give conservatives enough leverage to make
Speaker 1: some progress on this issue of the two tracks of justice,
Speaker 1: whether we're talking about the January six people in Colbert
Speaker 1: or even more broadly than that. So I hope so,
Speaker 1: and I have some modest level of optimism. I think
Speaker 1: the chances of Republicans taking the House are overwhelming. They're
Speaker 1: well north at ninety percent, and I think a Republican House,
Speaker 1: the odds are very high that we will have oversight
Speaker 1: hearings on many of these topics. I expect House Republicans,
Speaker 1: particularly conservatives, to be aggressive in oversight of the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: The Senate is less certain. I put the odds about
Speaker 1: sixty five thirty five that we take the Senate. If
Speaker 1: we take the Senate, I hope the Senate engages in
Speaker 1: oversight as well. You know, there's a difference in style
Speaker 1: and temperament between House oversight and Senate oversight. House oversight
Speaker 1: it's typically more partisan, it's typically more aggressive. It's it's
Speaker 1: they have bigger flamethrowers in the House. They you know,
Speaker 1: they torch each other many house members D's and ours
Speaker 1: hate each other, insult each other. The Senate is a
Speaker 1: much more genteel place. When I arrived, it scared the
Speaker 1: hell out of them. Um you know, it reminded me
Speaker 1: of one of my favorite comedy riffs, Michael, have you
Speaker 1: ever seen Robin Williams do his riff on golf? I
Speaker 1: think I have. Okay, it is one of the funniest
Speaker 1: comedy riffs ever done. I love it. Language warning, it
Speaker 1: is profane, but it's Robert Williams. He's funny as all hell.
Speaker 1: And he's talking about golf and how golf is made up.
Speaker 1: But I listened to it regularly because it just doubled
Speaker 1: me over laughing. But at one point he's talking about
Speaker 1: Tiger Woods and the reaction of sort of uptight country
Speaker 1: clubbers when Tiger Woods started showing up and dominating golf,
Speaker 1: and and and he does a a you know voice
Speaker 1: of you know, oh my, now we're gonna let him
Speaker 1: into our clubs, And it was just, you know, you
Speaker 1: can picture you know, almost invariably rich liberals sort of
Speaker 1: horrified when Tiger Woods showed up. I have to admit
Speaker 1: that was a little bit the reaction when I showed
Speaker 1: up at the Senate. Some of the same folks were like,
Speaker 1: you know, oh goodness, what is this uh rabble rouser
Speaker 1: doing here? This whacko bird, this maniac. So, for those
Speaker 1: of y'all who may remember, whacko bird was the term
Speaker 1: John McCain used for me. He uh. And I was
Speaker 1: particularly gratified when some grassroots activists made a baseball cap
Speaker 1: with a picture of Daffy Duck on it and the
Speaker 1: word whacco bird. I keep it in my office, and
Speaker 1: it was sort of I happily embraced the title. Look.
Speaker 1: The Senate with a Republican majority will engage in oversight.
Speaker 1: It will almost surely be more restrained and genteel than
Speaker 1: the House. But the Senate also carries with it typically
Speaker 1: a greater gravitas, a greater A Senate hearing can have
Speaker 1: a real impact. And so I hope we see vigorous
Speaker 1: oversight in both the House and Senate, and and that
Speaker 1: could help. I also expect the Biden administration to do
Speaker 1: with the Obama administration did when we had Republican majorities,
Speaker 1: which is stiff arm ignore, defy. It is one of
Speaker 1: the interesting things watching the Dems setting all sorts of precedents,
Speaker 1: including trying to prosecute Steve Bannon for defying congressional Subpoenas
Speaker 1: you know, in a few months, the other party is
Speaker 1: going to have the power to issue of subpoenas. And
Speaker 1: these are some interesting precedents they're setting. And I'm almost
Speaker 1: certain the bidendj will refuse to prosecute anyone for contempt
Speaker 1: of Congress for defying a Republican subpoena because this Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is not actually focused on enforcing the law.
Speaker 1: They're willing to become essentially the enforcement arm of the DNC.
Speaker 1: But real oversight, I believe is coming. But these prosecutions
Speaker 1: that the orange jumpsuit that is good for the goose
Speaker 1: is good for the gander, they make those sorts of
Speaker 1: things and multiple sizes. So I agree, I think the
Speaker 1: Democrats should be cautious. A question from Aaron is Cookie
Speaker 1: Monster racist? Give me the reasoning on that. So I
Speaker 1: picked fights with lots of muppets. I've picked fights with
Speaker 1: Big Bird, I picked fights with Elmo, I picked fights
Speaker 1: with Mickey and Pluto or not muppets, but in the
Speaker 1: sort of vague genre. But but the Cookie Monster thing,
Speaker 1: he's blue and he likes cookies. I'm not sure, Michael.
Speaker 1: Can you help me out on this? I can. I
Speaker 1: know so you have been the news for I don't know,
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of CNN airtime this week. But the
Speaker 1: other news story is that Cookie Monster is apparently racist.
Speaker 1: At some theme park or parade or whatever, a Cookie
Speaker 1: Monster figure a person like he ignored some African American children.
Speaker 1: Is that was that Cookie Monster did or did not?
Speaker 1: It's not even really clear. He's wearing this big suit
Speaker 1: and he's high fiving people as he walks, and then
Speaker 1: there were these two little black girls and they wanted
Speaker 1: a high five, and he didn't high five them, and
Speaker 1: then he kept walking. And the interpretation of this when
Speaker 1: it was posted on Instagram was that it's basically David
Speaker 1: Duke wearing a furry blue suit and dressed up like
Speaker 1: a puppet. Now, maybe Cookie Monster is racist, but to
Speaker 1: jump to that conclusion to me seems a little premature.
Speaker 1: So I haven't seen the video, so I can provide
Speaker 1: no direct knowledge on it. I'm sorry, I'm behind in
Speaker 1: my Cookie Monster theme park video watching the stories, but
Speaker 1: I will say this, I believe all children deserve a
Speaker 1: high five. I'm pro child and bold stance. And you know,
Speaker 1: if if, if, if these young children didn't get high fives,
Speaker 1: I think that was terrible and they deserve high fives.
Speaker 1: I'm against it. I'm against those people not getting the
Speaker 1: high five that they deserve. If you elect me, high
Speaker 1: fives for everybody. Yep. And by the way, since since
Speaker 1: big Berg, Big Big Bird and Elmo have come out
Speaker 1: as Democrats and the Democrats for two hundred years have
Speaker 1: been racist, you can answer your own question. You know,
Speaker 1: if A, then B, if B then C, you can
Speaker 1: connect the dots using the Transiti property. That is true.
Speaker 1: That's true. We're getting a little math, and he really
Speaker 1: does feel like Sesame Street. Next question from Caligula, I
Speaker 1: hope not the real one. If Biden is not the
Speaker 1: Democrat nominee in twenty twenty four, who will be good question.
Speaker 1: So I believe Biden will not be the nominee. He's
Speaker 1: not going to run. He is too old, he is
Speaker 1: beyond the capacity, he is severely diminished. Everyone knows this.
Speaker 1: All the Republicans know this, all the Democrats know this. Look,
Speaker 1: Biden is pretending he's going to run because of course
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to be a lamed Dock. I get
Speaker 1: that that's actually the right thing for Biden to do.
Speaker 1: Any president in his position would pretend he's going to run.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone believes it when Biden doesn't run,
Speaker 1: and he's going to delay announcing that as long as
Speaker 1: possible because he doesn't want to be a lame doc.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see a free for all,
Speaker 1: bloody war in the Democratic Party. I think right now
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris and Pete buddhag Edge are firing bazukas at
Speaker 1: each other every day. I think they are stabbing knives
Speaker 1: in each other's back. I think they are planning stories.
Speaker 1: I think it is open war. I think Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is only a hair behind them. I think Elizabeth will
Speaker 1: run as well. She's clearly ambitious as all get out.
Speaker 1: She thinks she'll ride the Row decision all the way
Speaker 1: to the Democratic primary nomination. And then Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 1: making a play from California. He's he no longer has
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles to torment, he no longer has the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire to torment, so now he wants to torment all
Speaker 1: of America. I do think it's funny that Gavin has
Speaker 1: gone all the way to Florida to run ads just
Speaker 1: so Ben Shapiro can see them because he wants to
Speaker 1: chase him from the Pacific to the Atlantic. That's obviously
Speaker 1: a presidential play by Gavin. And look, I'm not remotely
Speaker 1: an expert on Democratic presidential primaries, but right now I
Speaker 1: see those four as likely the top tier tier. I
Speaker 1: don't think at look, you will get other people Amy Kloba,
Speaker 1: Charle Ron. I like Amy, She's she's actually sometimes less
Speaker 1: crazy than some of the other members of her party. Yea,
Speaker 1: this is these are slight gradations, which means to me
Speaker 1: the Democratic primary base won't want her. I think they
Speaker 1: haven't learned their lesson yet. They're still in crazytown. They're
Speaker 1: doubling down on crazytown. I think if Bernie were five
Speaker 1: years younger, he would run again, and he could easily
Speaker 1: win the nomination. Bernie is probably just old enough that
Speaker 1: he suggested he's gonna run. I think that's probably a
Speaker 1: head fake that that that at this age he decides, Okay,
Speaker 1: my time has passed. So my guess is those four
Speaker 1: the top tier. If only we could get another another
Speaker 1: Bernie run, if only for the memes. But I think
Speaker 1: you're probably right, he's probably passed his prime. From Anna
Speaker 1: cultural question, Brad Pitt has set a new male fashion
Speaker 1: trend by wearing a skirt to the red carpet of
Speaker 1: his new movie Premiere. That happened months after Harry Styles
Speaker 1: posed an address for a magazine, Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: do you plan to embrace this new open minded style
Speaker 1: or are you a patriarchal, heteronormative oppressor? Option B, Option B.
Speaker 1: Obviously that was clear a mile away. I got no
Speaker 1: interest in wearing a skirt. The only possible exception might
Speaker 1: be if I'm in Glasgow at a party and they
Speaker 1: convinced me to wear a kilt. The real Scotsman were
Speaker 1: nothing under their kilts. I'm not a real Scotsman, so
Speaker 1: that does not seem at all tempting to me. It
Speaker 1: actually sounds kind of cold, because Scotland is really kind
Speaker 1: of cold a lot at the time of the year,
Speaker 1: and like, I'm not interested in a breeze like that,
Speaker 1: Like sounds thoroughly unpleasant. All right, I will tell a
Speaker 1: story from college debating days, so I'm terrified to know
Speaker 1: how this is going to connect. Senator Okay, so it
Speaker 1: involves my alma mater, and you're alma mater. Now I'm
Speaker 1: really terrified to know how this connects. When I was
Speaker 1: at a freshman at at Princeton at the Yale Debate tournament,
Speaker 1: in the final round, there was a team from Princeton
Speaker 1: who were sophomores. I was a freshman, so I was
Speaker 1: watching it. In the final round team from Princeton, really
Speaker 1: talented debaters, and a team from Scotland, Glasgow A. And
Speaker 1: the lead speaker there was a fellow named Auson Lalley.
Speaker 1: I don't know what he's maybe in politics or something.
Speaker 1: It was incredibly talented speaker. He was the lead speaker
Speaker 1: for Glasgow A. And the tradition in college debate was
Speaker 1: that final rounds were typically humorous because the two teams
Speaker 1: that broke to the final round qualified for nationals, and
Speaker 1: so everyone watching the debate had lost, so they were
Speaker 1: all pissed off, and so you kind of you tried
Speaker 1: to do a funny round to entertain the people who
Speaker 1: had lost. And so the Princeton team of sophomores they
Speaker 1: got up in the case they proposed, is America is
Speaker 1: better than England? They got they got up, and they
Speaker 1: had all of these funny reasons why America is better
Speaker 1: than England. And the lead speaker for the opposition, this
Speaker 1: fellow Austin Liley from Glasgow. He got up and he's
Speaker 1: in a full kilt. So this is how it knnects,
Speaker 1: because he's dressed in a full kilt and he goes,
Speaker 1: mister speaker, sir, there are few things you can do.
Speaker 1: And a Scotsman when he's in his kilt, has a
Speaker 1: sock that goes all the two socks that go all
Speaker 1: the weapon. He has a ceremonial dagger in his sock.
Speaker 1: So he pulls out the dagger and goes, there are
Speaker 1: few things you can do to kiss wolf A Scooch
Speaker 1: more then to confuse him with an Englishman. And he
Speaker 1: sticks the dagger into the podium and it's just like
Speaker 1: it's stuck into the podium at Yale. The entire room
Speaker 1: erupts in laughter. I mean, it just brings the house down.
Speaker 1: He spends the remainder of his speech just mercilessly battering
Speaker 1: my teammates. I mean it was back and forth. The
Speaker 1: round was over at that point. Yeah, fast forward to
Speaker 1: the very end of the round. He's clearly won the round.
Speaker 1: The very end his last speech. As Rebuttally's up there
Speaker 1: and he's about to close, he goes, all right, I
Speaker 1: know you've been waiting for it, so i'll give it
Speaker 1: to you. I can't give it anymore. Kept in, I'm
Speaker 1: giving it all. She's good, And with that again, the
Speaker 1: entire room lost it, and he returned to his seat
Speaker 1: in triumphant victory. In that circumstance, wearing a skirt which
Speaker 1: was a kilt was a strong and manly thing to do. Yes,
Speaker 1: Hollywood actors or singers doing it. Let me just be
Speaker 1: mild and say, not my thing. Not so much, I agree.
Speaker 1: I also, by the way, Senator, do know what became
Speaker 1: of mister Lally. He actually became He became the groundskeeper
Speaker 1: on the Simpsons, which is which is unfortunate. You know,
Speaker 1: I know everyone thought maybe he could have become a
Speaker 1: big political fac is funny, That is funny. All right,
Speaker 1: I think we have time for at least right, And
Speaker 1: I promise you when the libel suit gets filed against you,
Speaker 1: I will recommend a lawyer who's really expensive to represent you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I know you're
Speaker 1: very busy, but if you could get me a pricey lawyer.
Speaker 1: That'd be great. From cautiously optimistic, this actually relates to school.
Speaker 1: Dear senator, I'm a T fourteen law student who will
Speaker 1: be I don't even know what that means, a T
Speaker 1: fourteen law student who will be working at a big
Speaker 1: law firm after I graduate. I'm very passionate about litigation.
Speaker 1: How valuable is it to clerk for a federal judge?
Speaker 1: Great question, massively valuable if you want to be a litigator.
Speaker 1: It's the single most important thing you can do. I
Speaker 1: clerk for two judges. I clerked for Mike Ludig, who
Speaker 1: was a judge in the Federal Court of Appeals, and
Speaker 1: then I clerked for Chief Justice William Rnquist on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. I learned more each year of my clerkship
Speaker 1: than I did all of law school. It is the
Speaker 1: single biggest thing you can do to learn to be
Speaker 1: a litigator. One of the problems in law school is
Speaker 1: you understand legal cases as these sort of abstract academic things.
Speaker 1: You don't understand that judges are people. You don't understand
Speaker 1: how judges actually make decisions. The interaction, particularly in an
Speaker 1: appellate court, between multiple judges, the back and forth and
Speaker 1: clerking gives you an inside view to it that that
Speaker 1: is just you know, I remember Chief Justice Ranquist. It
Speaker 1: was amazing. So I clerked for him nineteen ninety six
Speaker 1: to ninety seven. That was his twenty fifth anniversary as
Speaker 1: a justice. It was his tenth anniversary as Chief Justice.
Speaker 1: And for him when we'd have a case coming up
Speaker 1: and it was a case that you'd studied in law
Speaker 1: school and you thought of it as Smith versus Jones,
Speaker 1: you know, it was sort of an abstract that stands
Speaker 1: for this proposition of law. What was amazing about the
Speaker 1: Chief is for him it was a memory, and it
Speaker 1: was a memory of sitting at conference with the other
Speaker 1: eight justices discussing and debating the case, and the Chief
Speaker 1: would be like, oh, yes, that was the case when
Speaker 1: thorough Good wanted to do such and such, but we
Speaker 1: didn't agree with that, And it just it gives you
Speaker 1: an insight into how courts actually reach decisions. If you
Speaker 1: want to do trial work, clerking at the district court
Speaker 1: is incredibly helpful. If you want to do a pellet work,
Speaker 1: clerking at at a pellet court is incredibly helpful. But
Speaker 1: I enthusiastically recommend judicial clerkships. Well, next question from Godzilla rules,
Speaker 1: do you think the Antichrist in the Bible is alive today?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, the Bible says Jesus is coming,
Speaker 1: but no man knows the hour. And look, I grew
Speaker 1: up in the evangelical world, Southern Baptist world, where they
Speaker 1: are all sorts of things saying the Antichrist is this
Speaker 1: or that or the other this is you know, whether
Speaker 1: the Antichrist is brock Bomb or the ni christis Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I've like, whoever it is, I've heard a thousand people
Speaker 1: of the Antichrist. I guess I have a degree of
Speaker 1: humility in that if I see someone stand up and
Speaker 1: mandate that we must all get six six six tattooed
Speaker 1: on our forehead in the back of our hand, I'll
Speaker 1: be like, Okay, now you're telling that somewhere. But short
Speaker 1: of that, I'm going to express Look, the world could
Speaker 1: end tomorrow, it could end a thousand years from now,
Speaker 1: it could end ten thousand years from now, and if
Speaker 1: you look at biblical prophecy, there are all sorts of
Speaker 1: ways to interpret it that I'll just say I ain't
Speaker 1: smart enough to say I know the answer, and so
Speaker 1: I think we should live as if we've got a
Speaker 1: whole lifetime ahead of us, and we're going to have
Speaker 1: the biggest impact on our community and our neighbors in
Speaker 1: our world. And if the Savior chooses to come earlier,
Speaker 1: we will welcome and celebrate that that happy moment. But
Speaker 1: in the meantime, we have work to do right ready
Speaker 1: to die tomorrow, but planning to live for a very
Speaker 1: long time and get a lot of things done. And
Speaker 1: to your point, Senator, I think anyone who tells you
Speaker 1: that they understand with crystal clarity the Book of the Apocalypse,
Speaker 1: revelation or so, that is how you know with certainty
Speaker 1: that person is completely insane. They certainly don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. But I do love the point. Sometimes
Speaker 1: people will ask, do you think we're living in the
Speaker 1: end times? And I always think, well, somebody's going to
Speaker 1: be living in the end times. I don't think we are.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't bet on it exactly, but I guess somebody's
Speaker 1: going to so I will say so. Growing up in Houston,
Speaker 1: I was a little kid. For a period of time
Speaker 1: we went to First Baptist Church, and the pastor there,
Speaker 1: John Beside, you did a year long sermon series in
Speaker 1: the Book of Revelation, and I think I was, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, nine or ten years old at the time,
Speaker 1: and I thought it was fascinating. I mean, it really
Speaker 1: was interesting. And today Heidi and I were members at
Speaker 1: First Baptist, the same church, and our pastor today is
Speaker 1: the successor to John Bisignia's Gunam Greg Mott is a
Speaker 1: wonderful pastor, incredible man of God, very scholarly, but very humble,
Speaker 1: very down to earth, which is unusual for a pastor
Speaker 1: to big church. But he did an extended sermon series
Speaker 1: on the Book of Revelation that was just fascinating, and
Speaker 1: having as a kid listened to one, I didn't remember
Speaker 1: what the pastor said forty years ago, but it was
Speaker 1: it was. The Book of Revelation is challenging, it's fascinating,
Speaker 1: and there's so much imagery that that you know, things
Speaker 1: could have all kinds of meanings, and I certainly don't
Speaker 1: purport to know which interpretation is right as to what
Speaker 1: all is going to happen in the end times and
Speaker 1: when it's going to start. Before we go, one last
Speaker 1: question this is from our very un cactus masks are
Speaker 1: coming back to our school. We've been told it's because
Speaker 1: is getting bad again, But to me it seems like
Speaker 1: just a way to gin up anxiety for the midterms
Speaker 1: and distract from Biden's bad policy. What are y'all's thoughts?
Speaker 1: Is manipulating COVID fear the only way for the Dems
Speaker 1: to stave off the red wave? Oh? Look, I think
Speaker 1: it's one hundred percent. They're going to try something. Whether
Speaker 1: it is COVID, whether it is monkey pox, I don't
Speaker 1: know what it is. But the issue set they don't
Speaker 1: want the election to be about is inflation, gas prices,
Speaker 1: crime and illegal immigration. If that's what the election is about.
Speaker 1: Republicans are winning fifty to seventy seats in the House,
Speaker 1: We're taking the Senate with a big majority, and it
Speaker 1: is a absolute Democrat bloodbat and so they're desperate to
Speaker 1: change the topic to anything. COVID has been a good,
Speaker 1: reliable one, So we'll see if if they have any
Speaker 1: hook to do it, they'll try. But and I think
Speaker 1: masks are part of it. I also think most Americans
Speaker 1: are just done with masks. I'm like, I'm certainly there.
Speaker 1: But although I will say it was thoroughly amusing so
Speaker 1: let Last week, several Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, were out
Speaker 1: because they tested positive for COVID. I don't know if
Speaker 1: they were symptomatic or not, but I do think that
Speaker 1: Democrats are testing much more frequently when they're asymptomatic than
Speaker 1: Republicans are. And I've joked I want to introduce a
Speaker 1: resolution mandating that Democratic senators must take COVID tests every day,
Speaker 1: because I, for one, don't feel safe. And even if
Speaker 1: they have no symptoms whatsoever, if they test positive, they're out.
Speaker 1: They can't vote on the Senate floor, and they can't
Speaker 1: pass socialism, the Green New Deal and build back broken, destroying,
Speaker 1: bankrupt the country, and strip our constitutional rights and destroy
Speaker 1: the republic. And that seems only responsible. I think effect
Speaker 1: twice a day'd be even better. And an ancillary to
Speaker 1: that is I think Democrats should be required to wear
Speaker 1: masks forever. The only problem is their masks aren't tight
Speaker 1: enough because we can still hear them talking. That's right,
Speaker 1: you make a great point. Maybe double mask, triple mask,
Speaker 1: twenty or thirty masks. We will find out what the
Speaker 1: next crazy issue that the Democrats want to distract with,
Speaker 1: probably momentarily, because you will be sticking around for a
Speaker 1: Cloakroom conversation with our friend Liz Wheeler. I'm sure CNN
Speaker 1: is tuned in. They want to set their programming for
Speaker 1: the coming week. Liz, what will you be making their
Speaker 1: heads explode with this time? Hi Michael, Hi, Senator, good
Speaker 1: to see you both. Thanks for having me back. And Senator,
Speaker 1: aren't you the same guy that I've seen splashed all
Speaker 1: over CNN headlines, in international headlines all over the world
Speaker 1: for saying something, you know, something so well constitutional and conservative.
Speaker 1: This is what we do on the cloak Room. This
Speaker 1: is it's a really fun series that we do on
Speaker 1: your Verdict plus community. Today we're talking about the Wisconsin
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election on the infamous drop boxes and said that
Speaker 1: those drop boxes were illegal not just for elections moving forward,
Speaker 1: but for past elections too. So we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the legal implications of this. And you know, CNN,
Speaker 1: we're looking forward to seeing you over there, all of
Speaker 1: the new subscribers, both conservatives and the Kami Lives. We
Speaker 1: will see you over there. You can actually even use
Speaker 1: my promo code, which is Cloakroom to get your first
Speaker 1: months free on your annual subscription. Go to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash plus and use my promo
Speaker 1: code Cloakroom. It sounds completely uncontroversial. I'm sure that the
Speaker 1: Libs will have no problem with it whatsoever. I'm going
Speaker 1: to duck out before my face is smeared on CNN.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This
Speaker 1: episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to
Speaker 1: you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action
Speaker 1: committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across
Speaker 1: the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security
Speaker 1: Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress
Speaker 1: and help the Republican Party across the nation.