Speaker 1: House Democrats wrap up their case against the president. The
Speaker 1: President's arguments will begin tomorrow, and we all march for
Speaker 1: life on the forty seventh anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 1: And that sounds like it's two very different stories. Actually
Speaker 1: there's a key connection between the two. We will get
Speaker 1: into all of that. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Welcome back. I'm Michael Knowles, and I actually should have
Speaker 1: been more specific. What I meant to say was, this
Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the third biggest podcast on
Speaker 1: the charts right now. Congratulations, senator, Well back at you
Speaker 1: we are. We are number three on the charts of
Speaker 1: all podcasts and number one in news. We are beating
Speaker 1: the New York Times. I'm sorry, could you say that again? Oh?
Speaker 1: Did you? Maybe? Perhaps you couldn't couldn't hear me? I
Speaker 1: just wanted to say, we're beating the New York Times.
Speaker 1: Well that that is a wonderful thing in a testament
Speaker 1: to all the good people are listening. Man, It sounds
Speaker 1: like birds chirping sort of in the studio. But we
Speaker 1: have a lot to get to today. We have the
Speaker 1: Democrats wrapping up their arguments. We've got the Trump team
Speaker 1: is going to begin tomorrow, and in the fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: that you got free today you ended up marching for
Speaker 1: life out on the national mall. All true. And it's
Speaker 1: ten forty five, so we're getting started tonight earlier than
Speaker 1: we have any day this week. This is a very
Speaker 1: early night, so let's not squander the time. How do
Speaker 1: you think the Democrats did in their closing arguments? Well,
Speaker 1: I think all hundred senators are grateful that the twenty
Speaker 1: four hour marathon is over. I think it's an interesting
Speaker 1: decision of the house managers to consume practically every minute
Speaker 1: of those twenty four hours. Listen, Adam Schiff gave the clothes,
Speaker 1: and there were moments of it that were powerful. I mean,
Speaker 1: he is an effective trial lawyer, is a talented trial lawyer.
Speaker 1: He can be an effective orator. I think we saw
Speaker 1: throughout the opening arguments the house managers used multimedia quite effectively.
Speaker 1: So there were moments that they drove in with different
Speaker 1: video clips that that worked and it broke up the
Speaker 1: kind of long arguments and it did it did manage
Speaker 1: to pull people's attention well. And that's something you're seeing,
Speaker 1: by the way, in trial courts much more often now. Videos.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's effective. Trial lawyers know how to
Speaker 1: do that, and we saw that on display. I also
Speaker 1: think shifted a good job. He had a big chunk
Speaker 1: of his closing that was trying to preempt the president's arguments.
Speaker 1: And it's because of the structure of it. House managers
Speaker 1: have twenty four hours and the president has twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: and there's not a rebuttal. So he knew they're getting
Speaker 1: ready to start, and so he went through dozens of
Speaker 1: potential arguments that they will almost surely make, and he
Speaker 1: tried to give responses to it. What was he preempting,
Speaker 1: I mean, what were the big arguments that he expects
Speaker 1: from I mean he went through whether their process, arguments,
Speaker 1: whether I mean, he went through a whole host But
Speaker 1: you actually put your finger on a major failing I
Speaker 1: think he had, which is he didn't shine a lantern
Speaker 1: on his biggest problem. So he briefly noted, well, the
Speaker 1: house managers might suggest Joe Biden's corrupt, but there's no
Speaker 1: evidence of that. And that's all he said. He's setting
Speaker 1: himself up. It's it's the biggest weakness of their entire
Speaker 1: case is that they have built their case on the
Speaker 1: proposition there is zero evidence, none, whatsoever, of any corruption
Speaker 1: concerning Joe Biden, concerning his son Hunter Biden, concerning barism,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian Natural Gas Company was paying Hunter Biden a
Speaker 1: million bucks a year. That's a straw map, because yesterday
Speaker 1: that the House Democrats in making their case, they kept saying,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with Barize mother, there's nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: the Bidens. There's nothing to see here, folks. And because
Speaker 1: they kept talking about it, it actually brings that to
Speaker 1: the forefront, right, And then today in their closing arguments
Speaker 1: they failed to address him. They just dismissed it. And
Speaker 1: it's it's it's like leading with your jaw um that
Speaker 1: that they're setting up to just get get get it
Speaker 1: knocked knocked crazy. Look, I'll say Schiff had some very
Speaker 1: good moments, but he also tends to get self righteous
Speaker 1: and and and so he'll be he'll be making an
Speaker 1: argument that's effective, that's real, and then he suddenly starts
Speaker 1: lecturing you. And I think the moment where that was
Speaker 1: most acute is when he cited this CBS story and
Speaker 1: said Trump was threatening if any Republican voted against him,
Speaker 1: to have their head on a Pike, and I got
Speaker 1: to tell you that pissed Republican senators off. I heard
Speaker 1: probably a half dozen senators surround me like openly, like
Speaker 1: gasp and and and like express anger. And that's a
Speaker 1: great argument if you're talking to a you know, a
Speaker 1: bunch of you know, left wing activists at a California
Speaker 1: rally and Shift's base. But it ain't a good argument
Speaker 1: if you're trying to get some Republican votes, right, if
Speaker 1: you're actually trying to persuade the few Republicans who maybe
Speaker 1: you could persuade, not a good way to do it.
Speaker 1: You bring up the reaction among the Republican senators today.
Speaker 1: Have you wandering around the holes of the Senate heard
Speaker 1: any gossip from the Democratic side. I mean, what is
Speaker 1: the reaction, if anything, at all to how they're doing well?
Speaker 1: It was interesting one of the Democratic senators was talking
Speaker 1: to a reporter walking out, and the reporter asked, what
Speaker 1: do you think of the closing and the head on
Speaker 1: the pikeline and the comment from the Democratic senators? Look,
Speaker 1: every argument has a discordant note or too. I mean
Speaker 1: it may not have come across on TV, but he
Speaker 1: was almost booed for saying that right. I mean, Republican
Speaker 1: senators were offended by it. But in many ways, his
Speaker 1: audience for that was not the hundred people in the room.
Speaker 1: It was TV that have to render a verdict. It
Speaker 1: was TV. And I'll tell you a very interesting observation.
Speaker 1: So why did they fill twenty four hours? Why did
Speaker 1: they repeat the same arguments over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: Because for most of the argument they weren't talking to
Speaker 1: the hundred senators that will vote on impeachment. They were
Speaker 1: talking to three hundred and thirty million Americans. And you know,
Speaker 1: one of the fascinating things that several senators noticed, if
Speaker 1: you look at their order of speaking, it followed prime
Speaker 1: time depending on where the house manager was from. In
Speaker 1: other words, they started off with the East coast house managers.
Speaker 1: They then moved to the central So you looked at,
Speaker 1: you know, the congressman from Colorado. They'd put them on
Speaker 1: in primetime in Colorado, and it would always close with
Speaker 1: the West coast, and they were they were very deliberately.
Speaker 1: More than a couple of people observed that this was
Speaker 1: at least more than a little bit about about Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff launching either his governor candidacy or his Senate candidacy.
Speaker 1: And look, this stuff I'm sure plays very well in
Speaker 1: a California Democratic prime. So that to me raises the
Speaker 1: question have the House Democrats give up on actually persuading
Speaker 1: the senators? I mean, are they are they now tuning
Speaker 1: out the senators and just playing this to TV to
Speaker 1: launch their own political careers. So yes, and no, ninety
Speaker 1: percent plus was launching their political careers, was energizing their base,
Speaker 1: was speaking to the angry mob. There was a ten
Speaker 1: percent in the closing where Schiff was trying to throw
Speaker 1: a hail Mary. Look, he knows that they don't have
Speaker 1: the votes, he knows that they haven't proven their case.
Speaker 1: But their hope now as they want more witnesses because
Speaker 1: they want to go in a fishing expedition, right, and
Speaker 1: so you know, for example, he had some actually pretty
Speaker 1: moving oratory about moral courage and standing up and how
Speaker 1: it's harder to stand against your party, and he said,
Speaker 1: you risk being called. You risk people saying he's a
Speaker 1: Democrat in name only or she's a Republican in name only.
Speaker 1: I don't think the choice of pronoun was accidental. No,
Speaker 1: he might be referring specifically to some senators well, and
Speaker 1: it was now I will confess. As I was walking out,
Speaker 1: there was a group of reporters and I said to him,
Speaker 1: I said, wow, shifts call for moral courage to stand
Speaker 1: up against your party was powerful, and I really wonder
Speaker 1: how many Democrats are going to do that and vote
Speaker 1: to a quit the president. And of course the reporters
Speaker 1: look at you like no, no, no no, no. Moral courage
Speaker 1: is always Republicans abandoning of course their party. Of course,
Speaker 1: never Democrats doing it. Now, before we move on from
Speaker 1: their arguments, I do want to be clear. They spent
Speaker 1: most of the time talking about the first article of impeachment,
Speaker 1: which was abuse of power, and we've talked about that
Speaker 1: now in the last couple of episodes. The argument that
Speaker 1: Trump engaged in a quid pro quo and he withheld
Speaker 1: the military aid from Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine investigating
Speaker 1: his political rival Joe Biden, even though he didn't end
Speaker 1: up with withholding the aid and they didn't end up
Speaker 1: investigating Joe Biden. We talked about that on previous episode.
Speaker 1: The second article of impeachment is called obstruction of Congress.
Speaker 1: Half the reason I voted for the president is so
Speaker 1: that he would obstruct Congress. What does that even mean?
Speaker 1: How do you obstruct Congress? Look, they're basing it on
Speaker 1: a refusal to allow witnesses to testify, defying subpoenas, and
Speaker 1: refusing to produce documents. And you know, look, I will
Speaker 1: say where the Democrats were effective in making this case
Speaker 1: is the Trump administration didn't hand over documents from any
Speaker 1: of the cabinet agencies in response to subpoenas. I got
Speaker 1: to say, most of the Republican senators, I think that
Speaker 1: was pretty dumb that the administration would have been better
Speaker 1: off complying, producing some documents in response, and preserving the
Speaker 1: fights for the things that really matter. And part of
Speaker 1: the obstruction charge that the Democrats waged against the President
Speaker 1: is that he wouldn't allow certain people who worked for him,
Speaker 1: such as John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, to testify.
Speaker 1: Are you saying should should they have testified? Well, and
Speaker 1: that's where this argument collapses, and it's why the Democrats
Speaker 1: are not going to prevail on it, because, look, front
Speaker 1: and center, John Bolton is the most notable example. They're like,
Speaker 1: we need John Bolton's testimony. Well, we talked about earlier
Speaker 1: this week in one of these podcasts how John Bolton
Speaker 1: did something something very clever. He went to a federal
Speaker 1: district court in DC and he went before the court
Speaker 1: and he said, look, I've got two conflicting demands on me.
Speaker 1: The House is asking me to testify, and the President
Speaker 1: is instructing me not to citing executive privilege. And he said,
Speaker 1: which one do I comply with? And John Bolton said, Judge,
Speaker 1: I'll do whatever you tell me. Right. The House Democrat's
Speaker 1: response was fascinating. They just said never mind. They actually
Speaker 1: informed the court we're not going to subpoena John Bolton
Speaker 1: and we don't need his testimony. So the fact that
Speaker 1: John Bolton does not end up testifying during the House
Speaker 1: impeachment investigation is on the House Democrats. And in fact,
Speaker 1: Bolton's lawyer said, if they withdraw the subpoena, the choice
Speaker 1: for John Bolton not to testify is not John Bolton's,
Speaker 1: it's the House Democrats. Why is that? I mean, why
Speaker 1: would the House withdraw their their pull to get them
Speaker 1: to testify, because I think they were in hurry. They
Speaker 1: did this whole thing, and they just wanted them forty
Speaker 1: some odd days. They were moving rocket fast, you know.
Speaker 1: Part of it. I think there are a number of us.
Speaker 1: I mean, we were speculating the other night. Why did
Speaker 1: they not drag this out and delay it more? I
Speaker 1: think part of it is that Nancy Pelosi at least
Speaker 1: thinks this is a political allusion. Tachment is hurting the Democrats'
Speaker 1: chances in twenty twenties, so I think she wanted to
Speaker 1: get this over with now. House managers have different interests.
Speaker 1: I think they're enjoying the national chef has his eyes
Speaker 1: on other offices. You know, I will confess I did
Speaker 1: ask in the Republican cloak room. I said, hey, what
Speaker 1: do y'all think of us having emotion? To give him
Speaker 1: another twenty four hours to keep talking? Just let everyone
Speaker 1: else's numbers go up. So, all right, the arguments are over.
Speaker 1: I do want to move on to the March for Life. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Before we do that, though, if you had to give
Speaker 1: the Democrats a grade, They've made their arguments. You've argued
Speaker 1: many high profile cases. How did they do on presentation
Speaker 1: and style, I'd say an A minus that they actually did.
Speaker 1: This was a talented group presenting okay on substance a D. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they sounded good and they have little snippets, but but
Speaker 1: they also were very selective in terms of what they cited.
Speaker 1: I expect to see I expect to see the president's
Speaker 1: lawyers come back hard. I expect to see the president's lawyers,
Speaker 1: in particular to make a powerful case about the evidence
Speaker 1: of corruption that justified an investigation into Barisma and weather.
Speaker 1: Vice President Joe Biden was part of that corruption, and
Speaker 1: the House managers have now built their whole case on
Speaker 1: the proposition. There's zero evidence that proposition is going to
Speaker 1: be blown out of the water, So I guess we'll
Speaker 1: see tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be a really big
Speaker 1: day because finally the Trump team gets to make their arguments.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, after going through all these
Speaker 1: hours and hours of the Democrat case, I'm glad you
Speaker 1: gave me this recommendation to have a nice, delicious glass
Speaker 1: of milk, because it's really fortified. Well, there's nothing like
Speaker 1: a cool glass of milk. There is a strange rule
Speaker 1: in the Senate that goes around impeachment trials. You are
Speaker 1: not allowed as a senator to bring in a cup
Speaker 1: of coffee or a bottle of whiskey or a soft drink.
Speaker 1: You are only allowed to drink two things in the
Speaker 1: Senate during the impeachment trial, water and milk. You have
Speaker 1: availed yourself of this, I noticed I have, and you look.
Speaker 1: The Senate is a strange place. It is a plate
Speaker 1: in many respects. It is governed by tradition. But the
Speaker 1: reason you can drink milk all stems back to January
Speaker 1: twenty fourth, nineteen sixty six, so before you and I
Speaker 1: were born. Okay. Senator Everett Dirkson is on the Senate
Speaker 1: floor and he raises a question with the presiding officer.
Speaker 1: He asks, He says, is it in violation of the
Speaker 1: Senate rules if the Senator from Illinois asks one of
Speaker 1: the page boys to go to the restaurant and bring
Speaker 1: him a glass of milk? If it is in violation
Speaker 1: of the rules, I will forget it. And the presiding
Speaker 1: officer answered, there is nothing in the rules to prohibit
Speaker 1: the senator from requesting a glass of milk. When that
Speaker 1: exchange happened, that formed a precedent. This is actually a
Speaker 1: governing precedent. So when you're a newly elected senator, you
Speaker 1: get in your desk, in the drawer of your desk,
Speaker 1: you get something called Riddicks precedence. And it is printed
Speaker 1: that Riddick's precedent stating going back to January twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty six, Riddicks precedents. Just just to Clifford, this
Speaker 1: is like the rules of the it is, but it's
Speaker 1: just rulings from the chair become binding precedent because Everett
Speaker 1: Dirkson wanted a glass of milk, and the presiding officers
Speaker 1: said said, yes, now the two things you can drink
Speaker 1: or water and milk. And so the first night of
Speaker 1: the impeachment tribe and we went till two in the morning.
Speaker 1: At midnight, I decided, you know what, I'm gonna try
Speaker 1: this out. So I went to the cloakroom. I said, Hey,
Speaker 1: does anyone here actually have milk? And they're like, no,
Speaker 1: no one, no one ever orders it. I'm like, can
Speaker 1: we track some down? And one of the guys in
Speaker 1: the cloak room said, I'll find you some and it
Speaker 1: ran out. So at midnight I just sat there quietly
Speaker 1: sipping milk, and and it was you can't have coffee,
Speaker 1: you can't. You can't have doctor pepper, you can't have caffeine,
Speaker 1: but but you can enjoy glass of milk. Now, what
Speaker 1: I want to know, Senator as a taxpayer myself, who
Speaker 1: paid for that glass of milk that you had in
Speaker 1: the Senate. I'll tell you the cloak room actually called
Speaker 1: our office and said we need to charge the senator
Speaker 1: from the glass of milk. We ain't paying for it.
Speaker 1: And I laughed and said, look, I'm glad to hear
Speaker 1: some fiscally conservative policies being implemented. And now I can't
Speaker 1: necessarily promise. So look, if milk is allowed at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, all you see is it's a
Speaker 1: white liquid. So I can't promise you that there aren't
Speaker 1: senators having white Russians, especially the longer this drags on.
Speaker 1: And you know what, that would probably drive the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theorist crazy, particularly Postmonarch. That's true. And you know we've
Speaker 1: been coming here in the middle of the night now
Speaker 1: all week, so there's really nothing to say that we
Speaker 1: haven't had a couple of white Russians on the very
Speaker 1: same drink. Now, speaking of your health and refreshing yourself today,
Speaker 1: when you had a little bit of a break, you
Speaker 1: decided to use that by going outside and actually marching
Speaker 1: in the March for life. This was forty seven years
Speaker 1: after Rover. This way the March for Life has gone
Speaker 1: on every single year since then, and it's it's the
Speaker 1: largest pro life gathering in the world. And you participated
Speaker 1: in it today. It's something I've done a number of years.
Speaker 1: Today it was going on right during the impeachment trial,
Speaker 1: so when the march started, I couldn't participate, but but
Speaker 1: around three o'clock we had a break that ended up
Speaker 1: being about a half hour, and so I just went
Speaker 1: outside and joined the marchers. It's a wonderful chance. I
Speaker 1: spent a lot of the time. They're just thanking people
Speaker 1: and and and thanking them for coming out. It's usually
Speaker 1: a cold day when the march happens, and it's amazing
Speaker 1: to see people from all over the country coming together
Speaker 1: and stand up for life. I got to say it.
Speaker 1: It is always wonderful to participate, but it but it
Speaker 1: was particularly affirming in the middle of all this craziness.
Speaker 1: It was moving. I was there myself today. It was
Speaker 1: very moving, and it actually got me thinking about the
Speaker 1: relation between ROV. Wade and this impeachment trial because Rov.
Speaker 1: Wade is decided in nineteen seventy three, and it was
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court discovered this previously undiscovered constitutional right
Speaker 1: to abortion, as though the framers of our constitution secretly
Speaker 1: invisible Ink wrote in a right to an abortion, you
Speaker 1: know a lot more about the Constitution than I do.
Speaker 1: It's a bogus argument, right, it was. The Court created
Speaker 1: it in versus Wade. But the effect it had in
Speaker 1: our country is it took one of the most deeply personal,
Speaker 1: emotional public policy issues and the Supreme Court said, you, idiot,
Speaker 1: voters don't get to decide this. We're deciding it for you,
Speaker 1: and you have no say. Look. Prior to that, abortion
Speaker 1: had been a question for the states to consider, and
Speaker 1: people could debate it at state state issues. You could
Speaker 1: get up and make arguments as to why. Look, you
Speaker 1: and I both believe that life should be protected. But
Speaker 1: as voters, we ought to be able to make those decisions.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court said, nope, we're seizing this. And
Speaker 1: I think that decision has produced a lot of the
Speaker 1: bitterness the rank or the division. People are frustrated on
Speaker 1: both sides of that aisle that they don't have a
Speaker 1: natural outlet to debate the issues because it all becomes
Speaker 1: the battle for the courts, because it's now nine elected
Speaker 1: judges that decide everything. Because This was in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: probably the top issue especially and by the way, I
Speaker 1: think I said nine elected judges, Let me be very clear,
Speaker 1: nine unelected unelected, because unelected is the whole problem, no
Speaker 1: accountability whatsoever. In twenty sixteen, the big issue was the judges.
Speaker 1: Who's going to replace Justice Scalia? Who? And you saw
Speaker 1: on the left and the right, and especially for the left,
Speaker 1: so much of that comes down to Roe v. Wait.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see it in their campaign materials. Let
Speaker 1: me make two observations from today. One, when I went
Speaker 1: out to march in the protest, I encountered one anti
Speaker 1: Trump protester, a woman who was angry, and part of
Speaker 1: what she was screaming is why aren't you in the trial.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, we're on a break. Um, I just
Speaker 1: had my glass of milk and I've got a lot
Speaker 1: of energy. But it was a striking contrast one anti
Speaker 1: Trump protesters and then tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of protesters, or not protesters, but marks standing for life.
Speaker 1: And the contrast was interesting and it actually made me think,
Speaker 1: so a lot of us getting ready for the impeachment trial,
Speaker 1: we're anticipating bitter, nasty, confrontations like we had during Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and Brett Cavanaugh. The left had paid protesters who yelled,
Speaker 1: who's stalked who? You know? One of them went to
Speaker 1: Susan Collins's home, and I mean, I mean it was
Speaker 1: nobody needs to be reminded because it was such a
Speaker 1: national story. But Brett Cavanaugh was the second Trump pick
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Courts. Wasn't even the first one, is
Speaker 1: the second one. But but it underscores just how bitter
Speaker 1: and divisive it is. I gotta tell you, the Capitol
Speaker 1: police were anticipating the we may see some of the same,
Speaker 1: you know, vigorously, you know, threatening, almost violent some of
Speaker 1: those confrontations on with Kavanaugh. I mean you had people
Speaker 1: getting in your face and screaming and bitter and angry.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting that even though Trump inspires strong emotions,
Speaker 1: the impeachment trial has seemed to be a snoozer from
Speaker 1: that totally, totally, I mean, frankly, That's why I think,
Speaker 1: I really think that's why this podcast is doing so
Speaker 1: well is people are not going to watch ten hours
Speaker 1: a day of impeachment. They want, I think they want
Speaker 1: to come here. You've done an excellent job giving us
Speaker 1: a behind the scenes view. Look that there were times
Speaker 1: when it when it felt like like like listening to
Speaker 1: a reading of Vogon poetry, which for the handful of
Speaker 1: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy geeks who are listening to this,
Speaker 1: you'll get what I'm saying, and everyone else is right
Speaker 1: and don't worry about it. Yeah that I think you're
Speaker 1: right now. And I just wonder if if a decision
Speaker 1: like ro versus Wade had not stolen this very important
Speaker 1: question from the legislature, from the citizens to decide for
Speaker 1: themselves and taken it into the arms of nine unelected
Speaker 1: lawyers wearing robes, if if maybe we wouldn't even see
Speaker 1: an impeachment like this, if if the presidential elections were
Speaker 1: not so incredibly tense and important. Well, and it's much
Speaker 1: the same you look at impeachment and the House Democrats argument.
Speaker 1: Their central argument is we can't trust the voters to
Speaker 1: make this decision. That they believe the voters got it
Speaker 1: wrong in twenty sixteen, and a lot of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: when they're being candid, they're worried if Trump is on
Speaker 1: the ballot in twenty twenty, he'll win again. And so
Speaker 1: they're trying to undo a democratic election, right, and and
Speaker 1: that that is a persistent problem of politicians wanting to
Speaker 1: force an agenda against the wishes of let the people. Well,
Speaker 1: fortunately the Trump team is going to get the chance
Speaker 1: tomorrow to make their arguments. I very much look forward
Speaker 1: to that. We're going to be covering it again. Please,
Speaker 1: thank you to everybody who has made this podcast the
Speaker 1: number three biggest podcast in the world. It's really terrific. Please,
Speaker 1: if you can subscribe, leave us a five star review
Speaker 1: before we go. Lightning round on the mail bag. All
Speaker 1: right from Tom. Will the whistleblower testify the impeachment trial?
Speaker 1: Probably not. I think it's more likely than not that
Speaker 1: next week will vote not to have additional witnesses. So
Speaker 1: not only will we not get the so called whistleblower,
Speaker 1: the guy who started this whole Ukraine business really started
Speaker 1: the whole impeachment. But then we wouldn't get Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't go any fire were to order. Likely outcomes
Speaker 1: next week will vote on whether or not additional witnesses
Speaker 1: are needed beyond those have already testified. The House fifty
Speaker 1: one senators will decide. I think it is more likely
Speaker 1: than not fifty one senators will say we've heard enough,
Speaker 1: we're ready to decide, let's move to judgment, and the
Speaker 1: President gets acquitted. That may not happen. If all forty
Speaker 1: seven Democrats will vote for more witnesses, maybe four Republicans
Speaker 1: join them. If that happens, the second most likely outcome
Speaker 1: I think is fifty one senators say yes, we want
Speaker 1: more witnesses, the Democrats call John Bolton, the President calls
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, and I think, and then it's a blood
Speaker 1: best but but but I think that the second most
Speaker 1: likely outcome is those two additional witnesses come in Bolton
Speaker 1: and Biden, and only those two. I would say that's
Speaker 1: the second most likely outcome. The third most likely outcome
Speaker 1: is you end up having several witnesses. That that that
Speaker 1: and I do think, and this is something I've been
Speaker 1: pitching to other Republicans, is the principle of reciprocity, that
Speaker 1: that we need to be fair, we need to give
Speaker 1: both sides. We can't be like the House and have
Speaker 1: it only on one side. And so I think I
Speaker 1: feel quite confident that's where the Republican conference is, that
Speaker 1: there's consensus, and I gotta say, by the way, yesterday
Speaker 1: in the press there were a bunch of stories that
Speaker 1: said Chuck Schumer has rejected the deal of Bolton for Biden,
Speaker 1: and I actually had today spent a while like laughing
Speaker 1: with reporters, going, well, that's all fine and good. Of course,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer doesn't want Hunter Biden to testify because the
Speaker 1: Democrats are trying to cover that up, right, But he
Speaker 1: doesn't have the votes if they go down the road
Speaker 1: to John Bolton. I guarantee you the other side, right,
Speaker 1: we're going to have the votes among Republicans to ensure
Speaker 1: that both sides are treated fans, So that will come
Speaker 1: down to four Republicans. Last question before we had added
Speaker 1: here from Marty with very specific punctuation, when is it
Speaker 1: our turn? Can't watch these clowns tomorrow morning ten am.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow morning ten am, and you will be right back
Speaker 1: here in this studio to break it down for us.
Speaker 1: I will now tomorrow is likely to be relatively short.
Speaker 1: I think it'll probably go from about ten to one,
Speaker 1: so we'll get you about three hours of opening arguments
Speaker 1: from the president's team. So we'll record this tomorrow afternoon
Speaker 1: and then will come back on Monday at one pm
Speaker 1: and we'll get another probably extended stretch of argument from
Speaker 1: the President's team. I'm looking forward to the first chance
Speaker 1: the president's cantaign has had to present his defense and
Speaker 1: to present. Look, what I've urged them to do is
Speaker 1: present the substantive evidence of innocence. Don't just just talk
Speaker 1: about process the whole time, but lay out the facts.
Speaker 1: Because on the facts, I think the President, well, I
Speaker 1: hope they take some messaging from this podcast, because I
Speaker 1: think when you lay out the facts, the case is
Speaker 1: pretty clear. And tomorrow we will see the President strike
Speaker 1: back and it should be a lot of fun. Well,
Speaker 1: you know the Barisma timeline that that we tweeted out
Speaker 1: yesterday and talked about yesterday on the show, iserox that
Speaker 1: and put it in the box of every single Republican senator,
Speaker 1: so every one of them has that right. I sure
Speaker 1: hope they read it, and I hope they listen to
Speaker 1: the show, and I hope you all will listen to
Speaker 1: the show. We will be back here tomorrow. I'm Michael Knowles.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs,
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack a political action committee dedicated to
Speaker 1: supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Jobs, Freedom, and Security Pack plans to
Speaker 1: donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the
Speaker 1: Republican Party across the nation.