Speaker 1: Seventeen states and the President of the United States have
Speaker 1: joined the Great State of Texas ensuing the battlegrounds over
Speaker 1: election irregularities in the Supreme Court. This after there was
Speaker 1: another lawsuit brought up to the Supreme Court regarding the
Speaker 1: irregularities in Pennsylvania, and the host of this show has
Speaker 1: been asked to argue both of those cases before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, and I
Speaker 1: should clarify I have not been asked to argue those
Speaker 1: cases before the Supreme Court. I have offered my services.
Speaker 1: A Ken Paxton in Texas has not returned my calls.
Speaker 1: Actually it was Senator Cruz who's been asked. Senator, there's
Speaker 1: a lot to get into right here. The last time
Speaker 1: we spoke, we discussed in Pennsylvania this case regarding the
Speaker 1: irregularities there and the possible violation of the Pennsylvania state Constitution.
Speaker 1: At that time, I believe you had not yet been
Speaker 1: asked to argue the case before the court. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court then rejected that appeal. Anyway, Now we've got this
Speaker 1: other case from Texas. What is going on Why have
Speaker 1: you been asked, I suppose because of your great experience
Speaker 1: arguing before the Supreme Court. But but how did this
Speaker 1: all come to pass? Well, sure, let's start with a
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania case. When we last did the podcast, the Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: case was pending and the lawyers for the plaintiffs there.
Speaker 1: So the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case were Mike Kelly,
Speaker 1: an incumbent Republican congressman in Pennsylvania who lost a very
Speaker 1: narrow reelection in November, and Sean Parnell, who was a
Speaker 1: Republican candidate for Congress who lost a very narrow race
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania as well, And so their lawyers had drafted
Speaker 1: the pleadings. When we did the last pod, they were pending,
Speaker 1: and their lawyers reached out to me and they asked,
Speaker 1: they said, listen, if the court takes this case, would
Speaker 1: you be willing to argue it? And I thought about it.
Speaker 1: And usually, more often than not, you argue a case
Speaker 1: where you drafted the briefs and you've been part of
Speaker 1: the legal team from the beginning, so it's fairly unusual
Speaker 1: to come in at the tail end. But but given
Speaker 1: the importance of it, um, I had already written a
Speaker 1: long statement which actually you read on the last pod,
Speaker 1: urging the Supreme Court to take the case. And so
Speaker 1: I had already read the pleading and thought it needed
Speaker 1: to be heard, and so I said, sure, I'm happy
Speaker 1: to argue it, and and we put that out publicly. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court declined to take the case. And
Speaker 1: I have to admit, although I wish the Court had
Speaker 1: taken the case, for for most observers myself included, it
Speaker 1: was not an astonishing surprise that the Court didn't uh.
Speaker 1: And the reason for that that the challenge in the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania case is that I think there's a clear violation
Speaker 1: of state law in Pencil Lvania. The Constitution requires in
Speaker 1: person voting in all but very limited circumstances. The legislature
Speaker 1: expanded the law to allow universal mail in voting. There
Speaker 1: was a clear violation of state law. The problem is
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court doesn't decide questions of state law,
Speaker 1: so questions of state law are typically left to the
Speaker 1: supreme courts of each state. And what was more difficult
Speaker 1: to articulate was more difficult I think for the court
Speaker 1: to see is what the clear federal question was I
Speaker 1: think the lawyers in the Pennsylvania casey, they worked hard
Speaker 1: to articulate a federal interest, and look, obviously you've got
Speaker 1: a presidential election, so that's a huge federal interest. Although
Speaker 1: finding the federal constitutional issue was more complicated, and so
Speaker 1: the court turned it down. They did not write an opinion,
Speaker 1: so we don't have any reasoning as to why they
Speaker 1: turned it down. It was simply a one line order.
Speaker 1: What that means is there weren't five votes. It takes
Speaker 1: five votes to grant an injunction, and so there were
Speaker 1: not five votes to issue extraordinary relief to grant an injunction.
Speaker 1: We know that. And then subsequently the Texas case was filed.
Speaker 1: Now I want to make clear for people we're recording
Speaker 1: this Thursday night, you've been up on the hill all
Speaker 1: day dealing with a lot a number of other issues
Speaker 1: unrelated to the election that I do want to hit
Speaker 1: on in just a moment. So we're just waiting to
Speaker 1: find out if the Supreme Court is even going to
Speaker 1: hear this other lawsuit from Texas suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Speaker 1: and Wisconsin, with the support of seventeen other states and
Speaker 1: President Trump, that lawsuit is coming up. You have been
Speaker 1: asked to give the argument in that case as well.
Speaker 1: The court, if they didn't take the Pennsylvania case, I
Speaker 1: fear it maybe won't take this case either. That may
Speaker 1: be right. So the Texas case I first learned about
Speaker 1: Monday night. Actually I was doing Sean Hannity's TV show,
Speaker 1: and so I was on Hannity and Hannity asked me
Speaker 1: about the Texas case, and I actually wasn't entirely sure
Speaker 1: what he was talking about, and so, I mean, I
Speaker 1: just kind of spoke generally about suits between states, but
Speaker 1: but I didn't know the details of it. The reason
Speaker 1: was the Texas case wasn't filed until late that night.
Speaker 1: I actually think it was early the next morning, at
Speaker 1: like twelve fifty in the morning or something like that.
Speaker 1: And so I saw the case when after it was filed.
Speaker 1: And then Tuesday is when the Supreme Court turned down
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania case. And that evening I was at dinner
Speaker 1: and got a call on my cell phone from the
Speaker 1: President and the President was unhappy that the Court had
Speaker 1: turned down the Pennsylvania case. I understood that I was
Speaker 1: unhappy too. I'd vocally and vigorously urged them to take it.
Speaker 1: And the President asked me at the time, said where
Speaker 1: you surprised the court didn't take the case, And I said, look,
Speaker 1: I was not. I was not shocked they didn't take
Speaker 1: the case because of the challenge we just talked about
Speaker 1: a minute ago of the difference between state law and
Speaker 1: federal law, and that was a challenging hurdle. And so
Speaker 1: the President on that call, he asked me, he said, look,
Speaker 1: this Texas case has just been filed, and he said publicly,
Speaker 1: this is the case. As you noted, the President has
Speaker 1: since intervened in it. And he asked me, would you
Speaker 1: be willing to argue this case? And I said, sure,
Speaker 1: I'd be happy to if the court grant said I'll
Speaker 1: argue it, And your question was an insightful one. Like
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania case, there are hurdles to get it granted.
Speaker 1: And one of the things to understand is just the
Speaker 1: overall numbers. The Supreme Court doesn't take that many cases.
Speaker 1: In a given year. You get anywhere between eight thousand
Speaker 1: and ten thousand appeals to the Supreme Court. They typically
Speaker 1: grant about eighty, so it's about one percent. A suit
Speaker 1: between the states is different and this is a suit
Speaker 1: between Texas and four other states Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has what's called original
Speaker 1: jurisdiction and suits between states. That means, you know, typically
Speaker 1: if you file a federal lawsuit, you go file it
Speaker 1: in federal district court. That's how virtually all federal lawsuits begin.
Speaker 1: A suit between two or more states, you can file
Speaker 1: it in the US Supreme Court. It has original jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: but it's not mandatory jurisdiction, so they don't have to
Speaker 1: conduct a trial. And actually in suits between states, so
Speaker 1: they usually come up in the context of say a
Speaker 1: dispute over boundaries or a dispute over a river. Those
Speaker 1: are the circumstances where you get a fight where two
Speaker 1: states are saying our line is here, and the other
Speaker 1: state to say no, no no, no, our line is here.
Speaker 1: And the way the court normally resolves that is it
Speaker 1: will appoint a special Master that is basically a trial judge,
Speaker 1: and they can go conduct a trial on behalf of
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, and then they'll prepare a report
Speaker 1: that typically the Supreme Court it will adopt or change
Speaker 1: or and they review it then in this instance, the
Speaker 1: court has a decision whether to grant leave for the
Speaker 1: state to file a complaint. That again takes five votes,
Speaker 1: And so the Texas lawsuit is much broader than the
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania lawsuit. It raises a lot of the issues about
Speaker 1: fraud and irregularities and different players in the different states
Speaker 1: changing the law in the middle of the process. That
Speaker 1: breadth is good, But on the other hand, that breadth
Speaker 1: may be a factor. I don't know if there are
Speaker 1: five votes, and if they're not five votes, the court
Speaker 1: won't take the case, and we could find out. You
Speaker 1: and I are sitting here Thursday evening. The courts set
Speaker 1: a deadline for the defendant states to respond three pm today,
Speaker 1: and so after the response, the court could could resolve
Speaker 1: it at any time. It could be tonight, it could
Speaker 1: be tomorrow. Now the court could say we're gonna set
Speaker 1: a oral argument date for day after tomorrow. I mean,
Speaker 1: they could move really fast, and they could move really slow.
Speaker 1: They could deny it all together. So by the time
Speaker 1: this pod comes out, which I think will be sometime Friday,
Speaker 1: when we get get it all edited and processed and
Speaker 1: put out, we may know the answer. But as of
Speaker 1: right now we don't know what the Supreme Court's going
Speaker 1: to do, and if they tell you that you've got
Speaker 1: an oral argument the following day, then you are going
Speaker 1: to have a very busy night and day. And I
Speaker 1: know there's other work that you have to pay attention
Speaker 1: to on Capitol Hill. So I do want to touch
Speaker 1: on a few of these issues because I fear that
Speaker 1: in the craziness of the election drama, we're missing out
Speaker 1: on some pretty important changes that have been going on
Speaker 1: the Senate today. Back to a massive arms sale to
Speaker 1: the United Arab Emirates, there was a major peace deal
Speaker 1: between Morocco and Israel. You've got a big debate over
Speaker 1: the National Defense authors should act. Can you just move
Speaker 1: us for a second from domestic to foreign policy, regardless
Speaker 1: of how the election turns out, what's going on abroad.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of foreign policy moving forward, and
Speaker 1: much of it is very, very positive. We saw a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago, and we talked about in an
Speaker 1: earlier pod, the Abraham Accords, which were the historic peace
Speaker 1: agreements between Israel and the UAE and Israel and Bahrain
Speaker 1: where where both Arab nations normalized relationships with Israel. That
Speaker 1: hadn't happened in decades, and it was a major step
Speaker 1: forward for peace. And I'll say a couple of things. One,
Speaker 1: it is a vindication of a foreign policy approach that
Speaker 1: I've been advocating for a long time, which is that
Speaker 1: the best way to produce peace is clarity and lack
Speaker 1: of ambiguity. For eight years of Obama Biden, they deliberately
Speaker 1: embraced an ambiguity of we're with Israel, We're not with Israel.
Speaker 1: They embraced the notion that you must resolve the Palestinian
Speaker 1: situation before anything else can be done. And we now
Speaker 1: know that view was unequivocally wrong. It was simply bologny.
Speaker 1: And I spent the last half of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: the time I was in the Senate, blasting that view
Speaker 1: and saying this is foolish. Instead make unequivocal we stand
Speaker 1: with Israel. That will facilitate peace. Well, when President Trump
Speaker 1: came in, he agreed with me. He moved the embassy
Speaker 1: to Jerusalem, a huge decision that I advocated for. He
Speaker 1: pulled out of the Obama Iran nuclear deal, a huge
Speaker 1: decision I advocated for. Both of those. The State Department,
Speaker 1: Defense Department, had argued against. So President Trump overruled his
Speaker 1: own State Secretary of State, his own Secretary Defense to
Speaker 1: move the embassy to Jerusalem to end the Obama Iran deal.
Speaker 1: That clarity set the stage for the Abraham Accords. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you the the week the Abraham Accords were signed,
Speaker 1: I was at the White House for the signing. I
Speaker 1: spoke with the foreign officials in both Ua and Bahrain.
Speaker 1: Both said, we want to be friends with America. It's
Speaker 1: really important with us to be friends with America. And
Speaker 1: what we figured out is one of the best ways
Speaker 1: to be friends with america's be friends with Israel. So
Speaker 1: we're doing this because it's clear that this will make
Speaker 1: America happy, and it really is the fruits of that
Speaker 1: unambiguous clarity. Now, I worry if we have a President Biden,
Speaker 1: that that'll all gets screwed up, that they'll go back
Speaker 1: to the same strategic ambiguity. Now you asked about the
Speaker 1: votes this week. There were two big votes this week
Speaker 1: yesterday on arms sales American arms sales of drones and
Speaker 1: F thirty fives to the UAE United Arab Emirates. They
Speaker 1: were controversial, they were closely contested. Brand Paul wanted to
Speaker 1: disapprove of of the armed sales, and most of the
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted to disapprove of the armed sales. And I
Speaker 1: got to tell you this week, I struggled on this question.
Speaker 1: This was not an easy question for me. It was
Speaker 1: a close question. And the reason is, look, if you
Speaker 1: look the history of the Middle East, the Middle East
Speaker 1: has been a tinderbox weapons like the F thirty five,
Speaker 1: the most advanced airframe we have. Only Israel has it
Speaker 1: in the Middle East right now, and so I viewed
Speaker 1: that as a big threshold for another Middle East country
Speaker 1: to get the F thirty five. And so I spent
Speaker 1: hours on the phone with the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermo,
Speaker 1: is a very good friend of mine, and we talked
Speaker 1: about it at great length, with the UAE ambassador, who
Speaker 1: I've also gotten to know well with, with Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: with others in the administration, with others on my team,
Speaker 1: really trying to understand the pros and cons of it.
Speaker 1: And ultimately I voted in favor of the arms sale.
Speaker 1: And I did so because I think it was a
Speaker 1: component of the Abraham Accords. It's part of how we
Speaker 1: brought UAE to the table to make peace with Israel.
Speaker 1: That was a big deal. Also Israel, both Benjamin NETTNJA
Speaker 1: who and Benny Gantz, so the prime minister and the
Speaker 1: lead opposition figure, both of them supported the sale. That
Speaker 1: is weird to unite them. That doesn't happen very often.
Speaker 1: They were united on the Abraham Accords, they were united
Speaker 1: on the Arms Sail. One of the important pieces of that.
Speaker 1: US federal law requires that our policy ensure Israel have
Speaker 1: what's called a QME, a qualitative military edge. Basically that
Speaker 1: they're military can kick the butt of every other military
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. That that that that that's how
Speaker 1: you avoid warfare by making it clear nobody else can
Speaker 1: take out the Israelis, so you don't have what we
Speaker 1: saw in the sixties and seventies, which is Middle East War.
Speaker 1: After Middle East War. Based on extensive conversations with the
Speaker 1: Israelis and with our own Pentagon and based on classified briefings,
Speaker 1: I became comfortable that this sale didn't undermine Israel's qualitative advantage.
Speaker 1: And you know, the UAE ambassadory said, look, we stuck
Speaker 1: our neck out. We made this piece deal with us.
Speaker 1: We're standing with you. We want to stand with you.
Speaker 1: We've sent our soldiers into combat alongside you, and this
Speaker 1: is an important part of defending ourselves against Iran. That
Speaker 1: ultimately was to me, was persuasive. Now here's the interesting thing, Michael,
Speaker 1: I think it is likely that my vote was decisive
Speaker 1: on this, huh. I was one of the last senators
Speaker 1: to vote, and I deliberately I wanted to wait and
Speaker 1: see where the vote shook out. I When I walked up,
Speaker 1: so they were whipping pretty hard, and John Thune, the
Speaker 1: Republican whip he was kind of leaning in on me,
Speaker 1: although I will say they've actually learned that whipping hard,
Speaker 1: like beating me with a stick, doesn't work. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: you know, he was kind of asking me where you're
Speaker 1: going to be, but wasn't wasn't being too aggressive. And
Speaker 1: when I went up to vote, I was looking at
Speaker 1: the vote tally and John just said, you know, I
Speaker 1: think your vote will probably decide it. And I said okay,
Speaker 1: And so I voted in favor of the sale. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is that two Democrats immediately after me, Kirsten Cinema
Speaker 1: and Mark Kelly, both from Arizona, both voted the same
Speaker 1: way within a minute. Right now, Cinema had been talking
Speaker 1: about doing it anyway, but it was just it was,
Speaker 1: and it ended up being approved fifty to forty six.
Speaker 1: So so those three votes that clustered at the end,
Speaker 1: if the three of us had gone the other way
Speaker 1: it would have been, it would have been disapproved. Right.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting also, Senator to note that when you
Speaker 1: look at national politics from an outsider's perspective, you just
Speaker 1: assume there are no gray areas, there's no deliberation. People
Speaker 1: know exactly where they stand. We have a very polarized country,
Speaker 1: and I remember during impeachment this kind of surprised me,
Speaker 1: which is that things are happening in real time. People
Speaker 1: are taking in new information, they're deliberating, they're making up
Speaker 1: their minds. The way one person votes is going to
Speaker 1: affect perhaps away other people vote, and that these issues
Speaker 1: have a little more complexity, maybe than some of the
Speaker 1: more knee jerk issues that we all know exactly where
Speaker 1: we stand now. I think that's right, And particularly questions
Speaker 1: of foreign policy and national security, there can be close calls.
Speaker 1: They're calls about standing with allies and resisting those who
Speaker 1: are enemies. They're easy calls. There are things like the
Speaker 1: Obama Ran nuclear deal being a train wreck, which I
Speaker 1: actually think is a very easy call. And if we
Speaker 1: end up with a Joe Biden administration, I expect that
Speaker 1: they will try to gallop back into that terrible deal,
Speaker 1: and if that happens, I'm going to spend the next
Speaker 1: four years fighting hard against that. That's an easy call.
Speaker 1: This one was much more on the edge. But and
Speaker 1: I spent, as I said, hours really trying to listen
Speaker 1: to the relevant players, listen to the experts, understand the details,
Speaker 1: to get comfortable with the right call. Right. And I
Speaker 1: love your point about clarity with our friends and clarity
Speaker 1: with our enemies. I would be remiss if I didn't
Speaker 1: mention that, as we're talking about the threats from Iran,
Speaker 1: the threats from China, it did come out this week
Speaker 1: that a certain Democratic member of the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: got extraordinarily close with a Chinese spy. Well. I gotta say, Michael,
Speaker 1: for a long time I've accused the Democrats of being
Speaker 1: in bed with the Chinese communists. I just didn't realize
Speaker 1: that that was not that that was more than a metaphor. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: Representative Eric Swollwell appears to perhaps in particular have taken
Speaker 1: that message to heart. This is a real issue though.
Speaker 1: I mean, China has spies in the States, and the
Speaker 1: United States spies on other countries too. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of countries do it. But the degree of infiltration
Speaker 1: that China seems to have taken with the top ranks
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party is troublesome. Well, and let me
Speaker 1: be fair about what we know publicly, and I don't
Speaker 1: know anything beyond what you've read in the newspapers, so
Speaker 1: I'm not divulging any anything confidential. But but what's been
Speaker 1: released publicly as there was this spy for the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: a communist spy who's a beautiful woman, who apparently was
Speaker 1: assigned to get very close to Democrats, and it appears
Speaker 1: California Democrats in particular, And what's been made public is
Speaker 1: apparently she had sexual relations with two different mayors, I think,
Speaker 1: one of whom's described as a small town mayor and
Speaker 1: another whom described as an older mayor. So I'm I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know beyond what I've read. Swallowell,
Speaker 1: to be clear, what's been released has not allege that
Speaker 1: he went to bed with her, but he spent three
Speaker 1: days refusing to answer that question. And you and I
Speaker 1: are both married, and I can say in your marriage
Speaker 1: and mind, if you come home and your wife said,
Speaker 1: did you sleep with that woman? And your answer isn't immediate, unequivocal,
Speaker 1: you got a problem. Yes, Yes, very wise that it
Speaker 1: doesn't take a total political genius to read that situation,
Speaker 1: but obviously worrisome, especially you know if we do get
Speaker 1: a Biden administration, that there will be cozying up to Iran,
Speaker 1: cozying up to China, and then there is this other
Speaker 1: contentious issue. We only have, you know, a few more
Speaker 1: minutes before we can get to mail bag. But the NDAA,
Speaker 1: the National Defense Authorization Act, this is another issue where
Speaker 1: where the fights are breaking out within the GOP. We
Speaker 1: don't know how the vote necessarily is going to go.
Speaker 1: What's the controversy here? Well, the National Defense Authorization Act
Speaker 1: passes every year. It author raises our military across the board.
Speaker 1: I've been very active in drafting it for eight years now.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of good things in the NBA.
Speaker 1: It includes actually additional sanctions that I authored on nord
Speaker 1: Stream two. We did a pot a while back on
Speaker 1: the natural gas pipeline that Russia's trying to build a
Speaker 1: Germany that so far sanctions I author has killed, and
Speaker 1: this is a second wave of sanctions that will really
Speaker 1: drive a nail in the coffin of the Nordstring two pipeline.
Speaker 1: The first version of the NDA that came out of
Speaker 1: the Senate I voted for was a good bill. It
Speaker 1: had a lot of good elements in it, including the
Speaker 1: nord Stream two stuff. The House bill was much worse,
Speaker 1: and in the conference committee this bill has gotten a
Speaker 1: whole lot worse. So I still haven't decided one hundred
Speaker 1: percent how I'm going to vote, but I got to
Speaker 1: say I'm quite unhappy with the direction the bill has
Speaker 1: gone on in conference committee. It includes a provision a
Speaker 1: provision from from Elizabeth Warren on renaming bases that that
Speaker 1: is really mandatory. Uh. That that that I've got real
Speaker 1: concerns with um. It also includes a provision that that
Speaker 1: restricts the ability of a president to draw down military
Speaker 1: from overseas conflicts like Afghanistan. And one of the things
Speaker 1: I very much agree with President Trump on is, as
Speaker 1: he puts it, ending endless wars that that I think
Speaker 1: we ought to be bringing our sons and daughters home,
Speaker 1: that we should use the military where needed, but be
Speaker 1: very reluctant to engage in foreign military conflict. And this provision.
Speaker 1: You know, some of us were talking in the in
Speaker 1: the cloak room, and and you know, one senator put
Speaker 1: it this way. So, so let me get this straight.
Speaker 1: A president unilaterally can get us into war anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world, but can't get us out of war anywhere
Speaker 1: in the lad That's that's kind of a weird standard.
Speaker 1: And so I'm still assessing the details of it, but
Speaker 1: I think there's a pretty good chance I'll vote no.
Speaker 1: My guess is there'll be enough yes votes to pass it,
Speaker 1: and maybe even to override a presidential veto. The President
Speaker 1: has suggested he might veto the bill. In the House,
Speaker 1: at least there was a big enough margin that if
Speaker 1: the President does veto the bill, the House had a
Speaker 1: big enough margin to override a vito. It takes two
Speaker 1: thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate. If
Speaker 1: you were to guess, it's a pretty good guess that
Speaker 1: there there will be a similar margin in the Senate.
Speaker 1: But I think we'll lose some of the votes we had.
Speaker 1: This actually brings us to a mail bag question from
Speaker 1: Real Truth Cactus, which if you're not following Real Truth
Speaker 1: Cactus on Twitter is the cactus from our show. But
Speaker 1: whoever created that account really great work, terrific stuff. This
Speaker 1: gets to the Senate majority or what it really means
Speaker 1: to have a Senate majority, Cactus rites. I don't know
Speaker 1: the gender of cactus, Cactus writes, I know the Georgia
Speaker 1: Senate races are important? Is gender ever knowable? Michael? You
Speaker 1: make it? You know, it remains to be seen day
Speaker 1: by day how the cactus will identify. But the cactus
Speaker 1: wants to know. You know, the Georgia races are very important.
Speaker 1: But should we also not be worried about rhinos such
Speaker 1: as And then he puts in a name of a
Speaker 1: colleague of yours. I will not mention that to be
Speaker 1: polite to your colleague. But I think we all know
Speaker 1: who we're talking about. Siding with the Democrats agenda, assuming
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden does win, are we you know? We
Speaker 1: let's say we win and we have a majority in
Speaker 1: the Senate, but then we've got all these squishes that
Speaker 1: vote with the Democrats. What does that get us? Look, absolutely,
Speaker 1: we should be worried about that if we win in George.
Speaker 1: If we are fifty two forty eight Republican, which is
Speaker 1: what we are right now, and Joe Biden is sworn
Speaker 1: in as president, we're gonna have a rough couple of years. Yes,
Speaker 1: there are going to be squishy Republicans wanting to make
Speaker 1: deals with the Democrats, wanting to make deals with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: That's going to be a real issue. And I fully
Speaker 1: expect some terrible spending bills of a trillion dollars here,
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars there. I think there's a real risk
Speaker 1: of a big amnesty bill. I'm very worried about that.
Speaker 1: I actually met yesterday with a number of leaders against
Speaker 1: illegal immigration helping mobilize efforts to fight a Biden amnesty
Speaker 1: if God forbid we have a Biden administration, And are
Speaker 1: there Republicans who would go along with that? Sadly, yes,
Speaker 1: in a heartbeat. So these fights will not be done
Speaker 1: if we have a narrow Republican majority. But having the
Speaker 1: majority is enormously important because if there's a Schumer majority,
Speaker 1: there will be a massive tax increase. If there's a
Speaker 1: Republican majority, we're not going to have a massive tax increase.
Speaker 1: If there's a Schumer majority, the District of Columbia will
Speaker 1: become a state, which will elect two new Democratic Senators.
Speaker 1: If there's a Republican majority, DC is not becoming a state.
Speaker 1: If there's a Schumer majority, I think they will pack
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court. They'll add four new left wing
Speaker 1: justices to the Supreme Court. We've talked about that a
Speaker 1: lot in this podcast. Obviously, my book One Vote Away
Speaker 1: talks about the consequences of that. If there's a Republican majority,
Speaker 1: the chances of packing the Supreme Court or zero point
Speaker 1: zero zero percent ain't going to happen. So the majority
Speaker 1: gives you ball control. What you can do is you
Speaker 1: can control what comes to the floor. So I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting winning Georgia will solve all our problems, but losing Georgia,
Speaker 1: I think would likely create massive structural damage to the country. Right.
Speaker 1: This is one of my favorite parts about doing this
Speaker 1: show is we get down into the detail, into the
Speaker 1: granular level, and often people just want to talk in
Speaker 1: all or nothing kind of terms. But what you're saying is, yeah,
Speaker 1: having the majority doesn't give us everything. You might still
Speaker 1: get a ton of terrible legislation, especially with the squishes,
Speaker 1: But there are certain fundamental pieces of legislation that have
Speaker 1: a zero percent chance of passing, and that is more
Speaker 1: than enough to keep me fighting. Last question, this one,
Speaker 1: actually this question also from Real Truth Cactus, who writes
Speaker 1: great questions. Can this lawsuit all right? Michael? Is that
Speaker 1: you know, I wish I'm not nearly clever enough at
Speaker 1: social media. Actually, if you I clicked on the account
Speaker 1: on Real Truth Cactus, and it's just a cartoon version
Speaker 1: of the cactus from this show, and very often adds
Speaker 1: his name to the show title. So this show is
Speaker 1: actually called Verdict with Ted Cruz and Cactus. But he
Speaker 1: wants to know, can this lawsuit between the states delay
Speaker 1: the finalization of the election or will we have a
Speaker 1: president no matter what in January? You know, I know
Speaker 1: we've got these deadlines coming up. The electors are going
Speaker 1: to vote, but January comes along. Do we have a
Speaker 1: certainty on the president or not? So in the ordinary
Speaker 1: course of things, we will have a new a president,
Speaker 1: either a new president or the same president sworn in
Speaker 1: on January twentieth. That that is the date set by law.
Speaker 1: You know, you can go through all sorts of hypotheticals.
Speaker 1: If the Supreme Court takes the case and issues an
Speaker 1: extraordinary order. But I think in nine hundred ninety nine
Speaker 1: out of a thousand universes, we're going to know by
Speaker 1: January twentieth. To paraphrase Jim Carey from Dumb and Dummer.
Speaker 1: What I'm hearing you say is we have a chance.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm hearing. We will find out. Obviously, these
Speaker 1: things are happening in real time. You are, in many
Speaker 1: ways at the center of this because the President has
Speaker 1: asked you to argue this most recent case if it
Speaker 1: goes to the court. There's a lot happening. So I
Speaker 1: suppose we'll have to just come right back again and
Speaker 1: do another pod when we know more. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: I'm Unchel 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.