Speaker 1: The first day of President Trump's impeachment trial has just
Speaker 1: come to a close, and we are joined here by
Speaker 1: one of the jurors to help us break it all down.
Speaker 1: This is verdict with Ted Cruz. You may have noticed
Speaker 1: that I am not Ted Cruz. I am Michael Knowles.
Speaker 1: I am joined here by the man himself, Senator Cruz. Senator.
Speaker 1: Busy day, pretty much business as usual. It was a nice, nice,
Speaker 1: business as usual thirteen hour day during the first full
Speaker 1: day of the impeachment trial. You know, we all know
Speaker 1: the arguments we've been hearing about impeachment now since about
Speaker 1: five seconds after Trump got elected. Did anything change today
Speaker 1: during these debates? You know, I don't think anyone's mind
Speaker 1: was changed. I think anyone who came in as a yes,
Speaker 1: it is still a yes. Anyone who came in as
Speaker 1: a no is still a no. I think that's true
Speaker 1: for the hundred senators. But I think that's also true
Speaker 1: of the people at home. I mean, we're sitting here
Speaker 1: right now, it is two forty two in the morning.
Speaker 1: You've come here straight from the hill to this studio
Speaker 1: to do a podcast. I'll ask you why maybe in
Speaker 1: a little bit, but you're you're coming right on the
Speaker 1: heels of this debate, and yet nobody's mind was really changed. Well,
Speaker 1: we saw eleven motions from the Democrats, one after the
Speaker 1: other after the other. This was all a battle of
Speaker 1: pre trial motions. It's sort of the early battles in
Speaker 1: a trial. And the weird thing was those eleven motions.
Speaker 1: It was the same thing over and over again. So
Speaker 1: I have to admit I expected the first one and
Speaker 1: maybe even the second one. I didn't expect them to
Speaker 1: keep filing basically the same motion, keep making the same
Speaker 1: arguments over and over again. It was like Groundhog Day
Speaker 1: that except they'd get up and have a different house
Speaker 1: manager stand up and make the same damn arguments. And
Speaker 1: you saw, like like the senators in the chamber, just
Speaker 1: their eyes glazing over. And I'll tell you, Michael, what
Speaker 1: was revealing. So when we started at one o'clock, the
Speaker 1: Senate gallery was packed and lots of reporters up. There
Speaker 1: were the people sitting there as it went on. Within
Speaker 1: a few hours the reporters had cleared, half the reporters
Speaker 1: were gone, and by eight nine o'clock at night, the
Speaker 1: gallery was empty, like everyone had left and said, Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going on here, but I'm bored
Speaker 1: out of my mind. This is what I was wondering
Speaker 1: the whole time, because I wasn't really surprised by much
Speaker 1: of what was going on. We knew what to expect
Speaker 1: other than the time. What are they thinking? I mean,
Speaker 1: what is the end game here for these democratic House
Speaker 1: impeachment managers? Look that they're trying to drive a message,
Speaker 1: but but I'm not sure what's gained by just droning
Speaker 1: on over and over and over again. What exactly that
Speaker 1: they thought was beneficial about talking at one thirty in
Speaker 1: the morning, right who was listening? And you know? It
Speaker 1: was interesting? Also, I thought the house managers. Look, I'll
Speaker 1: say at the beginning, at the beginning, I thought the
Speaker 1: first couple of hours, the house managers were doing a
Speaker 1: pretty good job. They sounded more reasonable, They sounded less
Speaker 1: partisan than they than they were during during the House proceedings.
Speaker 1: It was good political theater. It was that there were
Speaker 1: some good moments. I'm sure MSNBC will be clipping little
Speaker 1: segments of it and saying, oh, this was powerful and wonderful.
Speaker 1: But then it got number one really redundant. But but
Speaker 1: number two, it was striking to see especially Adam Shift
Speaker 1: and Nadler just lecturing and and condescending not only to
Speaker 1: the senators but to the American people. Right. It was
Speaker 1: a harangue by the end of it. It wasn't designed
Speaker 1: to convince. Yes, And I want to ask you about
Speaker 1: the theatrical side of it, because it seems to me
Speaker 1: there are two theories on impeachment. And on the hand,
Speaker 1: you've got guys like Alan Dershowitz, who are on the
Speaker 1: president's legal team and actually was a professor of yours
Speaker 1: in law school, taught me criminal law. Well, what Professor
Speaker 1: Dershowitz has said is that there is a legal requirement
Speaker 1: for impeachment, So it's not just all political theater. There
Speaker 1: actually is a legal threshold you've got to meet for
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. Then on the other hand, you've got
Speaker 1: guys like former President Gerald Ford who said impeachment is
Speaker 1: pretty much whatever the Congress says it is, and high
Speaker 1: crimes and misdemeanors are however we wanted to find it
Speaker 1: at the time. You are not only a senator, you
Speaker 1: are a constitutional lawyer, one of the brightest legal minds
Speaker 1: in the country. Which is it is there a legal
Speaker 1: requirement for impeachment. Look, there absolutely is. The Constitution specifies
Speaker 1: what's required for impeachment, and the framers, if you look
Speaker 1: at the standard, you can impeach a president for treason, bribery,
Speaker 1: or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That's what the Constitution specifies.
Speaker 1: And if you get to the heart of the problem
Speaker 1: with the House Democrats case here, it's that they have
Speaker 1: an alleged treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
Speaker 1: That their disagreement we heard a lot of this today,
Speaker 1: is they just don't like the guy. They hate President Trump,
Speaker 1: in case anyone miss that point, and they disagree with them.
Speaker 1: They disagree with them on foreign policy, they disagree with
Speaker 1: them on politics, and you know what, they're entitled to
Speaker 1: have that view. That's the beautiful thing about our democratic process.
Speaker 1: But disagreeing with someone politically or on policy is not
Speaker 1: sufficient grounds to impeach them. You've got to demonstrate treason,
Speaker 1: which they haven't alleged. You've got to demonstrate bribery which
Speaker 1: they haven't alleged, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And
Speaker 1: it's interesting if you look at so what is a
Speaker 1: high crime or misdemeanor. You can actually learn a lot
Speaker 1: from the history of the Constitution. When the Constitutional Convention began,
Speaker 1: the text of the Constitution just said treason or bribery,
Speaker 1: so those are the only two grounds. And then at
Speaker 1: the Convention, George Mason, is one of the more respective
Speaker 1: of of the founding fathers, said, look, treason and bribery
Speaker 1: are too narrow. We need to be broader. So Mason
Speaker 1: proposed adding the word maladministration. So you're just no good
Speaker 1: at governing, you're no good at your job of being president.
Speaker 1: And he argued, look, there are circumstances we'd want to
Speaker 1: impeach a president that are broader, and so let's add this.
Speaker 1: And James Madison, who is often referred to as the
Speaker 1: father of the Constitution, he stood up and he disagreed.
Speaker 1: He said, look, maladministration would be a mistake. What it
Speaker 1: would mean is you would have a president impeach any
Speaker 1: time the Senate disagrees with him, anytime there's a disagreement
Speaker 1: on policy or politics, they'd be impeached. And so it
Speaker 1: was Madison who proposed instead of maladministration, other high crimes
Speaker 1: and misdemeanors. And that was in turn what was adopted
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. This is why I want your historical
Speaker 1: perspective here as well, because we're joking about how absolutely
Speaker 1: tedious and boring these impeachment proceedings were. This is an
Speaker 1: historic event. This is the third time that we've done
Speaker 1: this in American history. You know, we managed to make
Speaker 1: it almost eighty years in our country before we impeached
Speaker 1: a single president. Then we made it more than a
Speaker 1: hundred years after that before threatening to impeach another president.
Speaker 1: Now we've impeached two out of the last four. It
Speaker 1: seems like this is speeding up. It seems like we're
Speaker 1: getting into a situation where the Congress is just going
Speaker 1: to throw out presidents that they don't like. Are we
Speaker 1: doing this too much? Is this a bad sign for
Speaker 1: the country. I think it's very dangerous. I think if
Speaker 1: the House Democrats standard this time, if that's what holds
Speaker 1: going forward, any time you have a president of one
Speaker 1: party in a House of a different party, they're going
Speaker 1: to impeach him. We're just going to see this as
Speaker 1: a standard tool of political warfare. You know, you look
Speaker 1: at the two articles of impeachment the House voted out
Speaker 1: neither one of them alleges a crime, right like like
Speaker 1: on their face, they don't allege any violation of criminal law.
Speaker 1: They don't allege any violation of civil law. Well, if
Speaker 1: you don't allege the law was broken, it's not a
Speaker 1: high crime or miss demeanor. And that what was interesting
Speaker 1: about today. So this was all about whether to call
Speaker 1: additional witnesses. Now, look, the House had seventeen witnesses. They
Speaker 1: only called prosecution witnesses. They didn't let the defense call witnesses.
Speaker 1: But getting here, house managers wanted to call a whole
Speaker 1: bunch more witnesses. They wanted to go on a fishing expedition,
Speaker 1: right and and sort of And why did they by
Speaker 1: the way, because they were trying to call They called
Speaker 1: all these witnesses, and they they heard them out, and
Speaker 1: then they took the impeachment vote. If they wanted more witnesses,
Speaker 1: why didn't they call them before the impeachment vote? Because
Speaker 1: they haven't proven the case, right, and they know they
Speaker 1: don't have the evidence. You don't rewind, go go back
Speaker 1: a month or two. You may remember during the House
Speaker 1: proceedings there was a time when suddenly all the House
Speaker 1: Democrats began talking about bribery and I actually do stories
Speaker 1: explained why they did it, which is the D Triple C.
Speaker 1: THET Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did focus grouping in and
Speaker 1: pulled it and discovered briberies really bad. People don't like bribery.
Speaker 1: They're mad when their president's bribed. And and just about
Speaker 1: every House Democrat, like flipping a switch, began saying bribery, bribery, bribery. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what, bribery is an impeachable offense. If you
Speaker 1: can prove bribery, you got him. But the articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment don't allege bribery. Could They considered doing it right,
Speaker 1: and then they pulled it back. And that's their problem
Speaker 1: right now is they heard that this witness testimony, they
Speaker 1: heard all this evidence, and they can't prove their case.
Speaker 1: So what they want to do is they want to
Speaker 1: try to bring in as many witnesses as they can
Speaker 1: and and go phishing try to find something to back
Speaker 1: up their case. What the Senate ended up doing today
Speaker 1: is we adopted a procedural order, basically a way of proceeding.
Speaker 1: And it is very very similar to what the Senate
Speaker 1: did in the Bill Clinton impeachment. Bill Clinton impeachment had
Speaker 1: two phases. Phase one was opening arguments and questions from
Speaker 1: senators and there were no witnesses. There were no consideration
Speaker 1: of witnesses in phase one. And then after that the
Speaker 1: Senate debated and thought about should we have additional witnesses.
Speaker 1: They end up calling a few additional witnesses for depositions.
Speaker 1: So what we did today, what Senate Republicans did is
Speaker 1: took an order very very similar to the Clinton order.
Speaker 1: By the way, that order was approved one hundred and nothing.
Speaker 1: It was bipartisan, it was unanimous, every Democrat, every Republican,
Speaker 1: but Senator that was then. This is now. That was
Speaker 1: when it was a democratic president. And now obviously, and
Speaker 1: I say this somewhat jokingly, but there is a lot
Speaker 1: of hypocrisy that's going around between these two impeachments that
Speaker 1: there is massive hypocrisy. Now, look, I will recognize hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is a problem on both sides of the islets. It's
Speaker 1: not like Democrats have a monopoly on that, but it
Speaker 1: is striking the recency of the hypocrisy. You know, there
Speaker 1: was one moment where Pat Zippoloni, the President's White House counsel,
Speaker 1: led the defense team. He quoted from Berry Nadler, who
Speaker 1: just a few months ago had said a partisan impeachment
Speaker 1: from just one country would never work. It would be
Speaker 1: bitter and divisive and rip the country apart from just
Speaker 1: one party if you had just one party pushing this,
Speaker 1: as the Democrats have in this impeachment. And what's interesting
Speaker 1: is that wasn't Jerry Nadler talking during the Clinton impeachment,
Speaker 1: although he said that back then. That was him last year, right,
Speaker 1: That was him trying to push back the far left
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party saying no, no no, no, we can't
Speaker 1: impeach this guy because it can't be partisan. Unfortunately, that's
Speaker 1: where we are. And I think the way it's going
Speaker 1: to work going forward is we're going to have opening arguments.
Speaker 1: It's going to start with the house managers. They got
Speaker 1: twenty four hours initially, by the way, our scheduling order
Speaker 1: provided for two days, twenty four hours over two days.
Speaker 1: The Democrats were screaming all day, two days is terrible.
Speaker 1: We can't possibly do it in two days. You guys
Speaker 1: are to cover up trying to give us twenty four
Speaker 1: not a trial, it's a cover up. By the way
Speaker 1: that Bill Clinton impeachment order twenty four hours exactly that's
Speaker 1: an inconvenient fact. But okay, sure, so it's actually one
Speaker 1: of the things actually that the Senate Republicans had, Fine,
Speaker 1: we'll give you three days, so instead of twenty four
Speaker 1: hours over two days, twelve hours a day, we'll give
Speaker 1: you twenty four hours over three days, eight hours a day.
Speaker 1: I really hope that doesn't mean that the next three
Speaker 1: days we're going to listen to eight hours of them
Speaker 1: repeating the same arguments. Yet, it was interesting today this
Speaker 1: was supposed to be fighting over pre trial witnesses, but
Speaker 1: the Democrats basically gave their opening arguments. Yes, and that
Speaker 1: actually was somewhat unexpected. Right out the bat Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: seemed to be making the argument on impeachment, not on
Speaker 1: these questions of whether they're going to call John Bolton
Speaker 1: or some other relevant witness. Well, and I think that's
Speaker 1: actually what House Democrats did most effectively today for the
Speaker 1: first several hours, is they told their story. They treated
Speaker 1: this pre trial fight as an open argument. They were
Speaker 1: talking to the American people. I thought the first couple
Speaker 1: of hours they're pretty effective. And then it just started
Speaker 1: getting They just started repeating it and getting angrier and
Speaker 1: angrier as the day went on. You know, as I
Speaker 1: look at the White House defense team, I think they've
Speaker 1: got some very talented lawyers. I think they made some
Speaker 1: good arguments today, but I also think they got two
Speaker 1: mired down in process, that there was too much being
Speaker 1: lawyers and making lawyerly arguments. And what I hope we
Speaker 1: see in the days to come from from from the
Speaker 1: President's defense team is number one, that they get more
Speaker 1: into the substantive arguments, not just the process, not just
Speaker 1: the minutia, but the fundamental substantive argument that this was
Speaker 1: not this was not a high crime or misdemeanor, that
Speaker 1: it is always within a president's authority and a government's
Speaker 1: authority to investigate corruption, and I mean to address the
Speaker 1: substance and also to tell a story that's something. Look,
Speaker 1: you could see the Democrats of trial lawyers their telen
Speaker 1: stories not just to the hundred senators in the room
Speaker 1: right but to the folks at home watching. I think
Speaker 1: we need to do a better job telling a story
Speaker 1: as well. And it's especially needed because the President hasn't
Speaker 1: had a chance to tell his story. The whole House
Speaker 1: proceeding they shut down the minority didn't allow minority witnesses,
Speaker 1: so we need to tell the basic narrative. That's what
Speaker 1: the President needs to tell. I think that's what the
Speaker 1: Senate needs to tell is focus on the facts and substance,
Speaker 1: not a lot of rhetoric, not a lot of anger
Speaker 1: and emotion. I want to ask you about a specific
Speaker 1: story that Congressman Adam Schiff, one of the House impeachment managers,
Speaker 1: was telling today, really because I think most people have
Speaker 1: no expertise on it at all, including myself. Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: seemed to suggest that there is pretty much no role
Speaker 1: for the judiciary in impeachment proceedings. He said, we got
Speaker 1: to get the courts out of it, we got to
Speaker 1: get the judges out of it. And I thought it
Speaker 1: was a very odd thing to say while Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts was presiding over the impeachment as per the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Did shift just get it wrong? I mean, what is
Speaker 1: the what is the balance of power here is? So look,
Speaker 1: if you look at the role of impeachment, impeachment itself
Speaker 1: is a combination of the two branches. If you look
Speaker 1: in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes from the Federalist
Speaker 1: Papers about how the Framers struggled with to whom to
Speaker 1: give trying impeachment, and they wanted a body that was independent.
Speaker 1: They wanted a body that had credibility, and they chose
Speaker 1: the Senate. They considered the Supreme Court. So they were there,
Speaker 1: they considered, maybe we should have the Supreme Court try impeachment.
Speaker 1: They said, now let's give it to the Senate, but
Speaker 1: let's make the Chief Justice preside. And so it was
Speaker 1: sort of a hybrid of the two if you look
Speaker 1: at privilege questions, So all of the debate about witnesses
Speaker 1: comes right down to privilege and an executive privilege. Executive
Speaker 1: privilege is something every president has had. It's it's it's
Speaker 1: the ability to have your closest advisors, your national security advisor,
Speaker 1: give you candid advice without being hauled into Congress and
Speaker 1: put on national television. Now asserting privilege. Look, we're all
Speaker 1: familiar with attorney client privilege. You talk to your lawyer.
Speaker 1: Your lawyer can't be brought in and put in the
Speaker 1: stand as a general matter, to tell them what to
Speaker 1: tell everyone what you said to your lawyer. Their spousal privilege.
Speaker 1: You know, you tell your wife or your husband something
Speaker 1: at night that they can't force your wife to come
Speaker 1: into court and testify against you. Now, they're exceptions to it,
Speaker 1: but privileges are commonplace, and courts routinely litigate privileges. Those
Speaker 1: are those are questions courts are used to considering. In
Speaker 1: this case, the House Democrats, frankly, I think are playing games,
Speaker 1: and the best way to understand it is look at
Speaker 1: John Bolton. A lot of the argument today was about
Speaker 1: John Bolton, john Bolton's national security advisor to the President.
Speaker 1: So House Democrats said, we want John Bolton to testify.
Speaker 1: And John Bolton did something very interesting and I think
Speaker 1: very clever. John Bolton's lawyer went to a federal court
Speaker 1: in DC and filed a pleading that said, Judge, my
Speaker 1: client has two conflicting obligations. House Democrats have asked him
Speaker 1: to become testify, but the White House has asserted executive privileges,
Speaker 1: said he can't testify. And John Bolton's lawyer said, look,
Speaker 1: my client doesn't know what to do, so your honor,
Speaker 1: he'll do whatever you tell him to do. We put
Speaker 1: ourself at the mercy of the court. You, judge, tell
Speaker 1: John Bolton what he should do. The next step is remarkable.
Speaker 1: You know what the House Democrats did they said, never mind.
Speaker 1: They literally backed off. So there was another guy, Charles Cooperman,
Speaker 1: who was John Bolton's deputy, who they'd issued a subpoena for.
Speaker 1: They withdrew the subpoena from Cooperman, and they told the
Speaker 1: court we're not going to subpoena John Bolt. Never mind.
Speaker 1: We're not going to call him as a witness, we're
Speaker 1: not going to subpoena him, we're not going to fight him.
Speaker 1: And then they get to the sentence. The first thing
Speaker 1: they want to do a subpoena John Bolt, and they
Speaker 1: literally passed on it in the house. Contrast that to
Speaker 1: the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Now Nixon ultimately resigned, but
Speaker 1: if you remember, there was a lot of litigation concerning
Speaker 1: Nixon and you had a grand jury subpoena for the
Speaker 1: White House tapes, remember the Oval office. Dixon had a
Speaker 1: tape tape recording system. Bad idea, but he did it,
Speaker 1: very bad idea. By the way, as an aside, I
Speaker 1: don't understand all the people who have ALEXA in their house, like, like,
Speaker 1: why exactly you want to bring a tape recorder into
Speaker 1: your home twenty four hours a day. We're just matockists
Speaker 1: glutton for a bunny. You know, it really would be
Speaker 1: different if they renamed Alexa like like Tricky Dick. People
Speaker 1: would be much much more nervous about it. Okay, set
Speaker 1: that aside. In that case, the litigation went all the
Speaker 1: way to the US Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: issued an order to the White House hand over the tape,
Speaker 1: and it was I think two days later Richard Nixon resigns. Right,
Speaker 1: that's actually the right way to do it. Look, if
Speaker 1: the House Democrats wanted to get John Bolton's testimony, they
Speaker 1: should have subpoenaed him, and they should have fought for it.
Speaker 1: And and the claims of privilege are real, they're serious.
Speaker 1: You don't laugh about them and dismiss them. You fight
Speaker 1: about them and litigate them and resolve them. And that
Speaker 1: can be done relatively quickly. As we saw with Nixon
Speaker 1: in this case, they're not interested in that. This is
Speaker 1: ultimately about a political attack on the president more than
Speaker 1: anything else. Well, what I want to know is what
Speaker 1: lunch was like today in the Senate dining hall. But
Speaker 1: by that I mean is the Senate taking this seriously
Speaker 1: or does everyone Everyone's just made up their mind and
Speaker 1: they're dragging it out because I don't know. You tell me, Well, look,
Speaker 1: number one, when we have lunch in the Senate, we
Speaker 1: don't have lunch together. All the Republicans have lunch together,
Speaker 1: all the Democrats. I mean, it's sort of like the
Speaker 1: Crypts of the Bloods. I mean it is. It is
Speaker 1: a much geekier, much older version cool. I don't know,
Speaker 1: very yeah, danger um. You know, bill cream is a
Speaker 1: really popular product. It's and that's true every day in
Speaker 1: the Senate. But the way it's working now during impeachment,
Speaker 1: we're starting every day at one pm under the Senate rules,
Speaker 1: that's when the trial starts, right, So the Republicans were
Speaker 1: having lunch meeting eleven thirty or noon each day. So
Speaker 1: we went and had lunch, and we're having a vigorous
Speaker 1: discussion about about the upcoming trial. And it's actually where
Speaker 1: so Mitch McConnell had drafted I mentioned earlier, had drafted
Speaker 1: that each side we get twenty four hours over two days.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats had been screaming that was a massive
Speaker 1: cover up, but it was actually Republican senators. They said,
Speaker 1: you know what, if they want an extra day, give
Speaker 1: them an extra day. Save twenty four hours. But if
Speaker 1: they want three days instead of two, finally, let them
Speaker 1: not the end of the world. I thought that was
Speaker 1: a very I agreed with that. I thought that was
Speaker 1: a reasonable thing to do. And of course it didn't
Speaker 1: stop the complaining at all. You give them, give them
Speaker 1: what they want, and they still say it's a massive
Speaker 1: cover of it. But but that was most of the
Speaker 1: discussion actually at lunch today. Going forward, so we're going
Speaker 1: to have opening arguments from the House three days, opening
Speaker 1: arguments from the White House three days, although I guarantee
Speaker 1: you they're not going to go three days. I think
Speaker 1: they will be much shorter than that. We've then got
Speaker 1: sixteen hours of questions from senators, and the questions are
Speaker 1: a little bit weird. It's not going to be individual
Speaker 1: senators asking questions. As much as I would love to
Speaker 1: cross examine these House managers, and I promise you I
Speaker 1: would love love to go out. I'd be looking forward
Speaker 1: to it, Senate rules don't allow it. So our questions
Speaker 1: have to be written. I got to write them down
Speaker 1: and then the Chief Justice asks them. And it's sixteen
Speaker 1: hours and it alternates typically Democrat Republican, Democrat Republican, So,
Speaker 1: by the way, anyone listen to this, let me let
Speaker 1: me say, if you have a question that you think
Speaker 1: needs to be asked, needs to be asked to the
Speaker 1: house managers, or needs to be asked to the White
Speaker 1: House team, use Twitter. I'm at Ted Cruz and and
Speaker 1: just use the hashtag verdict, and we're going to be
Speaker 1: watching Twitter to get from you. I have to say,
Speaker 1: as as absolutely tedious as the hearings were today, I
Speaker 1: was so excited to wait three in the morning to
Speaker 1: come here because it is not possible to get closer.
Speaker 1: You really need to get more. I need to get
Speaker 1: I need a hobby, I need It's really not possible
Speaker 1: to get closer to this impeachment trial than you. I mean,
Speaker 1: then one of the jurors, who is there, who is
Speaker 1: enduring all of these these tedious arguments all the time,
Speaker 1: and who's seeing this truly historical event happen. What I
Speaker 1: want to ask you, though, is you put in a
Speaker 1: thirteen hour work day, not exactly probably the most pleasant
Speaker 1: day you've had in the Senate, and then you decide
Speaker 1: to come immediately here to this studio and do this podcast.
Speaker 1: What are you thinking? Why on earth are you doing that? Look,
Speaker 1: substance matters. This is a time where our country is divided,
Speaker 1: I mean is angry. I mean we see emotion, we
Speaker 1: see bitter anger. I think truth and substance matters. I
Speaker 1: think facts matter. I think the Constitution matters. And so
Speaker 1: this podcast during impeachment, we're going to do it each
Speaker 1: night coming and just just just talking about what happened.
Speaker 1: Then we will be covering this every single night as
Speaker 1: the impeachment trial unfolds, and then of course there will
Speaker 1: be a whole lot more to talk about as well.
Speaker 1: But but on issues going forward. You know, if you
Speaker 1: turn on cable TV, you get people in five six
Speaker 1: minutes snippets they're yelling at each other, that are engaged
Speaker 1: in just political rhetoric. We need to be talking to
Speaker 1: actual you know, when you asked me about high crimes
Speaker 1: and misdemeanors, I could just say this isn't it Why
Speaker 1: because my party is the one in the White House.
Speaker 1: Well that's not the right answer. Let's actually talk about
Speaker 1: what the constitutional standard is. And that's true on issue
Speaker 1: after issue, whether it's it's it's it's free enterprise versus socialism,
Speaker 1: whether it's it's it's it's it's gun control versus the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, every issue. I think we need to engage more.
Speaker 1: We need to win people's hearts and minds, and so
Speaker 1: what I hope to do is have have conversations really
Speaker 1: talking about issues that matter, and that's what this podcast
Speaker 1: is all about. Right. They don't necessarily get a hearing
Speaker 1: on TV. Unfortunately, they often don't get much of a
Speaker 1: hearing in the Senate. But we're hoping to flesh that
Speaker 1: out here year, and we'll be able to speak, of
Speaker 1: course to all of the listeners. So definitely they should
Speaker 1: send those questions, and would also be great, of course
Speaker 1: if all of the listeners could subscribe to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz and leave a five star review. You know. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I was just getting excited for us to get into
Speaker 1: the really important public policy matters like mexit. You know,
Speaker 1: Megan Markle and Prince Harry, we're going to touch on
Speaker 1: things that matter. But we've run out of time and
Speaker 1: you need to get back to the Hill and get
Speaker 1: back to the Senate with an I don't know, three
Speaker 1: or four hours or something like that. It's to tomorrow
Speaker 1: one o'clock. Presumably we start with opening arguments, although I
Speaker 1: don't know if we will see house managers try to
Speaker 1: do more delay tech, because I hope not. I hope
Speaker 1: they actually dive in into the Barretts. And I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to the President's defense team having a chance to
Speaker 1: lay out the subsident merits they need to get into
Speaker 1: that more. I think it's important for the American people
Speaker 1: to hear it, and we haven't seen it yet, and
Speaker 1: maybe we'll see it tomorrow. And certainly whatever happens tomorrow,
Speaker 1: and all we can expect is the unc expected. We
Speaker 1: will be right back here breaking it down with as
Speaker 1: inside a review as you can possibly get. On the Senate,
Speaker 1: on the impeachment trial, and of course on the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Be sure to tune back tomorrow. I'm Michael Knowles. This
Speaker 1: is verdict with Ted Cruz.