Speaker 1: Who is ray EPs. This is verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruz is sponsored by American Hartford Goal.
Speaker 1: I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed everything
Speaker 1: is getting expensive. We are in the biggest economic crisis
Speaker 1: since two thousand and eight, with a government that's printing
Speaker 1: trillions and trillions of dollars. Consumer prices are the highest
Speaker 1: we've seen in thirty years. Inflation is certainly here to stay,
Speaker 1: and if the government continues it's out of control printing
Speaker 1: and spending, the dollar could continue its free fall and
Speaker 1: lose its coveted role as the world reserve currency. So
Speaker 1: how do you protect your money, your retirement, your savings. Well,
Speaker 1: American Hertford Gold can show you how to head your
Speaker 1: heart earned savings against inflation by helping you diversify a
Speaker 1: portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. They'll
Speaker 1: even help move your existing IRA or four O one
Speaker 1: K out of the volatile stock market into a precious
Speaker 1: metals IRA, and they make it easy. They are the
Speaker 1: highest rated for in the country, with an A plus
Speaker 1: rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients.
Speaker 1: And if you call them right now, they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first qualifying order, so don't wait, call them now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five, seven, six, eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: That's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or text cactus to six five five three two Again
Speaker 1: that's eight five five seven, six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or text cactus to six five five three two. Verdict
Speaker 1: with ted Cruise is also sponsored by stamps dot com.
Speaker 1: If you've got a small business, you know there's nothing
Speaker 1: more valuable than your time, so stop wasting it on
Speaker 1: trips to the post office. Stamps dot com makes it
Speaker 1: easy to mail and ship right from your computer. So
Speaker 1: save time and money with stamps dot com. Send letters
Speaker 1: and packages from less with discounted rates from USPS, UPS
Speaker 1: and more. Since nineteen ninety eight, stamps dot Com has
Speaker 1: been an indispensable tool for nearly one million businesses. Stamps
Speaker 1: dot Com brings the services of the US Postal Service
Speaker 1: and UPS shipping right to your computer. Whether you're an
Speaker 1: office sending invoices, a side hutstle, Etsy shop, or a
Speaker 1: full blown warehouse shipping out orders, stamps dot com will
Speaker 1: make your life easier. All you need is a computer
Speaker 1: and a standard printer, no special supplies or equipment. Within minutes,
Speaker 1: you're up and running printing official postage for any letter,
Speaker 1: any package, anywhere you want to send, and you'll get
Speaker 1: exclusive discounts on postage and shipping from usps and ups.
Speaker 1: Once your mail is ready, you just schedule a pickup
Speaker 1: or drop it off. No traffic, no lines. Cut the
Speaker 1: confusion out of shipping. With stamps dot COM's new Rate
Speaker 1: Advisor tool, you can compare shipping rates and timelines to
Speaker 1: easily find the best option, so save time and money.
Speaker 1: With stamps dot com, there's no risk and with our
Speaker 1: promo code Verdict, you can get a special offer that
Speaker 1: includes a four week trial plus free postage and a
Speaker 1: digital scale, no long term commitments or contracts. Just go
Speaker 1: to stamps dot com, click on the microphone at the
Speaker 1: top of the homepage and type in Verdict. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Verdict for Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knolls and Senator.
Speaker 1: It's just a very simple question with which you set
Speaker 1: the Internet and the Senate on fire today. Who is
Speaker 1: Ray Epps and specifically, what was the FBI's involvement in
Speaker 1: January sixth? Well, look, I think it is a very
Speaker 1: good question, and it's a question right now we don't
Speaker 1: have an answer to. We have seen for the past
Speaker 1: year the Biden Department of Justice, the Biden FBI Stonewall,
Speaker 1: refused to answer questions, refused to take any accountability. And
Speaker 1: we've also seen, sadly the Biden Department of Justice be
Speaker 1: deeply politicized. We've seen this Attorney general used d J
Speaker 1: as a weapon to go after President Biden's political enemies.
Speaker 1: And ray Epps was a fellow who was there on
Speaker 1: January fifth. January sixth, there are numerous videos of him
Speaker 1: on the Capitol, on the Capitol grounds and leading up
Speaker 1: to the Capitol, urging people to enter into the Capitol.
Speaker 1: And in particular there there's one video that is that
Speaker 1: is very curious where he's you know, he's wearing a
Speaker 1: Maga hat. He certainly appears to be a Trump supporter,
Speaker 1: and he's screaming to the crowd, Uh, this is the
Speaker 1: day before January sixth, this is January fifth. He's saying,
Speaker 1: we must go into the Capitol, not just up to
Speaker 1: the capitol, we must go into the capitol. Let's take
Speaker 1: a look at it. Because the crowd's reaction is is remarkable. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: he didn't you go into the capitol, So, Michael, it's
Speaker 1: it's very curious behavior. The crowd, as you see, begins
Speaker 1: channing fed fed, fed, fed fed. And the next day
Speaker 1: on January sixth, there they're also potographs of this fellow,
Speaker 1: mister Epps, talking to someone else wearing a trump had
Speaker 1: whispering in his ear. And then five seconds later, and
Speaker 1: you can actually on the video see that it's a
Speaker 1: total of five seconds, the person he was talking to
Speaker 1: is suddenly trying to tear down the barricades to the Capitol.
Speaker 1: And the obvious inference is that mister Epps urged him
Speaker 1: to try to tear down the barricades. That's certainly what
Speaker 1: the fellow does five seconds after listening to whatever it
Speaker 1: is that mister Epps says. Now, the FBI posted a
Speaker 1: public posting with a picture of mister Epps asking for
Speaker 1: help identifying this person. Who is this person? They identified
Speaker 1: him as someone that they wanted to question that presumably
Speaker 1: they potentially wanted to charge, and then magically he disappeared
Speaker 1: from the FBI posting, and when they put out the
Speaker 1: next list of pictures, mister Epps was gone, and I
Speaker 1: think a lot of folks are wanting to know what
Speaker 1: I asked today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I
Speaker 1: asked the FBI senior official at the FBI if mister
Speaker 1: Epps was a fed what was he a federal agent?
Speaker 1: Was he a confidential informant? Was he actively We saw
Speaker 1: that he was actively urging people to commit criminal conduct?
Speaker 1: But what was he doing so at the behest of
Speaker 1: the FBI and the Department of Justice and the FBI
Speaker 1: and DJ refuse to answer that, did any FBI agents
Speaker 1: or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence?
Speaker 1: On January sixth, six Sir, I can't answer that, Miss Saburn.
Speaker 1: Who is Ray Epps? Yep, I'm aware of the individual, Sir,
Speaker 1: I don't have the specific background to him. Well, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who are understandably desired about
Speaker 1: mister Eburn about I mean, these four words, these are
Speaker 1: a completely valid question. It doesn't matter which end of
Speaker 1: the political spectrum you're on. This is a question that
Speaker 1: we all want to know the answer, because here's the thing,
Speaker 1: this should be a very easy question for the FBI
Speaker 1: to answer. If the FBI knows that ray Epps is
Speaker 1: not a FED, then they should just deny it to
Speaker 1: put an end to these questions. I mean, those on
Speaker 1: the left try to paint this as a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: It's not. It's a valid question because the FBI's engaged
Speaker 1: in this type of entrapment behavior before, with the Gretchen
Speaker 1: Whittmer plot, for example, and so all the FBI has
Speaker 1: to say is, no, he's not a FED. No, FEDS
Speaker 1: did not engage in any kind of entrapment behavior, and
Speaker 1: yet the FBI is refusing to do so. And listen
Speaker 1: to this. This is the statement from the January sixth Committee.
Speaker 1: They say, quote, the Committee has interviewed Epps. Epps informed
Speaker 1: us that he was not working, that he was not
Speaker 1: employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of
Speaker 1: any law enforcement agency on January fifth or sixth, or
Speaker 1: at any other time, and that he has never been
Speaker 1: an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency.
Speaker 1: This is the statement from the January sixth Committee. And
Speaker 1: honestly I laughed when I saw this because ray Epps
Speaker 1: them using ray Epps's words his denial that he was
Speaker 1: a FED, as I guess their insinuation that he has
Speaker 1: not a FED. I thought to myself, well, Ray ups
Speaker 1: denying he's a FED is exactly what he would say
Speaker 1: if he were a FED. It does raise more questions
Speaker 1: than I think it answers, and we will have a
Speaker 1: lot of questions from our wonderful subscribers are Verdict plus
Speaker 1: subscribers coming up in the mailbag not too long from now.
Speaker 1: Is that right? That is correct? And there are questions
Speaker 1: related to I mean, as you know this, this clip
Speaker 1: of your senator went wildly viral on social media, millions
Speaker 1: of views, and a lot of people have questions about
Speaker 1: how this can be investigated and what kind of accountability
Speaker 1: there would be if these questions are not answered correctly,
Speaker 1: or if they're answered in the way that we think
Speaker 1: they might be answered. I'm going to go over there
Speaker 1: and collect all of those will answer them at the
Speaker 1: end of the show. Anybody who wants to ask a
Speaker 1: question can join us on Verdict plus at Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz dot com slash plus and I'll see in
Speaker 1: a few minutes, wonderful we'll seeing a second Senator. I
Speaker 1: want to get to what Liz just brought up, which
Speaker 1: is that the January sixth committee partisan, though it may
Speaker 1: be is saying that Ray Epp says he's not a FED,
Speaker 1: he's never been an informant. So what do we make
Speaker 1: of that? Oh, well, it could be true. It could
Speaker 1: be false that the January sixth committee is wildly partisan.
Speaker 1: It is a kangaroo committee. It is set up by
Speaker 1: Democrats with an explicit purpose to elect Democrats, and it's
Speaker 1: going to be a partisan show committee from day one.
Speaker 1: So I don't give a lot of credence to their statements.
Speaker 1: I don't know if if mister Epps is a FED
Speaker 1: or not. His behavior is odd, it's weird when you
Speaker 1: watch how he behaved, how the crowd reacted to him,
Speaker 1: when they start channing FED that that's fairly suspicious. And look,
Speaker 1: it's important to distinguish. The FBI has federal agents, and
Speaker 1: they have federal agents who go undercover. That that is
Speaker 1: a legitimate law enforcement investigative technique to go undercover in groups,
Speaker 1: particularly if you anticipate that that that criminal conduct may occur.
Speaker 1: What the FBI can't do and shouldn't do, and it's
Speaker 1: improper for them to do, is for them to instigate
Speaker 1: criminal conduct. So the FBI can't join the Michael Knowles
Speaker 1: book club, and while you're sitting there reading some incredibly dry,
Speaker 1: you know, Latin book about the medieval times, say hey,
Speaker 1: let's go knock off a bank tomorrow. Come on, Michael,
Speaker 1: are you mad enough to knock knock over a bank?
Speaker 1: If the FBI agent instigates the criminal activity, if the
Speaker 1: FDBI agents incite you to commit criminal activity, that's where
Speaker 1: they cross the line. And the reason so many people
Speaker 1: are concerned about mister Repps is what we saw in
Speaker 1: the video. He is urging people to commit criminal activity
Speaker 1: that ultimately a lot of people have been are being
Speaker 1: prosecuted for. And so it was really stunning. I asked
Speaker 1: the FBI over and over and over again, did FBI
Speaker 1: agents commit acts of violence? On January sixth, the FBI
Speaker 1: refused to answer that question whether or not FBI agents
Speaker 1: committed acts of violence. I asked, did they incentivize, did
Speaker 1: they incite? Did they urge others to commit acts of violence? Again,
Speaker 1: the FBI refused to answer. And look, I get most
Speaker 1: law enforcement agencies. If you ask them, do you have
Speaker 1: an undercover officer or do you have an informant somewhere,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say, I'm not going to tell you, and
Speaker 1: then that's fairly typical law enforcement behavior. This is unusual
Speaker 1: the level of public scrutiny. There is a public accountability
Speaker 1: that needs to occur. If the federal government was actively
Speaker 1: encouraging illegal conduct, was actively encouraging violence, that is incredibly
Speaker 1: concerning because it is an abusive power. And look, everyone
Speaker 1: views this in the context that we remember the four
Speaker 1: years of the Trump presidency. We remember the FBI, the
Speaker 1: intelligence community, in the Department of Justice, in the deep
Speaker 1: state actively conspiring against the president. We remember the FBI
Speaker 1: fraudulently altering a document submitting it to a federal court,
Speaker 1: creating counterfeit. And by the way, this is not me
Speaker 1: saying this, This is the Department of Justice Inspector General
Speaker 1: that outlined how these deep state operatives were so passionately
Speaker 1: anti Trump that they broke the law. And so it
Speaker 1: does raise the question did that happen on January sixth?
Speaker 1: And the fact that the Biden Department of Justice refuses
Speaker 1: to answer is deeply, deeply concerning. And I got to say,
Speaker 1: even for Democrats it ought to be concerning. And I'm
Speaker 1: not going to out anybody, but I will tell you
Speaker 1: I had a conversation with a Democratic senator today who
Speaker 1: saw the questioning in Judiciary and he said, you know,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I'd never heard of this guy
Speaker 1: ray Apps before or that hearing. That's really troubling. And
Speaker 1: he said, I'd like to know that answer now. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to out this senator because it frankly he
Speaker 1: or she would come under a lot of heat for
Speaker 1: saying that publicly because the Democrats don't let you buck
Speaker 1: their party. But if anyone genuinely cares about the integrity
Speaker 1: of law enforcement, you ought to be troubled by law
Speaker 1: enforcement in trapping people incentivizing criminal conduct. That's not what
Speaker 1: law enforcement is supposed to be doing. And I think
Speaker 1: the Biden DOJ needs to have some real transparency answering
Speaker 1: these questions. But how are we going to get an answer?
Speaker 1: Because you, I think brought this issue and this man
Speaker 1: ray Apps to national attention today in a way that
Speaker 1: he had not been before. But the FBI just stonewalled
Speaker 1: you and said, well, we're not going to tell you. Well,
Speaker 1: we're not going to tell you. Well, I can't answer that,
Speaker 1: and you know, apologies, but I don't exactly take the
Speaker 1: FBI at their word, especially these stays, so are we
Speaker 1: ever going to if a United States Senator in an
Speaker 1: open hearing can't get an answer out of the FBI,
Speaker 1: is that it We just have to believe them because
Speaker 1: they say so. Well, it doesn't have to be. Look,
Speaker 1: Republicans are in the minority right now in the Senate,
Speaker 1: so I lack the ability to subpoena anything. It takes
Speaker 1: a majority of a committee to subpoena something. If you
Speaker 1: had even one Democrat willing to break from the herd
Speaker 1: and say let's get an answer to that, that would
Speaker 1: be a step in the right direction. What needs to
Speaker 1: happen at this point, The first step we can do
Speaker 1: is shina light. What needs to happen is we need
Speaker 1: reporters actually do their job. We need reporters to ask
Speaker 1: the Attorney General who has ray apps? Did you have
Speaker 1: confidential informants? Did they incite violence? What are the details?
Speaker 1: You need reporters to ask Democratic senators why don't you care?
Speaker 1: Why aren't you asking this question? Why are you allowing
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice to stonewall We need sufficient public
Speaker 1: uproar that the Department of Justice is forced to have
Speaker 1: some accountability. It may take until a year from now.
Speaker 1: A year from now, I believe we will have at
Speaker 1: a minimum of Republican House of Representatives. We may and
Speaker 1: I hope we'll have a Republican Senate a year from
Speaker 1: now as well. If that happens, I very much hope
Speaker 1: that we see a House and or a House and
Speaker 1: Senate willing to use the subpoena power to get answers
Speaker 1: to this. But but absent that, we've got to have
Speaker 1: enough public attention that the Democrats are guilted or shamed
Speaker 1: or feel enough heat that they have to answer questions
Speaker 1: and get to the truth. I don't think that it
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense right now to expect bipartisanship,
Speaker 1: because last I checked, the Democrats are trying to whip
Speaker 1: all the votes they can to get rid of the filibuster,
Speaker 1: to ram through the federalization of elections. You actually have
Speaker 1: come to be the public enemy number one, at least
Speaker 1: for the White House. They're whipping votes against you on
Speaker 1: this issue of Nordstream two and Russia trying to build
Speaker 1: a pipeline. So it does seem like the stakes are
Speaker 1: very very high right now, and any Democrat who bucks
Speaker 1: the party line is going to be thrown into the
Speaker 1: outer darkness. Well, Michael, that's exactly right. The Biden White
Speaker 1: House is fighting me tooth and dale on multiple fronts.
Speaker 1: They're fighting me on January sixth, they're fighting me trying
Speaker 1: to cover up what happened. They're fighting me on the
Speaker 1: filibuster and their attempt to federalize elections. And they're fighting
Speaker 1: me ironically in defense of Russia and Nordstream two. You know,
Speaker 1: if you look at January six the other half of
Speaker 1: the hearing this morning is I asked the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: I said, all right, how many people have been charged
Speaker 1: with crimes of violence? If you assault a police officer,
Speaker 1: if you physically assault a police officer, you should be prosecutor,
Speaker 1: you should go to jail. Nobody should be able to
Speaker 1: violently assault a cop. But I asked, especially if it's
Speaker 1: a fan who's doing it. Yeah, how many people have
Speaker 1: been charged with crimes of violence? Barbent of Justice refused
Speaker 1: to answer. How many people have been charged with non
Speaker 1: violent crimes? They refused to answer. I asked how many
Speaker 1: people are currently incarcerated? They refused to answer. I asked
Speaker 1: of those people, how many have been placed in solitary confinement,
Speaker 1: both violent and nonviolent. They refused to answer, and then
Speaker 1: I asked, I said, all right, let's look at a
Speaker 1: different instance where we had violence across the country, which
Speaker 1: were Black Lives Mattered Antifa riots all over the country.
Speaker 1: So on January sixth, there were roughly one hundred and
Speaker 1: forty police officers who reported assaults on January sixth. That is,
Speaker 1: those cases involving violence need to be investigated and prosecuted.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots injured
Speaker 1: roughly seven hundred and fifty police officers nationwide, seven hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty cops. I asked the Department of Justice, though
Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty cops that we're injured. How many
Speaker 1: crimes of violence have been charged? I don't know the
Speaker 1: answer to that. How many nonviolent crimes have been charged?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. How do you
Speaker 1: explain the differential the political partisan prosecution that anybody you
Speaker 1: know a little old lady who came to the mall
Speaker 1: on January sixth waving an American flag and singing God
Speaker 1: Bless America, the Biden DOJ is going to come down
Speaker 1: on like a ton of bricks. But some Antifa rioter
Speaker 1: whose firebombing police cars, they can't be bothered to prosecute
Speaker 1: and the Biden DOJ just stiff arm did the Heisman said,
Speaker 1: we're not answering anything we don't know. There needs to
Speaker 1: be accountability there. On the filibuster, Chuck Schumer is trying
Speaker 1: to ram through an exception of the filibuster to federalize elections,
Speaker 1: and in particular what he wants as a bill that
Speaker 1: would subject any change in election laws to what's called preclarance.
Speaker 1: Preclarance means the Department of Justice, This same politicized Department
Speaker 1: of Justice that has no transparency, that is behaving in
Speaker 1: nakedly partisan ways. He wants unelected bureaucrats of the Biden
Speaker 1: Department of Justice in charge of every election of America,
Speaker 1: and he wants them to have the ability to strike
Speaker 1: down laws adopted by democratically elected legislature. So I represent
Speaker 1: the state of Texas. They're twenty nine million Texans. The
Speaker 1: people of the state of Texas support voter ID, support
Speaker 1: requiring an identification to go vote. Eighty percent of Americans
Speaker 1: support voter ID. The vast majority of African Americans support
Speaker 1: voter ID. Well, the head of the Civil Rights Division
Speaker 1: and Department of Justice, is a left wing activist, is
Speaker 1: one of the leading advocates of abolishing the police in
Speaker 1: the country. She is a hard liberal partisan, and the
Speaker 1: Schumer Democrats are saying she should have the power to
Speaker 1: Trump to set aside, to repeal laws that twenty nine
Speaker 1: million Texans through the democratic process want adopted. It is
Speaker 1: a brazen power grab, and I'm help leading the effort
Speaker 1: to stop they're destroying the filibuster, to stop there destroying
Speaker 1: the integrity of elections, to fight against voter fraud because
Speaker 1: Biden and Schumer and Pelosi have decided voter fraud is
Speaker 1: good for Democrats. But the issue here, of course is
Speaker 1: if we're getting back actually to the issue of ray
Speaker 1: Apps in the investigation of the FBI, we can't do
Speaker 1: anything until we win more elections and get a majority
Speaker 1: in the Senate. If the Democrats grab this power, it's
Speaker 1: going to be much much, much much harder. I think
Speaker 1: in a lot of Democrats minds, they think it will
Speaker 1: give them a permanent majority because they're going to be
Speaker 1: taking all the power for running the elections. So how
Speaker 1: urgent is this issue? Am I am? I just clutching
Speaker 1: my pearls and waking up in a cold sweat for
Speaker 1: no reason, or is there a genuine threat here. We're
Speaker 1: looking at a generational kind of powagram, So listen that
Speaker 1: there is a real threat here. On the filibuster. It
Speaker 1: all comes down to Joe Mansion and Kirsten Cinema. So
Speaker 1: far they have resisted ending the filibuster. What Schumer is
Speaker 1: trying is to say, well, let's just make a limited,
Speaker 1: narrow exception for voting rights, because voting rights are so
Speaker 1: important to mind you. The bill he's pushing actually undermines
Speaker 1: voting rights. It puts an unelected bureaucrat with the ability
Speaker 1: to throw out laws adopted through voting rights through the
Speaker 1: democratic process. So it's an anti voting rights bill. But
Speaker 1: their rhetoric they claim it's voting rights and listen, I
Speaker 1: don't know if the Democrats are going to do it
Speaker 1: or not. They're putting massive pressure on Mansion in Cinema.
Speaker 1: If they give into it, it will have a massive
Speaker 1: negative effect on the integrity of elections. It will be
Speaker 1: used to undermine voter id laws. It will be used
Speaker 1: to undermine laws prohibiting ballot harvesting. It will be used
Speaker 1: to undermine every reasonable, common sense law that states have
Speaker 1: adopted to try to protect the integrity of elections. So
Speaker 1: it is dangerous. Democrats are doing it nakedly as a
Speaker 1: power grab. But the irony is it's a power grab
Speaker 1: on like multiple levels. It's like an Escher painting that
Speaker 1: it folds in itself over and over again. What they
Speaker 1: want to do to elections is a power grab. The
Speaker 1: way they want to do it is a power grab
Speaker 1: because to eliminate the filibuster, they have to break the
Speaker 1: Senate rules in order to change the Senate rules. And
Speaker 1: you know, today I was part of a press conference
Speaker 1: with about a dozen other Republican senators where I and
Speaker 1: others had great fun reading from a Chuck Schumer's speech.
Speaker 1: By the way, those are words that have never before
Speaker 1: been uttered in the English language. Great fun reading from
Speaker 1: a Chuck Schumer's speech. But it was in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five where he was railing against some Republicans that
Speaker 1: we're talking about ending the filibuster then, and he said
Speaker 1: that if you break the rules to change the rules,
Speaker 1: that it would turn America into a quote banana republic,
Speaker 1: and that it would be quote doomsday for democracy. That
Speaker 1: is Charles Schumer on what knooking the filibuster would mean,
Speaker 1: and yet now he's trying banana republican doomsday for democracy
Speaker 1: to use the Schumer words. Why look, Frankly, the real
Speaker 1: reason is Schumer's terrified AOC is going to primary him
Speaker 1: from the left, and so he wants to give the
Speaker 1: crazy left everything they can in order to show just
Speaker 1: how tough he is. This theory, I've heard it whispered before,
Speaker 1: but this would explain it. Because Chuck Schumer is an
Speaker 1: institutionally very savvy guy. He's certainly not the most radical
Speaker 1: of the Democrats. I can't believe you said for the
Speaker 1: first time that you you enjoyed reading a Chuck Schumer speech.
Speaker 1: I'm saying for the first time, I agree with Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer on what would happen if we repealed the filibuster.
Speaker 1: But there is a legitimate threat from the most talked
Speaker 1: about politician in New York, and that would be AOC. Listen,
Speaker 1: I think he is looking over his left shoulder like crazy,
Speaker 1: and whatever she says, if he if she says jomp,
Speaker 1: he says how high he's in the air, and and
Speaker 1: and and doing backflips. And by the way, I gotta say,
Speaker 1: you know, the image of Chuck Schumer exerting himself athletically
Speaker 1: is really a frightening thought. Um, but it is almost
Speaker 1: complete and total that that that that that you know,
Speaker 1: when when AOC went down to party over the holidays
Speaker 1: and in in Miami, I expected to Schumer to show
Speaker 1: up in in uh in a bar at Mono Keiney
Speaker 1: just you know, partying alongside her. Thank you for putting
Speaker 1: that image in my head. To Senator on that note,
Speaker 1: should we bring our friend Liz back to hear from
Speaker 1: some of our listeners in the moment, we should, And Michael,
Speaker 1: you will wake up tonight in nightmares with the image
Speaker 1: of Chuck and the boorat Yep, it's already there. Liz.
Speaker 1: I just want to say, it's very mean to bring
Speaker 1: me back right at that reference, to put that in
Speaker 1: my mind. As you bring me back, you both you
Speaker 1: both owe me for that. You both owe me for that.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of good questions, fortunately none on
Speaker 1: that particular topic, but we have a lot of good questions. Senator,
Speaker 1: I want to combine this question. It's actually two questions,
Speaker 1: one from Bill Smith and one from Linda Brown. Bill Smith,
Speaker 1: Senator Crews also asked the question where is ray Epps?
Speaker 1: Why doesn't Congress subpoena him to appear? And Linda Brown says,
Speaker 1: what can be done to find out who ray Epps
Speaker 1: is and if the FBI are in collusion with the
Speaker 1: Democrats to instigate these riots. Well, Congress certainly could subpoena him.
Speaker 1: An individual committee could subpoena him, but it takes a
Speaker 1: majority on an eddy committee, and right now the Democrats
Speaker 1: have the majority. So it would take Democrats being willing
Speaker 1: to go along with it, and right now they're not
Speaker 1: willing to. If the January sixth Committee were anything other
Speaker 1: than a Democratic kangaroo court, they would subpoena him and
Speaker 1: bring him in for public testimony. But I'm not going
Speaker 1: to hold my breath there because that conflicts with their narrative.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, you know, there's information about where he's from.
Speaker 1: There's information on the internet. People are speculating. Again, I
Speaker 1: don't know this fellow. It may be that that that
Speaker 1: he's not. These are questions. His behavior is very curious,
Speaker 1: and the fact that the FBI was unwilling to deny
Speaker 1: it raises serious questions. But but it would take either
Speaker 1: course of legal force through a subpoena, which right now
Speaker 1: the Democrats have a monopoly on or it would take
Speaker 1: sufficient public scrutiny that the FBI and Department of Justice
Speaker 1: feels compelled to actually answer the questions. Right now, I
Speaker 1: think they believe they are totally unaccountable, that there is
Speaker 1: no there are consequences for their conduct, and that's really
Speaker 1: a dangerous dynamic. Look, it's frankly what we saw earlier
Speaker 1: this year when Merrick Garland directed the FBI to go
Speaker 1: after and target parents at school boards as domestic terrorists.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. It's it's abusing the political process
Speaker 1: for partisan ends, and that's really dangerous. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's correct. Obviously, the Democrats are partisan, and
Speaker 1: they're certainly going to be unwilling to vote in favor
Speaker 1: of subpoenaing ray ups. The question is if the Republicans
Speaker 1: gain control of the House of Representatives at the end
Speaker 1: of the year, which I think most people are expecting
Speaker 1: that Republicans will. I don't want to jinx it, but
Speaker 1: history shows that that's very likely, and so does the
Speaker 1: condition of the country. Do you think Republicans could possibly
Speaker 1: subpoenat him at that point if if the question has
Speaker 1: not been answered by then, yeah, I think the House representatives.
Speaker 1: We take the House, the House could absolutely do it.
Speaker 1: If we take the Senate, the Senate could do it also.
Speaker 1: Now I think there's a very real chance that potentially
Speaker 1: mister Epps might fight the subpoena. He might plead the
Speaker 1: fifth I don't know what he would do. If Republicans
Speaker 1: in the House or Senate tried to subpoena the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice or the FBI, they would almost certainly fight
Speaker 1: it in Stonewall. And I think the pattern we can
Speaker 1: expect is similar to the pattern we saw in the
Speaker 1: Obama Justice Department. The Obama Justice Department was heavily politicized.
Speaker 1: We ended up ultimately seeing Eric Holder, the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: held in contempt of Congress because he defied congressional subpoenas.
Speaker 1: So just winning a majority wouldn't necessarily cause the FBI
Speaker 1: or the Department of Justice to answer the question. But
Speaker 1: I think if we had a majority today, I would
Speaker 1: be prepared to issue a subpoena today if it were
Speaker 1: up to me, and I would certainly vote for that.
Speaker 1: We'd need to get a majority willing to do so. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think the American people certainly call for it,
Speaker 1: and his behavior if he were to face that hypothetically,
Speaker 1: it would be telling depending on what his behavior is. Okay,
Speaker 1: the next question I think is for Michael. This is
Speaker 1: directed to just the senator's co host, with the question
Speaker 1: why aren't you willing? And like I said, I assume
Speaker 1: this is Michael, why aren't you willing to have Madison
Speaker 1: Cawthorne on your show on MSNBC. Michael, I think this
Speaker 1: person thinks you're Rachel Maddow. You know. I was waiting
Speaker 1: for the punchline on that. And it's a good question actually,
Speaker 1: because Rachel Maddow has said, or her producers said in
Speaker 1: an email that they didn't want to ask Madison Cawthorne,
Speaker 1: the Republican congressman, for comment, because he might come on
Speaker 1: the show. I would criticize Rachel, but we doppelgangers have
Speaker 1: to stick together, and so I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: throwing any stones at my MSNBC counterpart. Okay, that's a
Speaker 1: very political answer to that. Michael. Well, that's all right.
Speaker 1: I made that question up anyway because I thought it
Speaker 1: was funny. Senator. Here's here's a real question for you.
Speaker 1: This is from Real Truth Cactus, who has some of
Speaker 1: the best questions. She says, why have we seen the
Speaker 1: left suddenly switched the COVID messaging from inflated statistics and
Speaker 1: fearmongering too accurate COVID information that would have gotten you
Speaker 1: banned from Twitter a year ago. Yeah, because they're brazen
Speaker 1: hypocrites and they realize that their policies are very unpopular.
Speaker 1: People don't want small businesses shut down again, people don't
Speaker 1: want their schools shut down again. Children, literally millions of
Speaker 1: children are being hurt by these ridiculous policies, and people
Speaker 1: are tired of the brazen mask mandates. You know, today
Speaker 1: we had a press conference in the Senate and they're
Speaker 1: about a dozen Republican senators there, and all the reporters
Speaker 1: were there, and a reporter from PBS asked me a question.
Speaker 1: She said, all of we reporters are wearing masks. None
Speaker 1: of you senators are wearing masks. What's wrong with you?
Speaker 1: Why aren't you wearing masks? And I laughed at her,
Speaker 1: and I said, because people are tired of the ridiculous
Speaker 1: double standards we've seen. We've seen Biden say no vaccine man,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly vaccine mandates for everyone. We've seen Biden say,
Speaker 1: if you're vaccinated, you don't got to wear a mask,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly everyone's got to wear a mask. We've
Speaker 1: seen Fauci say masks don't work, and then suddenly you
Speaker 1: need two, three four masks, And then well, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: lie to the American people about masks because I don't
Speaker 1: think they can handle it. We've seen the flip flops
Speaker 1: back and forth. And I told her, I said, look,
Speaker 1: you're a reporter. If you want to wear a mask,
Speaker 1: you can wear a mask for the rest of your
Speaker 1: damn life. I don't care. But some of us actually
Speaker 1: believe in freedom and are not going to wear a
Speaker 1: mask for the rest of our lives. But then I
Speaker 1: turned to her, Liz, and I said, you know what,
Speaker 1: how come your reporters never asked Joe Biden when he's
Speaker 1: standing at the damn podium in the White House, he's
Speaker 1: not wearing a mask. How come you never asked Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: wear's your mask? How come Jen Saki, the White House
Speaker 1: Press Secretary, when she's standing at the podium, no mask.
Speaker 1: We don't see reporters say, Miss Saki why aren't you
Speaker 1: wearing a mask because you guys are a bunch of
Speaker 1: partisan hypocrites. She didn't like that answer. No, I bet
Speaker 1: she didn't. I personally would like if the press would
Speaker 1: question Biden about not just why he doesn't wear a
Speaker 1: mask at the podium, but why he does wear a
Speaker 1: mask on the beach by himself outdoors when he's walking
Speaker 1: his dog, because that one, that one will blow your mind.
Speaker 1: I tell you that one's the craziest. Okay, next question
Speaker 1: is from a New a New Verdict plus community at
Speaker 1: member Padre Boston. I happen to know that this is
Speaker 1: a Catholic priest in Boston. Padre Boston says, Senator, can
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci be forced out by a Republican dominated Congress?
Speaker 1: That's actually a good question. By a Congress is tough
Speaker 1: because the executive power has the power of hiring and firing.
Speaker 1: So Fauci, as far as I know, is not currently
Speaker 1: in a Senate confirmed position, so he doesn't require Senate confirmation.
Speaker 1: I assume I haven't studied this, but I assume the
Speaker 1: Secretary of HHS could fire Fauci, or the President could
Speaker 1: direct that he be fired. Congress could put a lot
Speaker 1: of heat on the administration. Congress could, I suppose, theoretically
Speaker 1: try to attach something like an appropriation writer to legislation.
Speaker 1: I've never seen that targeting a particular individual that would
Speaker 1: almost surely be challenged in litigation if you tried so.
Speaker 1: The principal thing Congress could do is shine a light
Speaker 1: on Fauci's repeated contradictions, on his abusive power, on his hypocrisy,
Speaker 1: and on what appears on the face of it to
Speaker 1: be his committing of a federal crime lying to Congress
Speaker 1: about whether the federal government funded gain a function research
Speaker 1: at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that's a lying
Speaker 1: to Congress as a federal crime, a felony punishable by
Speaker 1: up to five years in prison. I've asked about that,
Speaker 1: I've shined the light on that, I've pressed on that.
Speaker 1: But the problem is, look, under our constitution, we got
Speaker 1: three branches a government legislative, executive, judicial. Only the executive
Speaker 1: can prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress, and at least
Speaker 1: right now the Biden doj they ain't gonna do it.
Speaker 1: Forget about the law. Politics trumps everything, sadly with this administration,
Speaker 1: and that's part of the problem with the administrative state
Speaker 1: is Congress should have more power than they have, but
Speaker 1: they legislated away. They legislated away using vague, vague wording
Speaker 1: in pieces of legislation that just defers this rulemaking to
Speaker 1: these agencies. And these bureacrats are unaccountable to the American people.
Speaker 1: They are in positions that it's difficult to fire them.
Speaker 1: This is one of the problems, one of the many
Speaker 1: problems with the administrative state. Senator, this isn't work. This
Speaker 1: is a fun question. This is a question that reminds
Speaker 1: me of what one of the audience members at Texas
Speaker 1: a and m asked you about your home state of Texas.
Speaker 1: This person's user name is ssnyh. He asks, would Ted
Speaker 1: be willing to moderate a Texas governor's debate before the primary?
Speaker 1: That's an awfully good question. It's a lively question. You know,
Speaker 1: I probably shouldn't do that. I'm friends with all the
Speaker 1: people running for governor. Greg Abbott has been a good friend.
Speaker 1: He was my boss five and a half years. There's
Speaker 1: enough contentious dispute. I'm supporting Abbott because he has been
Speaker 1: a close friend and supporter for decades. So you probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't have a moderator who's taken a position in a
Speaker 1: race senator, senator that has never stopped a moderator before.
Speaker 1: Obvious an overt bias and personal relationship. I think that's
Speaker 1: just the part for the course at this point. So actually, Mike,
Speaker 1: I'd remind me when when Chris Wallace moderated the debate
Speaker 1: between Trump and Biden, was Wallace actually wearing a Biden
Speaker 1: tshirt with a giant foam finger that said number one?
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure he was like wearing the same shirt
Speaker 1: we see on illegal aliens crossing the border now, and
Speaker 1: you know, with a giant foam cowboy hat. You know,
Speaker 1: Biden's Biden's cheerleader. Yeah, I mean you're thinking of Candy
Speaker 1: Crowley surely, or someone from CNN who's giving questions Dhillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Let's not get confuser. I personally don't believe that there
Speaker 1: is someone who isn't bias. Anybody who follows politics has
Speaker 1: an opinion, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Speaker 1: I think, in fact, sometimes owning up to bias makes
Speaker 1: it makes it more fair because then your audience can
Speaker 1: control for your bias. But I thought that was a
Speaker 1: fun question, So, Liz, I was going to jump in
Speaker 1: on the question of debate bias real briefly. One change
Speaker 1: I've actually suggested in how presidential debates happen is two
Speaker 1: stage Number one, Republican primary debates in the presidency should
Speaker 1: only be moderated by people who intend to vote in
Speaker 1: a Republican primary. So if you're a lefty journalist, if
Speaker 1: you want every Republican to lose, you shouldn't be a
Speaker 1: moderator every primary. A condition for to be a moderator,
Speaker 1: as you have to say, I'm going to vote in
Speaker 1: the Republican primary. I'm making this choice as well. Secondly
Speaker 1: in the general election. Obviously that's not an option when
Speaker 1: you have a Democrat and a Republican. Is what you
Speaker 1: just said about everyone's biased, Rather than pretend they're not,
Speaker 1: I would open it, and I would have one left
Speaker 1: wing moderator and one right wing moderator, so I you know,
Speaker 1: I would have um, you know, Chris Hayes and Mark Levine.
Speaker 1: I'd have Rachel Maddow and Michael Knowles that they could
Speaker 1: be separated at birth and and and and just have
Speaker 1: them own it completely. They'd have to wear name tags
Speaker 1: to differentiate Michael, do you have the glasses like her?
Speaker 1: You got the haircut, but do you have the like
Speaker 1: big dark black glasses. I'm not joking. Ben Shapiro told
Speaker 1: me I couldn't wear my glasses anymore because I looked
Speaker 1: too much like a certain MSNBC host. That is not
Speaker 1: a joke, and so everything is just blurring. Lest I
Speaker 1: be confused, That's okay. If you get this hosting role,
Speaker 1: we'll give you name tags to differentiate yourself from her.
Speaker 1: Um On that note, anybody who wants to spark one
Speaker 1: of these lively discussions and ask question to Senator Cruise,
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles or to me can do so at Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise dot com slash Plus. Join us over
Speaker 1: on the Verdict plus community. It's a lively bunch over there,
Speaker 1: and you get access to ask questions. Also, don't forget
Speaker 1: if you want a cactus hat, if you want a
Speaker 1: Verdict T shirt, if you want a sticker for the
Speaker 1: back of your laptop, visit our merch shop at Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise dot com slash shop. We have some
Speaker 1: sweet merch over there that I like. I think you'll like.
Speaker 1: Michael likes, the Senator likes we all like it. Michael.
Speaker 1: On that note, I'm going to hand it back to you.
Speaker 1: Wonderful Liz, Thank you very much. I am not Ray Epps,
Speaker 1: I am not a fed I am Michael Knowles. This
Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruise. We will see you next time.
Speaker 1: By the way, don't forget our tremendous giveaway in honor
Speaker 1: of the two year anniversary of Verdict. If we reach
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand members on Verdict Plus by January twenty first.
Speaker 1: January twenty first being of course, the anniversary the inaugural
Speaker 1: episode of Verdict with Ted Cruise, then we will bring
Speaker 1: one Verdict Plus member to a live taping of Verdict.
Speaker 1: Now you don't have to pay anything. This is an
Speaker 1: unpaid All you have to do is join the Verdict
Speaker 1: Plus community at Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash plus.
Speaker 1: If we reach fifteen thousand members by January twenty first,
Speaker 1: maybe you will be invited to a live taping of
Speaker 1: Verdict also on YouTube. We will be selecting fifteen random
Speaker 1: people who leave comments on episode one hundred. That's episode
Speaker 1: one hundred on YouTube. Fifteen random people we will be
Speaker 1: selecting to get a box a Verdict merch from the
Speaker 1: Verdict Merch Store. We're talking about sweet cactus hats, we're
Speaker 1: talking about t shirts, we're talking about stickers, really cool stuff.
Speaker 1: You could be one of the fifteen lucky people. Head
Speaker 1: on over to our YouTube channel and leave comments. Fifteen
Speaker 1: of you are going to get a box of Verdict
Speaker 1: Merch and perhaps the most fun. This isn't exactly the giveaway,
Speaker 1: but it's even better. If we get to fifty thousand
Speaker 1: reviews on Apple podcast, that means that you go over,
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the show Verdict with Ted Cruise, you
Speaker 1: leave us a five star rating, you give us a glowing,
Speaker 1: obviously great review over there. If we get to fifty
Speaker 1: thousand reviews, then we're going to do a poll to
Speaker 1: see exactly what Michael and Senator Cruz are going to
Speaker 1: do in twenty twenty two. These are the options, and
Speaker 1: by the way, shout out to Real Truth Cactus for
Speaker 1: this idea. These are the options. Either the Senator wears
Speaker 1: a Braves jersey for a whole episode. That's option number one.
Speaker 1: Option number two Michael and the Senator arm wrestle. I'm
Speaker 1: very biased, but this one's my favorite. Option number three
Speaker 1: the Cactus makes a guest appearance on our show or
Speaker 1: option number four Michael Ross, Princeton and the Senator Rose
Speaker 1: cl In a throwdown episode, fifty thousand reviews on Apple
Speaker 1: Podcasts and this you will be in control of one
Speaker 1: of the episodes in twenty twenty two. Head on over
Speaker 1: to Apple Subscribe, give us a great review, and those
Speaker 1: are our giveaways for the two year anniversary of Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruse
Speaker 1: is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack,
Speaker 1: 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 help the Republican Party across the nation.