Speaker 1: We are in the early stages of a new presidential administration,
Speaker 1: which can only mean one thing. Russia is planning to
Speaker 1: invade a sovereign state, according to news reports. According to
Speaker 1: defense ministers abroad, the tanks could start rolling in as
Speaker 1: little as a month. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks is a proud sponsor of Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: The holidays are right around the corner, and we know
Speaker 1: gifting is tricky. Omaha Steakes makes it easy to send
Speaker 1: friends and family what is sure to be an unforgetable gift.
Speaker 1: Go to Omaha steakes dot com and enter the code
Speaker 1: Cactus into the search bar to order the perfect gift package.
Speaker 1: This special holiday offer includes over twenty entrees to share
Speaker 1: with friends and family this holiday season. Some fan favorites
Speaker 1: are the Bacon Wrap, filet Mignawns, Gourmet Jumbo Francs, chicken breasts, sides,
Speaker 1: and Desserts Plush. You'll save over fifty percent and get
Speaker 1: eight free burgers by typing Cactus into the search bar.
Speaker 1: These burgers are basically a steak between buns, and eight
Speaker 1: of them are totally free with this offer. Visit Omaha
Speaker 1: Steakes dot com. Enter Cactus into the search bar and
Speaker 1: save over fifty percent when you order the perfect gift package,
Speaker 1: plus get eight free Omaha Steakes Burgers Incredible Flavor, Incredible
Speaker 1: Value one hundred percent guaranteed. That's Omaha Steakes dot Com
Speaker 1: and enter Cactus into the search bar. Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz is sponsored by stamps dot com. If you're looking
Speaker 1: for ways to skip the trip to the post office
Speaker 1: and dodge all that hectic holiday shopping traffic, why not
Speaker 1: save time and money with stamps dot com. Stamps dot
Speaker 1: com lets you compare rates, print labels, and access exclusive
Speaker 1: discounts on UPS and USPS services all year long. Here
Speaker 1: at soundfront, we use stamps dot com to send you
Speaker 1: merch like that sweet sweet cactus hat, to do bus
Speaker 1: on the road, and to save time and money. It
Speaker 1: just makes sense, especially if your business sends more mail
Speaker 1: and packages during the holidays. Whether you're selling online or
Speaker 1: running an office or a side hustle, stamps dot com
Speaker 1: can save you so much time, money and stress during
Speaker 1: the holidays and get discounts on postoffice and UPS shipping
Speaker 1: services without making the trip. Discounts you can't find anywhere else,
Speaker 1: like up to forty percent off USPS rates and seventy
Speaker 1: six percent off ups going to the postoffice instead of
Speaker 1: using stamps dot com. It's kind of like taking the
Speaker 1: stairs instead of the elevator. If you spend more than
Speaker 1: a few minutes a week dealing with mail and shipping,
Speaker 1: stamps dot Com is a lifesaver. So save time and
Speaker 1: money this holiday season with stamps dot Com. Sign up
Speaker 1: with promo code Verdict for special offer that includes a
Speaker 1: four week trial, free postage and a digital scale. No
Speaker 1: long term commitments or contracts. Just go to stamps dot com,
Speaker 1: click the microphone at the top of the page and
Speaker 1: enter code verdict Verdict. It's head cruise is also sponsored
Speaker 1: by American Hartford Gold. I'm sure I'm not the only
Speaker 1: one who's noticed everything is getting expensive. We are in
Speaker 1: the biggest economic crisis since two thousand and eight, with
Speaker 1: a government that's printing trillions and trillions of dollars. Consumer
Speaker 1: prices are the highest we've seen in thirty years. Inflation
Speaker 1: is certainly here to stay, and if the government continues
Speaker 1: it's out of control printing and spending, the dollar could
Speaker 1: continue its free fall and lose its coveted role as
Speaker 1: a world reserve. Currency. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your retirement and your savings. Well, American Heartford Gold can
Speaker 1: show you how to head your heart earned savings against
Speaker 1: inflation by helping you diversify a portion of your portfolio
Speaker 1: into physical gold and silver. They'll even help move your
Speaker 1: existing IRA or four oh one k out of the
Speaker 1: volatile stock market into a precious metals IRA. And they
Speaker 1: make it easy. They're the highest rated firm in the country,
Speaker 1: with an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau
Speaker 1: and thousands of satisfied clients. And if you call them
Speaker 1: right now, they will give you up to fifteen hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a free silver on your first qualifying order. So
Speaker 1: don't wait, call them right now. Call eight five five
Speaker 1: seven six eight one eight eight three. That's eight five
Speaker 1: five seven six eight one eight eight three, or text
Speaker 1: Cactus to six five five three two again that's eight
Speaker 1: five five seven sixty eight one eight eight three or
Speaker 1: text Cactus to six five five three two. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, having deja
Speaker 1: vu all over again. Hold on just a second, Michael,
Speaker 1: hold on just this again. Let let me jump in
Speaker 1: here because I think there's another very important topic that
Speaker 1: we might want to touch on right here at the
Speaker 1: top of the show. So, if I'm a senator, um,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel, can we address this for just a second,
Speaker 1: because Jimmy Kimmel has been going after you for about
Speaker 1: a week now. Yes, we're laughing because our viewers are
Speaker 1: probably aware of this. He's been tweeting out some kind
Speaker 1: of disturbing, disgusting images of you. Well, what do you
Speaker 1: make of this? What is going on here? Well, look,
Speaker 1: Jimmy may be a Russian Communist at a minimum. He's
Speaker 1: clearly disturbed. And you know, I'm kind of reminded of
Speaker 1: the mean Girl's meme. You're kind of obsessed with me.
Speaker 1: Every night, Jimmy Kimmel's seems to be hitting me. In
Speaker 1: his monologue, he put out this really horrific photoshopped image
Speaker 1: of my head on this fat dude's naked body who
Speaker 1: is straddling an enormous hot dog, which which I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is like some homoerotic fatasy he has.
Speaker 1: It's a little frightening. I guess I should be flattered
Speaker 1: that it is a ginormous hot dog, but I don't
Speaker 1: understand why this exists in the Twitter sphere. I will say, though,
Speaker 1: that I do have a standard policy, which is every
Speaker 1: time Jimmy hits me, and it seems to be a
Speaker 1: regular a regular occasion, I respond by simply observing that
Speaker 1: when Jimmy and I last saw each other, we played basketball.
Speaker 1: We played one on one hoops and long and short
Speaker 1: of it, and actually long of it because it was
Speaker 1: a really long and ugly game. But the long and
Speaker 1: short of it is I kicked his ass, and so
Speaker 1: I've had some fun putting out a highlight video entitled
Speaker 1: Buckets and Blocks that consists of me hitting jump shots,
Speaker 1: driving to the lane, driving left, driving right, scoring on him,
Speaker 1: and then the blocks are just rejecting the hell out
Speaker 1: of his shots, one after the other after the other.
Speaker 1: A few times I foul the hell out of him too,
Speaker 1: but it is it is a wonderful reminder that that
Speaker 1: and by the way, that that game came to pass.
Speaker 1: We actually raised eighty thousand dollars for charity to play
Speaker 1: that game. But neither one of us wanted to lose,
Speaker 1: and well one of us did, and Jimmy seems to
Speaker 1: be having a really hard time getting over it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a pretty extreme case of sour grapes. I
Speaker 1: think mixing that with his ideology and man like, I
Speaker 1: think the word you used as corrective was pretty disturbing,
Speaker 1: pretty disgusting, the things that he was posted on Twitter.
Speaker 1: It's uh, you know. I have to say the game
Speaker 1: was interesting because he didn't have a sense of humor
Speaker 1: about it. He was like really serious and like when
Speaker 1: we walked out on the court. We played at TSU
Speaker 1: Texas Southern University. Six thousand people came out to watch
Speaker 1: the game, I mean, and it was as we're walking
Speaker 1: out there, he comes out to confetti cannons and like
Speaker 1: loud music and we had you know, Gus Johnson and
Speaker 1: Isaiah Thomas and we're broadcasting the event. But but as
Speaker 1: we're walking out, he turns to me and says, prepared
Speaker 1: to be humiliated. And it was not. It was not ingest.
Speaker 1: It was like Ivan Drago and Rocky for going. You know,
Speaker 1: if he dies, he dies. That that was essentially his
Speaker 1: his his sentiment, and I think he thought he was
Speaker 1: going to have a great time dominating me, and that
Speaker 1: that is not in fact what happened. Now, I will
Speaker 1: say one of the ESPN announcers had a point he said,
Speaker 1: if doctor Naysmith had seen what happened year tonight, he
Speaker 1: would have invented a different game. It was an ugly
Speaker 1: game of basketball, but aw aws aw, and poor Jimmy's
Speaker 1: got to live with that the rest of his life. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I think that's that's where we leave that. I mean,
Speaker 1: he can do a seller grapes on Twitter, but you've
Speaker 1: always got that win in your pockets. All right, Liz,
Speaker 1: we'll see you back at the end of the show
Speaker 1: to get into the mail bag. And frankly, I see
Speaker 1: why you had to get to that topic first, because
Speaker 1: as disturbing as the invasion by Russia of another country is,
Speaker 1: nothing could possibly be as disturbing as that photo on
Speaker 1: the hot dog from Jimmy Kimmel's account. So we will
Speaker 1: see you at the end of the show. Now, Senator,
Speaker 1: into another disturbing topic. This is real. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is not just a more media hype about something. We
Speaker 1: know that Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia during the Bush administration.
Speaker 1: We know he invaded Crimea during the Obama administration. Now
Speaker 1: it appears that he is poised to go into Ukraine again.
Speaker 1: How credible is this? What does the timeline look like
Speaker 1: and why are we supposed to care? What are we
Speaker 1: supposed to do about it? Yeah, so it is, It
Speaker 1: is very credible. The timeline is short. So there are
Speaker 1: right now over one hundred thousand Russian troops massed on
Speaker 1: the border of Ukraine, and those numbers are growing. They're
Speaker 1: growing on a daily basis. And the Biden administration over
Speaker 1: the past several days is declassified documents that suggest we
Speaker 1: could see an invasion of Ukraine as early as as
Speaker 1: the beginning of next year, as January of February of
Speaker 1: next year. You know, there are several points, and this
Speaker 1: stuff is complicated, but you know, in many ways we're
Speaker 1: getting back to to really the the origins of Verdict.
Speaker 1: When we started, you know, our very first episode in
Speaker 1: the basement in the bowels of DC and on the
Speaker 1: first impeachment trial was explaining Ukraine and Burris an impeachment
Speaker 1: and natural gas and all of that. You remember, one
Speaker 1: of our first episodes said, all right, well what is Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Let's start with that. You know, Ukraine is a country.
Speaker 1: It is a country that is to the west of Russia.
Speaker 1: It is a country that used to be to the
Speaker 1: part of the Soviet Union, and when the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: broke out, it's one of many countries that became its
Speaker 1: own independent country. Why does Russia want to invade Ukraine?
Speaker 1: The simple answer. Vladimir Putin has been very candid about it.
Speaker 1: He has said that he considers the dissolution of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union to be the single greatest geopolitical disaster of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century. He wants to reassemble the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: He has images of Russian greatness and Soviet greatness and
Speaker 1: he wants to restore that, and that means he wants
Speaker 1: to conquer his neighbors. Now, why is this happening now?
Speaker 1: Some of it is testing a new president, and you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right that Russia and all of our enemies test
Speaker 1: a new president. Some of it is a response to
Speaker 1: Biden's incredible weakness and ineffectiveness in Afghanistan and the disastrous
Speaker 1: withdrawal and surrender there, which we've talked about on Verdict,
Speaker 1: made every enemy of America much more likely to engage
Speaker 1: in aggression against US because they took a measure of
Speaker 1: the man in the Oval Office and determined Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is unlikely to do anything about it. But There's another
Speaker 1: cause here, which we've talked about before on Verdict, but
Speaker 1: I think it is worth drilling down in some detail,
Speaker 1: and that cause of this Russian hostility is a decision
Speaker 1: Joe Biden personally made to surrender to Russia on Nordstream too,
Speaker 1: a natural gas pipeline that Russia is building from Russia
Speaker 1: to Germany. And that decision Biden took what had been
Speaker 1: a foreign policy victory that we had won, and he
Speaker 1: turned it into a loss. And that is the direct
Speaker 1: but or cause of why Russia is prepared to invade Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Now let's start with what does a pipeline have to
Speaker 1: do with Ukraine? Because that that's not immediately evident to
Speaker 1: someone who is analyzing it and thinking through it. Well,
Speaker 1: I remember I had this thought when you when you
Speaker 1: brought it up center, and we we've talked about it
Speaker 1: a little bit on this show. But I would like
Speaker 1: because because it's things seem to be coming to a head.
Speaker 1: So I do want to be able to understand this.
Speaker 1: But I think I think there's this question of, as
Speaker 1: Barack Obama said, why do I care if Russia exerts
Speaker 1: influence in its traditional sphere of influence? What do I
Speaker 1: care about Ukraine? I don't know anything. Most people, as
Speaker 1: you point out, probably don't even know where Ukraine is
Speaker 1: on a map. And and what does it have to
Speaker 1: do with this pipeline. I guess I care about pipelines
Speaker 1: because I care when gas goes through the roof like
Speaker 1: it is doing right now. But but where is the
Speaker 1: interest for the average American citizen? So Vladimer Putin is
Speaker 1: a bully, He's a thug, he's a tyrant. He commits
Speaker 1: murder and torture and lies and oppression on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: and he wants to dominate his neighbors. He wants to
Speaker 1: rebuild the Soviet Union. Now, look, we spent decades fighting
Speaker 1: a Cold War. The Soviet Union was a very dangerous adversary.
Speaker 1: It's not an America's interest to see Putin rebuild the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. It's not an America's interest to see an
Speaker 1: enemy who wants to defeat us gets stronger and more powerful.
Speaker 1: When it comes to energy, there's a second component of it,
Speaker 1: which is that Putin uses energy to blackmail Europe, to
Speaker 1: force Europe to do what he wants. And you know,
Speaker 1: there's a phrase that John McCain used to use that
Speaker 1: I think is a really apt phrase, which is that
Speaker 1: Russia is a gas station with a country attached, which
Speaker 1: is the source of Putin's money that he uses to
Speaker 1: pay his army, to buy his tanks, to buy his missiles,
Speaker 1: to develop the nuclear weapons he has pointed at you
Speaker 1: right now in Nashville, pointed at every major country in America.
Speaker 1: The source of that money is energy, selling oil and gas. Now,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen was the last time Putin invaded Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: he invaded a section of uk Ukraine called Crimea, but
Speaker 1: then he stopped. He didn't go all the way into Ukraine.
Speaker 1: He didn't invade the entire country, didn't go into the capital,
Speaker 1: which you know, the capital. Everyone used to pronounce at Kiev,
Speaker 1: and now it's it's considered I guess more enlightened to
Speaker 1: pronounce it Kiev. So I have to refer to one
Speaker 1: of my favorite dinners as Chicken Kiev apparently, not chicken
Speaker 1: Kiev apparently. Whether it's one syllable or two, I will
Speaker 1: leave that to the linguists. But the reason he didn't
Speaker 1: march into all of Ukraine is right now, the principal
Speaker 1: route that Russia uses to get its natural gas to
Speaker 1: Europe is going through Ukraine. Is pipelines that go right
Speaker 1: through the middle of Ukraine, and Ukraine makes a bunch
Speaker 1: of money on these pipelines because it's how they send
Speaker 1: Russian gas to Europe to heat their homes, to provide
Speaker 1: energy for their homes and right so, Putin faced the
Speaker 1: risk if he if he sent tanks into the heart
Speaker 1: of Ukraine, if he invaded Kiev, that those pipelines could
Speaker 1: be destroyed, that they could lose their ability to get
Speaker 1: their gas to market, and it protected Ukraine's safety and security.
Speaker 1: So what did Putin do in response? Well, the very
Speaker 1: next year, twenty fifteen, is when he began building the
Speaker 1: Nordstream two pipeline. And basically what he said is, all right,
Speaker 1: I don't want to have to go through Ukraine to
Speaker 1: get my gas to Europe, so let's build a pipeline
Speaker 1: that goes underwater and goes directly from Russia to Germany.
Speaker 1: That cuts Ukraine out of the process, so then we
Speaker 1: can march into Ukraine and they can't do a damn
Speaker 1: thing about it. Well, he began building that pipeline. It
Speaker 1: took a lot of time. As we got to twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: the pipeline was nearly complete. And I have been the
Speaker 1: leading voice, the leading actor in the Senate to stop
Speaker 1: this pipeline. Because this pipeline, if built, if online gives
Speaker 1: putin billions of dollars to attack Americans, attack our allies.
Speaker 1: I want putin week and I want him not aggressive
Speaker 1: and hostile. So in the summer of twenty nineteen, I
Speaker 1: introduce legislation in the Senate to sanction the companies that
Speaker 1: were building Nordstream two. It was bipartisan legislation. I got
Speaker 1: brought together Republicans, Democrats, passed it through the Senate Foreign
Speaker 1: Relations Committee, passed it through the entire Senate, passed it
Speaker 1: through the entire Congress, and President Trump signed it into law.
Speaker 1: Now here's something amazing, Michael. They were building the pipeline.
Speaker 1: They were actively rushing trying to complete the pipeline. It
Speaker 1: was about ninety percent complete when President Trump signed the
Speaker 1: sanctions into law. They stopped building the pipeline that day,
Speaker 1: not the next day, not a week later, not a
Speaker 1: month later. The day the sanctions were signed into law,
Speaker 1: and they were designed because they would have bankrupted any
Speaker 1: company that continued to build the pipeline. So what happens next.
Speaker 1: This is December of twenty nineteen. The pipeline lays dormant
Speaker 1: for over a year. By the way, one of the
Speaker 1: talking points today as well, it was ninety percent done.
Speaker 1: It was ninety percent done. Well, that's true, but a
Speaker 1: ninety percent done pipeline is zero percent done. It doesn't
Speaker 1: work till you connect both ends and turn it on,
Speaker 1: unless unless the oil is going to jump out and
Speaker 1: make it that last ten percent, then it's useless. Yep.
Speaker 1: So for over a year we had defeated this pipeline.
Speaker 1: We had won. It was a massive bipartisan victory over Russia.
Speaker 1: It was a victory for Europe, it was a victory
Speaker 1: for Ukraine, and it was a victory for America. Then
Speaker 1: Joe Biden comes to office and the Biden foreign policy team.
Speaker 1: Number one, their view towards bullies and enemies of America
Speaker 1: is weakness, is weakness towards the Taliban and Afghanistan, weakness
Speaker 1: towards the Chinese communist weakness towards Iran, and weakness towards Russia.
Speaker 1: But number two, they really elevate Germany in their foreign policy.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've joked that that the Biden foreign
Speaker 1: policy team has votive candle of Angela Merkel under their
Speaker 1: beds at night that they just they they worship Merkel
Speaker 1: for whatever reason. And Germany wants the pipeline. So Biden
Speaker 1: reversed course and surrendered on these sanctions. And here it's
Speaker 1: really quite amazing. The pipeline is stopped the day Trump
Speaker 1: signs the sanctions in December of twenty nineteen. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is sworn into office January twentieth, twenty twenty one. Do
Speaker 1: you know what day Biden Putin begins building the pipeline again?
Speaker 1: What day? January twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, four days
Speaker 1: after Biden puts his hand on the Bible, Putin begins
Speaker 1: building the pipeline. What you've what you've drawn here that
Speaker 1: I did not appreciate before it. Obviously I understood there's
Speaker 1: some connection here between this pipeline and and what Russia
Speaker 1: is doing in Ukraine. But the pipeline is a symbol.
Speaker 1: It's a physical representation of the imperial ambition of Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: The Whole point of the pipeline, other than saving a
Speaker 1: little bit of money, I guess, is to free up
Speaker 1: Russia to go pursue whatever imperial ambitions it has in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So you kill the pipeline, you kill or at least
Speaker 1: seriously dampen the imperial ambitions. And if you give the
Speaker 1: OK on the pipeline, you are tacitly giving the OK
Speaker 1: on Russia going into Ukraine. Michael, That's exactly right. And
Speaker 1: it's a point that I made repeatedly. It's a point
Speaker 1: that senators, both Republicans and Democrats made over and over
Speaker 1: and over again. It's also a point that was made
Speaker 1: by Ukraine in Poland. So this summer, when Biden formally
Speaker 1: surrendered to Putin and waived the sanctions that were part
Speaker 1: of US law, Ukraine and Poland put out a joint
Speaker 1: statement condemning that decision and saying giving into Nordstream two
Speaker 1: creates a grave security threat against Ukraine and Central Europe
Speaker 1: because once the pipeline is on, Putin can drive the
Speaker 1: tanks into Ukraine and not worry about whether they destroy
Speaker 1: their pipeline or not, because he has another way to
Speaker 1: get the gas to market. The amazing thing is, so
Speaker 1: where are we now on the pipeline. The pipeline is
Speaker 1: now complete. So Biden surrendered allowed Putin to complete it,
Speaker 1: but it's not on yet. And the reason it's not
Speaker 1: on is before it can be turned on, it has
Speaker 1: to go through certification. It has to go through the
Speaker 1: final regulatory approval in Europe before they can turn the
Speaker 1: pipeline on, which means Biden can stop this right now
Speaker 1: if he simply follows the law. So he has waived
Speaker 1: the sanctions, he could revoke the waiver. And so you know,
Speaker 1: earlier today we had testimony in front of the Senate
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations Committee from Victoria Newland, who is the under
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, and I asked her directly, could President
Speaker 1: Biden today in those sanctions on Nordstream two by simply
Speaker 1: revoking his waivers? She said, yes, he could do it today.
Speaker 1: If you want to stop Russian tanks from driving in
Speaker 1: into Ukraine and conquering them, Joe Biden needs to bring
Speaker 1: out a damn pen and piece of paper and impose
Speaker 1: the sanctions that Congress is mandated. But he didn't want
Speaker 1: to do it, and so Democrats are playing the blame game.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. You know, you asked why should we care
Speaker 1: about Ukraine? Listen, let me be clear. We shouldn't send
Speaker 1: American troops to go defend Ukraine. I have no interest
Speaker 1: in sending American soldiers or sailors or airmen and marines
Speaker 1: to be in harm's way to go fight the Russian army.
Speaker 1: That's a bad idea. But we've got enormous leverage. These
Speaker 1: sanctions are using American economic power to stop military tyrants
Speaker 1: from dominating Europe and threatening America, and we should use them.
Speaker 1: We should also be providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Ukraine wants to defend themselves, but Russia's got a lot
Speaker 1: better weaponry, a lot better equipment than Ukraine does. In Ukraine,
Speaker 1: I went and visited Ukraine back in twenty fourteen and
Speaker 1: went to the Maiden Square where where you had protesters
Speaker 1: were being shot in the square when they were standing up.
Speaker 1: And the people of Ukraine want to be allied with America.
Speaker 1: They want to be allied with the West, they want
Speaker 1: to be allied with Europe. They don't want to be
Speaker 1: subject to Putin and Russia's domination. And it's in our
Speaker 1: interest for them to be an ally and so, but
Speaker 1: you know what, Joe Biden and the Democrats canceled the
Speaker 1: sale of lethal defensive military equipment to Ukraine. So they're
Speaker 1: not even helping the Ukrainians defend themselves. And if Biden
Speaker 1: doesn't change course, I think it is the odds are
Speaker 1: high that within ninety days Russia will have in invaded
Speaker 1: and sadly in all likelihood conquered Ukraine and taken a
Speaker 1: major step towards reassembling the Soviet Union. Because Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is too weak to stand up to Putin. It is astounding.
Speaker 1: This is a scary prospect, obviously, but it's very important
Speaker 1: and people should bookmark this episode if you're listening to it,
Speaker 1: because what you're saying is right now, it's not too late.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden can't just say, well, whoopsie Daisy, there was
Speaker 1: nothing I could do. It is not too late. They're
Speaker 1: actually concrete measures you could take right now that could
Speaker 1: stop this, that could prevent this next step in Russia's
Speaker 1: imperial ambitions. As usual, of course, we're running late, but
Speaker 1: I do have to get to one story before we
Speaker 1: get to the mailbag, and it's on this very same
Speaker 1: point of not too late. There are things we can
Speaker 1: do right now to maintain our way of life and
Speaker 1: protect protect our freedoms and our rights. There was a
Speaker 1: move by Democrats, and unfortunately some Republicans I saw went
Speaker 1: along with this during the debate over the National Defense
Speaker 1: Authorization Act that would draft women, that would that would
Speaker 1: create this system where women could be drafted potentially to
Speaker 1: go die overseas. We touched on it when this was
Speaker 1: being debated on this show. I just had a visceral
Speaker 1: reaction to it. I thought, this is so disgusting, this
Speaker 1: is so backwards. What kind of a country America is,
Speaker 1: basically say, basically wealthy, basically secure, and we're going to
Speaker 1: drag our daughters and send them overseas and draft. I thought,
Speaker 1: what reasonable person could ever get behind this? But it
Speaker 1: looked like it was a done deal. And then just
Speaker 1: in the past few days you and some of your
Speaker 1: colleagues sponsored and cosponsored and amendment to rip this out
Speaker 1: of the NDAA, and that appears to be successful. Well, look,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. And it's for over a decade there's
Speaker 1: been this effort to try to make girls and women
Speaker 1: subject to the draft, subject to being forced into the
Speaker 1: military against their wishes, and it is driven by the Democrats.
Speaker 1: The Democrats emphatically want to be able to draft our daughters,
Speaker 1: and sadly, there are a bunch of compliant Republicans that
Speaker 1: are scared to stand up to it. They think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: well if I say we shouldn't draft our daughters somehow
Speaker 1: I don't like women. What utter garbage. Listen, I've got
Speaker 1: two daughters. If my girls want to serve at the military,
Speaker 1: God bless them, I will encourage them. I will cheer
Speaker 1: them on. That is a choice that is open to them.
Speaker 1: If they decide they want to serve in that capacity, bravo,
Speaker 1: that's their choice. But there's a difference between opening up
Speaker 1: our military. We have men and women who serve honorably,
Speaker 1: voluntarily and forcibly. Conscripting a woman and putting her in
Speaker 1: harm's way when there are real biological differences between men
Speaker 1: and women, and to women into the military into combat
Speaker 1: against their wishes is putting them at real risk. Are
Speaker 1: there some women that are badasses? Or there's some women
Speaker 1: that that could whip your butt or whip my butt? Sure,
Speaker 1: but probably not every woman. I'm confident, Michael, there is
Speaker 1: at least some woman who you could beat arm wrestling,
Speaker 1: I hope. So I appreciate your confidence in me, Senator.
Speaker 1: I'm not totally sure, but thank you. For the compliment.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I've got believe in you on that.
Speaker 1: But you know, this battle and I got to say
Speaker 1: it was really looking looking bad that that that the
Speaker 1: Democrats were ramming this through, that half of the Republicans
Speaker 1: were surrendering on this. And there's a long history on
Speaker 1: this issue. So I gotta tell you I've been fighting
Speaker 1: against this for for nine years, and on the Senate
Speaker 1: Arm Services Committee. You know, one of the biggest proponents
Speaker 1: of drafting our daughters was John McCain. John mc kane
Speaker 1: loved the idea, and he was chairman of the Senate
Speaker 1: Arm Services Committee. I was on the Arm Services Committee,
Speaker 1: and I would battle him. I'd argue and yell, and
Speaker 1: McCain would curse at you. I mean he was he
Speaker 1: had a temper and he would yell and curse, and
Speaker 1: we had some epic battles. I seem to recall he
Speaker 1: said some not very polite things about you. On occasion,
Speaker 1: every now and again he called me a whacko bird.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a particularly nice. In fact, I
Speaker 1: had some activists who gave me a baseball cap with
Speaker 1: whacko bird written on in a picture of Daffy Duck
Speaker 1: but so what would happen every year in the Senate
Speaker 1: arm Services Committee is he would fight for it, ram
Speaker 1: it through, and he would get enough Republicans to go
Speaker 1: along with the Democrats that he would succeed in that.
Speaker 1: But I would work with conservatives in the House and
Speaker 1: we'd pull it out. And so I won those battles
Speaker 1: year after year after year, much to his volcanic rage.
Speaker 1: He was furious about it. So there's an interesting story
Speaker 1: on this, Michael. So, beginning of twenty seventeen, Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: the new president. He nominates to be the General Counsel
Speaker 1: of the Army a guy named Ryan Newman. Now Ryan,
Speaker 1: it's a great guy. He had. He was my chief
Speaker 1: counsel in the Senate. Ryan was a West Point graduate,
Speaker 1: served in the Army. He was a captain in the Army.
Speaker 1: Ryan clerked on the US Supreme Court for Justice Alito.
Speaker 1: Ryan was a student of mine at the University of
Speaker 1: Texas Law School. So when I was teaching Supreme Court litigation,
Speaker 1: he was one of my very best students, and so
Speaker 1: I was very enthusiastic when President Trump nominated Ryan to
Speaker 1: be the General Counsel of the Army. So Ryan's hearing
Speaker 1: is confirmation hearing is set. The day before his hearing,
Speaker 1: he goes in to meet with the Chairman of the
Speaker 1: Armed Services Committee, John McCain, and he sits down in
Speaker 1: McCain's office and McCain asks him, says, Ryan, what are
Speaker 1: your views on drafting women? And Ryan gave exactly the
Speaker 1: right answer for a lawyer nominated to that job. And
Speaker 1: he says, Senator, that is a policy decision for Congress
Speaker 1: to make. Congress is elected to make that policy decision.
Speaker 1: If I was confirmed as General Counsel of the Army,
Speaker 1: I would implement whatever policy decision Congress made, which is
Speaker 1: exactly the right answer. McCain looks at him and goes, bullshit,
Speaker 1: I want your personal views, and Ryan says, well, Sir, personally,
Speaker 1: I think it's a bad idea. McCain looks at him
Speaker 1: and says, get the hell out of my office, throws
Speaker 1: him out of his office, cancels his hearing. The next day,
Speaker 1: and for the next couple of months, McCain refused to
Speaker 1: have a hearing with him, and ultimately the Trump White
Speaker 1: House with through the nomination and they named him instead
Speaker 1: Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Defense. Which doesn't
Speaker 1: require a Senate confirmation. So McCain was so pissed off
Speaker 1: about the fact that I had been leading the fight
Speaker 1: for years against his efforts to draft our daughters, that
Speaker 1: he torpedoed an incredibly qualified guy's nomination to be General
Speaker 1: Counsel of the Army because he was mad at him,
Speaker 1: and he was really mad at me. And I got
Speaker 1: to say, you know, John McCain was an incredible war hero,
Speaker 1: but he may be rolling over in his grave because
Speaker 1: once again we've beaten the efforts of the bad guys
Speaker 1: to try to draft our daughters and force him into combat.
Speaker 1: That is great stuff. You know. I'm sure having Professor
Speaker 1: Cruz on the old CV may not have helped your
Speaker 1: friend very much in this meeting with Senator McCain, but
Speaker 1: this is really great stuff. And I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize that McCain had been pushing so hard
Speaker 1: for that. There are a number of Republicans who were
Speaker 1: pushing for it. Frankly, I found it disqualifying. I just
Speaker 1: I felt if you were of the view that we
Speaker 1: should forcibly draft America's daughters, you just don't get it.
Speaker 1: There's just something has gone wrong. In your political vision.
Speaker 1: I did not think that we were going to be
Speaker 1: able to get it out this time. I thought that
Speaker 1: the Democrats had succeeded. And so seriously, I mean this.
Speaker 1: I hate, I hate to give a sincere compliment on
Speaker 1: the show, but great stuff. Just kudos, thank you, great stuff.
Speaker 1: I am so glad that you and some of your
Speaker 1: colleagues were able to pull this out and do the
Speaker 1: right thing. Absolutely wonderful. Should we bring this this is
Speaker 1: too nice? I feel I feel awkward being this nice?
Speaker 1: Shall we bring Liz back on? Absolutely a little bit
Speaker 1: of mail back before we go, By the way, speaking
Speaker 1: of someone who could beat both of us arm wrestling Liza, well,
Speaker 1: well we'll have to. I'll have to save that at
Speaker 1: least for episode one hundred. We can't. We can't pull
Speaker 1: that out in episode ninety eight. But Michael, you might
Speaker 1: have to continue to feel awkward for just another second,
Speaker 1: because I do have to echo what you were saying.
Speaker 1: Senator Crew is on behalf of my daughter. I thank
Speaker 1: you for fighting this fight. It's the right thing to do,
Speaker 1: and it's a politically incorrect fight. In you know, this
Speaker 1: era of critical gender theory that the left is trying
Speaker 1: to force on all of our children. But I sincerely,
Speaker 1: I sincerely thank you for fighting this fight on behalf
Speaker 1: of America's daughter and my own daughter. That being said,
Speaker 1: we have great questions from our Verdict plus community tonight,
Speaker 1: from our subscribers over on Verdict Plus and anybody who
Speaker 1: is not already a subscriber on Verdict Plus. We have
Speaker 1: a great deal between now and Christmas. You can become
Speaker 1: an annual subscriber for the very low, very cheap amount
Speaker 1: of money fifty six dollars a year. This is basically
Speaker 1: the cheapest that you'll ever see it. So please join
Speaker 1: us over there if you want exclusive access to the
Speaker 1: Senator to be able to ask questions to Michael and
Speaker 1: to the Senator on these episodes. So, Senator Cruz, the
Speaker 1: first question is of course for you from Flow Brenton.
Speaker 1: This is a pretty interesting one. She says, I love Verdict,
Speaker 1: but right now Nancy Pelosi is abusing her position with
Speaker 1: her January sixth Soviet style commission. The DJ is at
Speaker 1: her back, and call I cannot enjoy the entertainment of Verdict,
Speaker 1: Flow says, while our constitution is being torn to shreds,
Speaker 1: and not a single Republican congressman or senator stepping up
Speaker 1: to the plate to protect us. This is disgraceful. It's
Speaker 1: time to take care of business. So, Senator Crews, my
Speaker 1: question is, how do you address this anger that's not
Speaker 1: just felt by Flow but by the American people regarding
Speaker 1: how the Democrats are handling the January sixth Commission. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: Flow is exactly right that what Nancy Pelosi and the
Speaker 1: Democrats are doing is a sham. It is a political
Speaker 1: kangaroo court. This is a commission set up in Congress
Speaker 1: that is all Democrats. And then when Kevin McCarthy, the
Speaker 1: leader of House Republicans, named some Republicans to it, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi said, no, you can't have the Republicans you want,
Speaker 1: and so she put Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on
Speaker 1: there instead. Which when you have a Democratic speaker picking
Speaker 1: who's wants, let me tell you the conclusions are already decided.
Speaker 1: This is a political operation. The conclusions are that every
Speaker 1: Republican in America is a terrorist and the only hope
Speaker 1: for Americas for Democrats to rule us as our benevolent
Speaker 1: dictators for the next thousand years. That's the conclusion of
Speaker 1: the Nancy Pelosi January sixth Commission. That is designed to
Speaker 1: be the conclusion. It is the purpose of the show trial,
Speaker 1: and it is consistent with the abuse of power we've
Speaker 1: seen from the Democrats. You know, I will say Flow's
Speaker 1: question talked about the Department of Justice and their abuse
Speaker 1: of power, and you're right that this is an incredibly
Speaker 1: political Department of Justice. I can tell you that I,
Speaker 1: for one, am doing everything humanly possible to try to
Speaker 1: hold dj to account, to hold the Attorney General to account,
Speaker 1: to shine a light on their abuse of power, to
Speaker 1: shine a light on their partisan and political witch hunts
Speaker 1: and persecution of people for their political views, including free speech,
Speaker 1: whether it is targeting parents for going to school boards
Speaker 1: and speaking out, or targeting people on January six who
Speaker 1: engaged in peaceful protest that is protected by the constitution.
Speaker 1: Violence is not if someone engaged in violence on January
Speaker 1: sixth or any other day of the year. If you
Speaker 1: violently assault a police officer, I don't care if your
Speaker 1: politics or right wing or left wing, I don't care
Speaker 1: where you fall. If you engage in violence, you should
Speaker 1: be prosecuted. But the Democrats are cynically using those that
Speaker 1: did engage in violence as an excuse to target and
Speaker 1: go after the political speech of millions of Americans they
Speaker 1: just happen to disagree with, and it is a total
Speaker 1: abuse of power, and I agree we need to do
Speaker 1: everything we can to hold them accountable. It is disappointing too,
Speaker 1: I think to see, you know, the Republicans Cheney and
Speaker 1: Kinsing are acting like democrats when they have a responsibility
Speaker 1: to their constitutions and to the American people to make
Speaker 1: sure that the DOJ isn't abusing their power. But they're
Speaker 1: not living up to that responsibility. So the next question
Speaker 1: is from our tried and true friend here on Verdict,
Speaker 1: this is real truth, Cactus. She asks, what happened at
Speaker 1: the school in Michigan was terrible. I do think on
Speaker 1: a legal level, it is strange that they're pursuing charges
Speaker 1: against the parents. She asks, has this ever been done before?
Speaker 1: Do you think it will set a legal precedent to
Speaker 1: press charges against the parents of children who commit violent acts. Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's a good question, and we don't know all
Speaker 1: of the facts of what happened there. It was a
Speaker 1: horrific school shooting of yet another troubled teenage boy who
Speaker 1: took a gun to school and opened fired on his classmates,
Speaker 1: and we've seen far too many of those, horrifically across
Speaker 1: the country. I've seen too many of those in the
Speaker 1: state of Texas. I was at the Santa Fe High
Speaker 1: School just outside of Houston on the morning of that
Speaker 1: horrific shooting in Santa Fe High schools less than an
Speaker 1: hour from my house, so I was within minutes after
Speaker 1: the shooting, and it was it remains one of the
Speaker 1: worst things I've ever seen in my life. We've seen
Speaker 1: far too many of these. Whether the parents can and
Speaker 1: should be held to account depends on the facts and
Speaker 1: circumstances of what happened, and it also depends on what
Speaker 1: the state law is. My understanding is in this circumstance
Speaker 1: that the parents had had purchased the firearms, had kept
Speaker 1: them in an unlocked drawer, I believe, where where their
Speaker 1: teenage son could access them. And it also appears from
Speaker 1: some of the back and force that the parents had
Speaker 1: good reason to know, or at least very seriously suspect
Speaker 1: that this was a deeply troubled child who could well
Speaker 1: be endangered others. And if those are the facts, I
Speaker 1: think there are a lot of states, Michigan and others
Speaker 1: where parents could be held liable if if you you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a gun owner, but I keep I can keep
Speaker 1: our firearms locked up because I don't want our kids
Speaker 1: accessing our firearms. And I think responsible gun owners that
Speaker 1: that's what we do, is we don't want to see children,
Speaker 1: particularly young children, playing with guns having an accidental shooting.
Speaker 1: Lots of bad things can happen when kids have access
Speaker 1: and unrestricted access to guns. All the more so depending
Speaker 1: on the facts of what the parents knew about their son,
Speaker 1: and if there were from the early discussions, the texts
Speaker 1: that were going back and forth between the shooter and
Speaker 1: his mom, it certainly seems like the parents knew that
Speaker 1: this was a very unstable and very dangerous kid. And
Speaker 1: I would say that that there's a fairly long standing principle,
Speaker 1: certainly of civil liability, but even of criminal liability if
Speaker 1: you are recklessly allowing firearms to fall all into the
Speaker 1: hands of a child under your care who you have
Speaker 1: reason to know as a dangered others. So, Senator, that
Speaker 1: answer was absolutely outrageous because you have violated the rule
Speaker 1: of modern political discourse. You didn't make it completely reductive
Speaker 1: and simplistic, and so I think what everyone is expecting
Speaker 1: is you need someone to say absolutely, one hundred percent
Speaker 1: ban all guns, repeal the Second Amendment, and throw anyone
Speaker 1: who owns a gun in the clank, or you know,
Speaker 1: you can do whatever you want with your gun, and
Speaker 1: you can leave twenty rifles on the roof of your
Speaker 1: home and with big signs that say, come take this
Speaker 1: rifle right here. But of course that's not the case.
Speaker 1: There is such a thing as prudence, and our liberties
Speaker 1: require that we exercise them with prudence, and so I
Speaker 1: think that's a terrific way to view it. And it's
Speaker 1: obviously it's going to change state by state, and political
Speaker 1: activists are going to try to exploit these events as
Speaker 1: often they do, to score whatever ideological point they have.
Speaker 1: But but what's much more interesting than those shallow ideological
Speaker 1: points are the details or the facts and the questions
Speaker 1: of prudence. Right because the mother allegedly texted her son,
Speaker 1: don't do it. As soon as she heard it on
Speaker 1: the news, the father reportedly called the police have reported
Speaker 1: that his gun was missing. He said he suspected that
Speaker 1: it was his son that was shooting. So these parents
Speaker 1: had some awareness. It also should spark the conversation not
Speaker 1: just about the laws that are currently on the books,
Speaker 1: but how should this be handled If parents are aware
Speaker 1: of this, are they culpable, should they be liable? What
Speaker 1: should what should the laws be? And that's a policy
Speaker 1: discussion that politicians should have as well as talking about
Speaker 1: the diversionary the diversionary policies that some of these schools
Speaker 1: have implemented when they see red flags from these students,
Speaker 1: including violent drawings and violent comments, and how they handle
Speaker 1: that outside of the criminal justice system. Now, look, I
Speaker 1: think that's exactly right. And you look at some of
Speaker 1: these shootings. You look at the shooting in Parkland and Florida,
Speaker 1: and there were all sorts of warning signs that that shooter.
Speaker 1: And by the way, one thing is a consistent policy
Speaker 1: matter I do. I will not say the names of
Speaker 1: any of these shooters. These evil bastards who commit mass murder,
Speaker 1: they want their names to go down and infamy, and
Speaker 1: I very consciously will never repeat their names because I'm
Speaker 1: not interested in giving them that infamy. But the Parkland shooter,
Speaker 1: there were multiple interactions with law enforcement, and lets you
Speaker 1: pointed out a policy that politicians have put in place
Speaker 1: that when you had people that engage in acts of
Speaker 1: violence and threats against fellow students and the schools cover
Speaker 1: it up, and the schools don't report it to law enforcement,
Speaker 1: in the schools don't treat it seriously, it has the
Speaker 1: potential of escalating and putting the lives of other students
Speaker 1: at real risk, right, and that that'll certainly be interesting
Speaker 1: to watch unfold in the case of what happened in Michigan,
Speaker 1: because the student apparently had had been called into the
Speaker 1: office for making violent comments and the school told his
Speaker 1: parents to get him counseling. Now, we don't know all
Speaker 1: the details of whether that should have been escalated to
Speaker 1: law enforcement, but there were certainly those red flags. Senator.
Speaker 1: The next question is from Brent. Brent asks about a
Speaker 1: video that has gotten quite a bit of attention online.
Speaker 1: It's a Congressman Dan Crenshaw throwing shade at the Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: Like I said, this has made the rounds interesting comments
Speaker 1: from Congressman Crenshall here, what is your what is your
Speaker 1: stance on this video? On the comments from Congressman Crenshaw, listen,
Speaker 1: I've I've seen the video. I don't agree with what
Speaker 1: Dan had to say. I like Dan, I like him personally.
Speaker 1: I think he's he's talented. I'm certainly grateful for his
Speaker 1: service to our nation. He'd be lost an eye defending
Speaker 1: the nation. I'm grateful for that. And he's a charismatic guys.
Speaker 1: He's got a sense of humor, he's got some some verb,
Speaker 1: and he's willing to fight. All of those are good things.
Speaker 1: You know. In this video he's he's singing the praises
Speaker 1: of Adam Kinzinger and he's crapping all over the Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: I think that's pretty misguided. I think Kensinger has gone
Speaker 1: completely off the rails. And there's a reason that he's
Speaker 1: not running for reelection because Kensinger couldn't get re elected.
Speaker 1: And I think the Freedom Caucus, they are consistently the
Speaker 1: strongest conservatives in Congress. And you know, it's there is
Speaker 1: a particular contempt that that some congressional moderates have for
Speaker 1: conservatives who actually follow through on their promises. And you know,
Speaker 1: it was interesting. I think the phrase that Dan used,
Speaker 1: he said, well, there are performance politicians and they are legislators.
Speaker 1: It is always a problem whenever you see someone use
Speaker 1: a word like legislator, and their voice always dropped an octave.
Speaker 1: I don't know why, but it's much more serious when
Speaker 1: it's a legislator. What they mean is someone who's going
Speaker 1: to cut a bunch of deals with Democrats and give in.
Speaker 1: What they mean are the kind of Republicans who voted
Speaker 1: with the Democrats on the big infrastructure bill that just
Speaker 1: came in. That's what they mean. And actually the other
Speaker 1: phrase he didn't use it, but I was kind of
Speaker 1: surprised he didn't. The other phrase that the that you
Speaker 1: see congressional mods they love to use as they say,
Speaker 1: there are workhorses and show horses, and what's a show horse.
Speaker 1: A show horse is anyone who actually does what they
Speaker 1: promise their constituents they would do, as compared to the
Speaker 1: workhorses who suck up to the Democrats and do what
Speaker 1: the Democrats want them to do. And you know, look,
Speaker 1: I guess it is easy sometimes for people to fall
Speaker 1: into that rhetoric. I think Dan was wrong in this one.
Speaker 1: There's also just an easy trap that unfortunately some I
Speaker 1: know a number of my conservatives have conservative friends have
Speaker 1: fallen into, which is and especially this is true in DC.
Speaker 1: You start to believe the things that you hear everyone
Speaker 1: talking about it. And so if you hear constantly that
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney is this great Republican leader, or Adam Kinzinger
Speaker 1: even more ridiculous, if you hear it enough and you're
Speaker 1: surrounded by it, you kind of start to believe it,
Speaker 1: or at least some people do. And I just think that,
Speaker 1: as you said, Senator a little earlier, when we're talking
Speaker 1: about the January sixth Committee, the purpose of Liz Cheney
Speaker 1: and Adam Kinzinger in Congress right now is to do
Speaker 1: what Democrats want them to do. They might have an
Speaker 1: R next to their name, but their actual utility at
Speaker 1: the crucial fights is to act as the sort of
Speaker 1: court jesters in the kingdom of liberalism. That's why they'll
Speaker 1: go on CNN. They won't generally go on the conservative channels.
Speaker 1: And so it's talk about a performance that we're seeing,
Speaker 1: talk about show voting that that to me is the
Speaker 1: most spectacular sensationalist performance of them all, and you can
Speaker 1: see it on CNN. And when when you look at
Speaker 1: the Republicans who are constantly on S and N bashing
Speaker 1: other Republicans, that to me, those are the real, the
Speaker 1: real performance. Well, and their their purpose is even more
Speaker 1: than that. It's to be a beard. It's to cover
Speaker 1: up what's going on. This is a kangaroo court, and
Speaker 1: they're there because they have it are after their name,
Speaker 1: and it's to dress it up up as something it
Speaker 1: is not, so so that it has some modicum of credibility.
Speaker 1: And listen, the reality of it is going to be.
Speaker 1: Kinsinger is not running for reelection because he couldn't get
Speaker 1: re elected. I think Liz Cheney is extremely likely to
Speaker 1: be beaten in her primary because she has basically told
Speaker 1: Republicans and conservatives in the state of Wyoming piss off.
Speaker 1: And and I think in a little over a year
Speaker 1: both of them will be regular contributors on MSNBC. And
Speaker 1: so they're auditioning for MSNBC right now. Um, And and
Speaker 1: that's that's not exactly that that that is not exactly
Speaker 1: worthy of dropping your voices, uh to your voice two
Speaker 1: octaves and calling them great legislators as a result. That's right.
Speaker 1: This is the feeling you have. It's like when you
Speaker 1: when you see a friend of yours making any kind
Speaker 1: of decision that you don't think it's a great one.
Speaker 1: You'll say no, Dan get away from Kinsinger, don't don't
Speaker 1: do it, don't don't. Don't believe the lies, because we're
Speaker 1: we're talking about truth and lies. I generally find that
Speaker 1: when I tune into CNN, I'm seeing a lot of lies,
Speaker 1: and when I tune into CNN, I tend to see
Speaker 1: a lot of Adam Kinzinger. You know what you're not
Speaker 1: saying when you turn into CNN, Chris Cuomo, it's too soon,
Speaker 1: the Senator, it's too soon. But oh my goodness, so right.
Speaker 1: It's also the only reason that I'm the only reason
Speaker 1: I'm grateful for videos like this is because it shows us,
Speaker 1: as the voters, the true character of the people who
Speaker 1: are supposed to represent us, so it better informs our vote.
Speaker 1: So I'm disappointed in what Crenshaw said, of course, but
Speaker 1: it does. It does show us a little bit of
Speaker 1: his decision making process or his judgment, and for better
Speaker 1: for worse, we do need to know that as the voters.
Speaker 1: On that note, if there is anybody on a college
Speaker 1: campus across the country who wants to bring Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Crews, the Senator with Michael Knowles to their campus
Speaker 1: this coming spring, submit your application by December fifteenth. You're
Speaker 1: can apply at yaf dot org slash verdict that is
Speaker 1: yaf dot org slash verdict to bring Verdict live to
Speaker 1: your college campus. It's a great old time. December fifteenth
Speaker 1: is the deadline, though, so submit those applications very very soon. Excellent,
Speaker 1: Thank you, lez and Senator. I am so glad that
Speaker 1: you got to the most delightful news story where there's
Speaker 1: a lot of heavy news stories today, you know, talking
Speaker 1: about what's going on in Russia, how they're a little
Speaker 1: bit of hope there is still time maybe to stop things,
Speaker 1: if Biden will stand up and do it. The winds
Speaker 1: that we've had where we're pulling some of our conservative
Speaker 1: friends back from the precipice. But the most delightful story
Speaker 1: is that the House of Cuomo has fallen. It's you know,
Speaker 1: it reminds us there's always a little silver lining in
Speaker 1: the storm clouds of politics. Michael. I will note one
Speaker 1: of my favorite words foreign words is shaden freud, the
Speaker 1: German word for taking pleasure in the suffering of others.
Speaker 1: And I'll suggest perhaps a slight tweak to that, which
Speaker 1: is let us revel in shadden Fredo, taking joy in
Speaker 1: the suffering of Fredo Cuomo, the troubled younger brother who
Speaker 1: I believe was last seen in a rowboat on Lake
Speaker 1: Tahosts saying Hail Mary. And now he is on CNN
Speaker 1: no more, a legislator, a basketball champion, and a linguist
Speaker 1: as well. Senator. Thank you very much. I'm Michael Knowles.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. So I tried to
Speaker 1: get the great and powerful J Hay to draw a
Speaker 1: cactus on the vesta board for this little, this little
Speaker 1: bit that we're doing, but he could not produce. So
Speaker 1: let me just tell you. We have a twenty percent
Speaker 1: off sale on the Verdict Merch store right now. You
Speaker 1: can get one of those sweet sweet cactus hats. I
Speaker 1: would put one on for you to model it, but
Speaker 1: I'm a little vain of my hair today. I think
Speaker 1: i'mving a pretty good hair day, so I didn't want
Speaker 1: to mess it up. But go over to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash shop and if you use
Speaker 1: the promo code Sam, then you will get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off the entire shop between now and Christmas. Twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: That's a really good deal. We have t shirts, we
Speaker 1: have cactus merch, we have hats, we have all kinds
Speaker 1: of cool stuff over there. Between now and Christmas. You
Speaker 1: get the great deal twenty percent off if you use
Speaker 1: the promo code Santa. Then, I don't know. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: maybe the Great Powerful ja Hey will figure out how
Speaker 1: to put a T shirt or a cactus on the
Speaker 1: Vesta board. But while he's figuring that out, I invite
Speaker 1: you join us Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash
Speaker 1: shop to buy really cool merch. You get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off if you use the promo code Santa at checkout.
Speaker 1: That's actually pretty good. This episode of Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and
Speaker 1: Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations,
Speaker 1: and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates
Speaker 1: running for Congress and helped the Republican Party across the nation.