Speaker 1: It all comes down to this, the final impeachment vote
Speaker 1: on whether or not to remove President Trump from office,
Speaker 1: and straight from the Capitol, we have one of the
Speaker 1: judge slash jurors. This is verdict with Ted Cruz. The
Speaker 1: final vote has happened. Can I get a drum roll? Please?
Speaker 1: The President has not been removed from office. Senator you
Speaker 1: are so shocked and excited by this news that you're
Speaker 1: sitting there tweeting during the introt. Well, I am, I
Speaker 1: was just just reading a second ago, a tweet that says.
Speaker 1: In other Democratic comments, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee suggests that
Speaker 1: the Russians may be behind the Iowa Democratic Caucus app debacle.
Speaker 1: She mentions Russia as she tells FBI Director Chris Ray,
Speaker 1: I hope the Iowa Democrats will ask for an FBI
Speaker 1: investigation on the app. And so I just retweeted it
Speaker 1: and made a very simple observation. Well, Bernie did honeymoon
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union. So your mind is now past impeachment.
Speaker 1: The impeachment vote has happened, and it turned out the
Speaker 1: way that we all knew it was going to turn out.
Speaker 1: This was the inevitable outcome. Yeah, we knew this in October.
Speaker 1: We knew this in November, we knew this in December,
Speaker 1: we knew this in January, we know this in February,
Speaker 1: and we will know this one hundred years from now.
Speaker 1: This impeachment was always a partisan circus, and it was
Speaker 1: appointing to end with acquittal, right, But it wasn't about
Speaker 1: convicting the president. That That wasn't the Democrats objective. It
Speaker 1: was about appeasing their base. That Hatson. The impeachment and
Speaker 1: the Democratic reaction to the sta State of the Union
Speaker 1: last night are the same thing. Huh. It's like it's
Speaker 1: a different part of the identical phenomenon. Nancy Pelosi ripping
Speaker 1: the speech in half is the same thing as impeachment.
Speaker 1: It is all a giant fu apologies to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That's what That's what this whole thing was. But then
Speaker 1: what did they get out of it? I guess if
Speaker 1: if we always knew how it was going to end,
Speaker 1: and it was always a partisan circus, was there a
Speaker 1: political victory? When you the bloods of the mob, it
Speaker 1: satiates the mob, at least briefly, if nothing else. It
Speaker 1: gets messy. I mean, this was look the beginning of
Speaker 1: last year. You had famed centrists like Nancy Pelosi saying no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, we can't do impeachment. It can't be partisan.
Speaker 1: It will never succeed. Even Nancy Pelosi didn't want to
Speaker 1: do impeach, you had that wonderful rock of moderation, Jerry
Speaker 1: Nadler saying no, no no, no, no, we can't do we
Speaker 1: can't do impeachment if it's partisan. So what changed? What
Speaker 1: change is their base got angrier and angrier and angrier,
Speaker 1: and ultimately, listen, I viewed Nancy Loosi almost like a
Speaker 1: hostage tied up an abasement somewhere little ironic because we
Speaker 1: are in fact in abasement right now. But but look,
Speaker 1: she's she was telling AOC, she was telling the squad,
Speaker 1: she was telling the fired up Bernie Sanders. Bernista's no, no, no,
Speaker 1: and they just couldn't fight him anymore. And and so
Speaker 1: all of impeachment. One of the reasons I think Pelosi
Speaker 1: was so pissed last night is I think the Democrats
Speaker 1: have done real political damage to themselves in the last
Speaker 1: three months. Then they strengthened President Trump. I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean it. You know, if I were Donald Trump, I
Speaker 1: would send a letter to the FEC today the Federal
Speaker 1: Election Committee saying, dear FEC, I just like clarification, do
Speaker 1: I have to declare Nancy Pelosi's actions as an in
Speaker 1: kind contribution? It is my reelection camp. It has helped
Speaker 1: his numbers. So then I guess this is just what's
Speaker 1: confusing to me. We're saying is Nancy Pelosi and the
Speaker 1: Democrats had to go along with impeachment because they're fired
Speaker 1: up base demanded it. But the impeachment has damaged the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and it was always going to damage the Democrats. I
Speaker 1: think that's right, and I think that their base has
Speaker 1: radicalized and they have no choice but follow them off
Speaker 1: the cliff. Now, there were some surprises today. Yep. We
Speaker 1: had been talking about. Obviously the president was going to
Speaker 1: be acquitted, but there were some swing votes in play.
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney was the biggest one, but also Doug Jones
Speaker 1: of Alabama, who's a Democrat. Also Kirsten Cinema of Arizona. Right,
Speaker 1: there were a few other votes in play. It was
Speaker 1: a completely party lined vote except for Mitt Romney. Well,
Speaker 1: let's take each piece of that. So this weekend, as
Speaker 1: you and I talked about, I thought there were anywhere
Speaker 1: between fifty and fifty six votes for not guilty. We
Speaker 1: ended up at fifty two. Sorry about that. It's been
Speaker 1: a long week, it has. We ended up at fifty two.
Speaker 1: So the six votes that were in play three Republicans
Speaker 1: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and three Democrats Joe Mansion,
Speaker 1: Kirsten Cinema, Doug Jones. I was right that Collins would
Speaker 1: vote to acquit. I was right that Murkowski would vote
Speaker 1: to acquit. I was wrong on Mitt. So last podcast
Speaker 1: we did, I told you I thought Mitt would be
Speaker 1: a not guilty. I also told you I thought Joe
Speaker 1: Mansion would be a not guilty, Joe Mansion, Democrat from
Speaker 1: West Virginia, but from West Virginia. And I said Cinema
Speaker 1: might be that she was a plausible not guilty. And
Speaker 1: I also told you Doug Jones won't be and Jones
Speaker 1: I was exactly right. Joe Jones is running in Alabama.
Speaker 1: It's a bright red state. Voting for impeachment is a
Speaker 1: terrible vote for Doug Jones. And I think he doesn't care.
Speaker 1: He's like the end of Doctor Strangelove, the guy on
Speaker 1: top of the rock, on top of the bomb with
Speaker 1: a cowboy hat cheering is a fat Jones. It's like
Speaker 1: I'm losing, and damn it, I am going to be
Speaker 1: praised by every liberal in Alabama. There are a few
Speaker 1: of them, are not many, but but he's going to
Speaker 1: be there here. Senator, do you know how I know
Speaker 1: that you are new to political podcasting is that you
Speaker 1: are actually holding up your predictions against reality. Normally we
Speaker 1: just move right along, doesn't matter, no accountability. Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: was the big story. Yeah, Mitt Romney comes out. We
Speaker 1: actually surprised me. We have a clip of it, Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney declaring why he's going to vote against President Trump.
Speaker 1: As a senator juror, I swore an oath before God
Speaker 1: to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith
Speaker 1: is at the heart of who I am. The grave
Speaker 1: question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the
Speaker 1: President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it
Speaker 1: rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes,
Speaker 1: he did. Your reaction, Look, I think he's wrong. I
Speaker 1: think he is very mistaken, and I think that's unfortunate.
Speaker 1: I think that is a bad decision. I think it's
Speaker 1: it's bad for the country. I think it's bad for MIT,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's consistent with the Constitution. Now
Speaker 1: that being said, every Senator has to make up his
Speaker 1: or her mind and then that that is what MIT
Speaker 1: has done. But I think that's a very unfortunate decision.
Speaker 1: Do you think Senator Romney's decision to be the only
Speaker 1: vote that to cross party lines to vote against the
Speaker 1: president on actually on only one charge on abuse of power?
Speaker 1: He didn't. He voted to quit the president on the
Speaker 1: other charge, obstruction of Congress. But do you think Senator
Speaker 1: Romney's decision influenced some of those other swing votes on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side. Yeah, that's an interesting question. And maybe
Speaker 1: you know when we started voting, So we voted to
Speaker 1: day at four, so we all came to the Senate floor.
Speaker 1: We got there a few minutes early. Mitch McConnell was
Speaker 1: giving a speech about how impeachment was all nonsense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: four o'clock, the vote comes in. The Chief Justice comes
Speaker 1: and takes the seat, reads the first article. We vote,
Speaker 1: now the way we vote. Every one of us stands
Speaker 1: up and votes either guilty or not guilty. Right before
Speaker 1: that started, it was interesting. Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema
Speaker 1: hugged each other. And I have to say, Cinema, who
Speaker 1: who I like? I work with her? She looked pale,
Speaker 1: she looked haggard. I mean it was it was noticeable.
Speaker 1: And I will say another Republican senator was speculating with
Speaker 1: me if Chuck Schumer had had taken them back in
Speaker 1: his office and strapped them to a chair and taken
Speaker 1: out a rubber hose on them. It seemed as though
Speaker 1: it was in their personal political interest to vote to
Speaker 1: acquit the president. So what's interesting is is when Mansion
Speaker 1: cast his vote, I leaned over to David Produce, it's
Speaker 1: next to me on the on the Senate floor, and
Speaker 1: I said, well, Mansion just announced he's not running for reelection.
Speaker 1: That's what it seems like. Look, West Virginia, this may
Speaker 1: be a worst vote for worst vote for Mansion than
Speaker 1: it is for Doug Jones. I'd put West Virginia and
Speaker 1: Alabama side by side in terms of where the voters
Speaker 1: are on that. And I'm actually not shocked that Mansion
Speaker 1: would do that because because I don't think he actually
Speaker 1: really likes the Senate. He used to be governor in
Speaker 1: West Virginia. He liked being Governor Moore, and this was
Speaker 1: a vote. I don't know how much Schumer pounded them.
Speaker 1: I actually wonder the Democrats are much better at party discipline.
Speaker 1: I don't know what Schumer threatens. I don't know if
Speaker 1: he did. This is pure speculation, but it wouldn't shock me.
Speaker 1: So Romney announced earlier this afternoon he was going to
Speaker 1: be a guilty And if Schumer hadn't gotten mansion and
Speaker 1: or sent him a to flip, then I suspect Romney
Speaker 1: coming over Schumer would have said, hey, you can't vote
Speaker 1: the other way because we need the messaging. I haven't
Speaker 1: even seen what the Democrats have said, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: they're all saying it was a bipartisan vote. Well that's
Speaker 1: what changes. This is why the Romney vote matters, is
Speaker 1: not because you don't think so. There are five hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty five members of the United States Congress throughout
Speaker 1: this entire show. It was a diplomatic choice of words.
Speaker 1: I said the second half of the word. They got
Speaker 1: one Republican one out of five hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 1: So you'll forgive me for not being oh terribly excited
Speaker 1: that they got one. This was a partisan endeavor from
Speaker 1: day one, and the fact that that Mitt decided to
Speaker 1: do what he did. Listen, I don't really want to
Speaker 1: pound Mit, frankly, because everyone else on earth is landing
Speaker 1: on him so hard. I don't know if you've checked
Speaker 1: Twitter recently that it's tough on him. But I will say,
Speaker 1: you know one reaction I have, so I'm reminded of
Speaker 1: another difficult moment on the Senate floor. By the way,
Speaker 1: an interesting observation, Mit I think sits at the same
Speaker 1: desk that I sat in as a freshman. Looking at
Speaker 1: that image of that clip, that's the same image that's
Speaker 1: behind me when I'm doing the Obamacare filibuster. He's really junior.
Speaker 1: He's in the back corner. Those were very different speeches,
Speaker 1: very different. But I was reminded of another deeply disappointing
Speaker 1: moment on the floor, which was in twenty seventeen when
Speaker 1: we voted on Obamacare repeal, and you'll recall we came
Speaker 1: one vote short of Obamacare repeal. Now that there's nothing
Speaker 1: I have bled more than taking on and trying to
Speaker 1: repeal Obamacare, I haven't given up on that yet, just
Speaker 1: to be clear, But you'll recall three Republicans voted against it,
Speaker 1: and the last one was John McCain from Arizona, who
Speaker 1: put his put his fist out and sort of wiggled
Speaker 1: it for a minute to thrust his thumb down. And
Speaker 1: that was That was about two in the morning. So
Speaker 1: actually we should have been podcasting that. Yeah in the
Speaker 1: morning's we need to own two am. You know it's
Speaker 1: two am. Do you know where your senator? They have
Speaker 1: got to let you get to your second job. That
Speaker 1: is exactly right. So I remember at that moment and listen,
Speaker 1: John McCain and I we became friends. I respect and
Speaker 1: admire him personally, certainly for his heroism, for his serving
Speaker 1: his country. But I had to turn and walk off
Speaker 1: the Senate floor because if I had spoken to him
Speaker 1: that night, it would not have been language suitable for
Speaker 1: the floor. It was and infuriating though, but but I
Speaker 1: want to draw a distinction. Let me contrast, so someone else.
Speaker 1: The two other no votes that night were Susan Collins
Speaker 1: and Lisa Murkowski. I had a very different sentiment about
Speaker 1: McCain's vote that I did about Collins's vote. Why look,
Speaker 1: I didn't like how Susan voted, but Susan was honest
Speaker 1: with her voters. Susan when she campaigned and when elect
Speaker 1: was elected in Maine, she never campaign saying she opposed Obamacare.
Speaker 1: She's a moderate. The voters of Maine knew what they
Speaker 1: were getting. She she wasn't out there on the stump
Speaker 1: saying if you elect me, I will vote to repeal Obamacare.
Speaker 1: And so I disagree with her on that issue. But
Speaker 1: but but I think being honest with your voters and
Speaker 1: doing what you told them to is is right at
Speaker 1: the heart of what we're supposed to do. YEA, what
Speaker 1: was so infuriating about McCain's vote. He had just been
Speaker 1: re elected and he had run ads all across Arizona,
Speaker 1: John McCain leading the fight to repeal Obamacare. That that's
Speaker 1: why it was so infuriating. And I gotta say about Mitt,
Speaker 1: they saying how he campaigned to get elected to Senate.
Speaker 1: I noticed that if Mitt had wanted to tell the
Speaker 1: people of Utah elect me, and I will be a
Speaker 1: check on Donald Trump. I will stand up to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I will be a statesman. And you know what, if
Speaker 1: the people of Utah and elected elected him for that,
Speaker 1: God bless him. But that's not what he told the voters.
Speaker 1: And it's a pattern the rage across this country. Washington
Speaker 1: doesn't doesn't get the rage across this country. That rage
Speaker 1: is what elected Trump is. People were tired of their
Speaker 1: elected officials telling him one thing on the campaign it
Speaker 1: just flat outline, and then doing exactly the opposite. And
Speaker 1: and that I don't have a problem. I don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with Bernie Sanders voting like a socialist. Look,
Speaker 1: his policies are luni and would destroy the country in
Speaker 1: the world. But but other than that, missus Lincoln, how'd
Speaker 1: you like to play? But he tells the people of
Speaker 1: Vermont that I, I don't know, they're cold, they're spoken
Speaker 1: pot and they say that sounds good to us, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it's at least honest. I think
Speaker 1: we need more honesty and politics. And this was not
Speaker 1: what the people of Utah. You know, this actually brings
Speaker 1: us to another point, kind of wrapping up impeachment. You've
Speaker 1: talked a lot about Hunter Biden, Bisma, this corruption on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, and other senators have gone along with this,
Speaker 1: but you always wondered if it was just maybe a
Speaker 1: little more opportunistic. What we've just heard, this is breaking
Speaker 1: news Senators Chuck Rassley and Ron Johnson have sent letters
Speaker 1: to the Secret Service requesting information on Hunter Biden's travel records.
Speaker 1: Obviously you have been leading the charge to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of this kind of corruption. Are there going
Speaker 1: to be enough other senators to go along with this
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of the Biden potential corruption
Speaker 1: or is this just going to be forgotten? I hope so. Um,
Speaker 1: let me say a couple of things on that one.
Speaker 1: In the Senate and in the House. I think the
Speaker 1: political appetite for any further investigation diminished dramatically because Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is in free fall now. Fourth in Utah is
Speaker 1: falling in New Hampshire, Iowa action not YouTube. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: was still so fixated on Senator Romney. Yes in Iowa. Look,
Speaker 1: they're both both states with four letters and lots of owls.
Speaker 1: But but but different, beautiful, but very different. I can't
Speaker 1: believe they say we don't know geography, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know why they say that about us conservatives. Um
Speaker 1: Biden taking forth in Iowa or who knows? I mean,
Speaker 1: we still don't have results because they still can't count
Speaker 1: the votes. But it is catastrophic for him yeah, what's
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes. His donors are are in panic,
Speaker 1: his supporters are in panic, His grassroots activists are in panic.
Speaker 1: His campaign staffers are in panic. When you're built on
Speaker 1: being inevitable, placing fourth is kind of a propt because
Speaker 1: that's the whole pitch for the Biden campaign is he's
Speaker 1: the most electable guy. If he doesn't win elections, then
Speaker 1: that whole argument goes away. And remember we talked about
Speaker 1: in a previous podcast, how when the House managers threw
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden under the bus. One Republican senator speculated
Speaker 1: it was because the Democratic superdelegates had soured on Biden,
Speaker 1: and we saw some of that, some of the fruit
Speaker 1: of that playing out in Iowa. What that means they're
Speaker 1: not going to be a lot of Republicans in the
Speaker 1: Senate agitating for investigating further because Biden. Biden is politically speaking,
Speaker 1: a dead man walking right now. Right right that being said, look,
Speaker 1: rule of law matters. Biden was the vice president of
Speaker 1: the United States. The evidence we've walked through on barisma
Speaker 1: and correct option. When I'm back at home at home
Speaker 1: in Texas and doing town halls, and I've done town
Speaker 1: halls in Texas and all across the country. People are
Speaker 1: understandably frustrated. A question you get all the time, how
Speaker 1: come nobody's held accountable? How come people break the law,
Speaker 1: people violate the criminal there's no consequences. They get off
Speaker 1: scott free. What happened to the millions of dollars hunter
Speaker 1: Biden made? By the way, no one has ever answered
Speaker 1: the question that was asked during the trial, what exactly
Speaker 1: did hunter Biden do for the million bucks a year?
Speaker 1: Like the managers are like, we don't want to answer that.
Speaker 1: So my view is absolutely yes, there should be an investigation.
Speaker 1: Now who should investigate? To be honest, there's a game
Speaker 1: of musical chairs in the Senate because no one wants
Speaker 1: to do it. Where no committee chairman wants to do it,
Speaker 1: It's got to be a committee chairman. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't care if it's Judiciary, Foreign Relations, or Intel. I'm
Speaker 1: on two of those three, and I am urging the
Speaker 1: chairman to call them and to investigate. But right now
Speaker 1: you're not seeing any chairman rushing into that breach. And
Speaker 1: they control the gavel, they control the ability to investigate.
Speaker 1: But let me say, secondly, where's DOJ right. The Justice
Speaker 1: Department do have a United States Department of Justice that
Speaker 1: has these people called assistant US attorneys, and they have
Speaker 1: grand juries and their FBI agents when they're not fraudulently
Speaker 1: launching a case against the president and doctoring evidence to
Speaker 1: the fives accord get wire tabs, you've got evidence here
Speaker 1: of a million bucks a year to the son of
Speaker 1: the vice president, with the vice president bragging about getting
Speaker 1: the prosecutor fired. By the way, I don't know. So
Speaker 1: in my Senate speech yesterday, every senator got ten minutes
Speaker 1: to explain, and I quoted from what podcast listeners here
Speaker 1: know that I've affectionately referred to as the son of
Speaker 1: a bitch Cliff and Joe Biden on video saying son
Speaker 1: of a bitch, he got fired. What I've actually asked
Speaker 1: my team to to to research that maybe the first
Speaker 1: time in history, son of a bitch has been set
Speaker 1: on the Senate. So you did not set the milk
Speaker 1: precedent that you participated in, but you may have set Okay,
Speaker 1: that's really and I'll confess what I asked my team
Speaker 1: that they're like, oh, come on, someone had to have
Speaker 1: said it. I said, Look, the Senate's pretty old school.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure we've had a malarkey on the Senate. No,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of malarkey, but maybe not a
Speaker 1: mention of malarkey. But by the way, Michael, you did mention.
Speaker 1: I missed this tweet, but you told me that that
Speaker 1: that that Don Junior Junior, Don Junior tweeted about the
Speaker 1: Iowa Caucuses. I'm sorry we were told there'd be no malarkey.
Speaker 1: That's funny. I didn't see Don's tweet, but that's really funny.
Speaker 1: Spot on. Before we go, obviously wrapping up impeachment, we
Speaker 1: need to get to some of the mail bad questions.
Speaker 1: Our listeners have been incredible. Now just what We've been
Speaker 1: doing this for two weeks, over two million audio downloads,
Speaker 1: a ton of listens on YouTube. First question from Nicholas
Speaker 1: is the Verdicts podcast going to continue or was this
Speaker 1: a short lived gem of a listen? We ain't going anywhere,
Speaker 1: all right, I still have a job. This is great.
Speaker 1: We will keep on going and and we're going to
Speaker 1: keep doing the same thing yea, which is trying to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of issues, trying to engage in substance.
Speaker 1: You know, this podcast was built on a proposition that
Speaker 1: you can attest. A lot of people laughed at us
Speaker 1: for saying yes, which is that people really care about substance.
Speaker 1: They want to understand things. Now, Look, people have jobs,
Speaker 1: they have kids, they have lives. They don't necessarily have
Speaker 1: time to spend days and days and days studying every issue.
Speaker 1: You gotta deal with other stuff. But they do want
Speaker 1: to understand, all right, what's really going on? What are
Speaker 1: the facts? And I had to admit, when it comes
Speaker 1: to cable TV, I don't turn on the cable news stations.
Speaker 1: I get very little from from people screaming anything three minutes,
Speaker 1: sound bites, yelling over each other, and just the talking
Speaker 1: points blah blah blah. Want why it's like it's like
Speaker 1: a Charlie Brown and they're talking. Yeah, it just it doesn't.
Speaker 1: So what we're gonna try to do. We're gonna try
Speaker 1: to address number one, timely pressing issues right now, but
Speaker 1: number two also issues that matter, whether raised by the
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, raised by what's going on in the Senate,
Speaker 1: raised in the Supreme Court, or just issues that matter.
Speaker 1: Socialism versus free enterprise, what's that all about? Those are
Speaker 1: sort of great bumper stickers you can get all, you know,
Speaker 1: jazzed about, but what does it mean? And and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that that we do it with a combination of
Speaker 1: facts and insight and perhaps some perspectives that you don't
Speaker 1: necessarily get elsewhere, but also having fun. I mean, we're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, cut up and laugh and and and enjoy ourselves.
Speaker 1: And hopefully that means our listeners will stay with us.
Speaker 1: Right before we go, someone has a new job recommendation
Speaker 1: for you. You've already got two. Maybe you could have
Speaker 1: a third from Lisa thoughts on a Supreme Court seat.
Speaker 1: I think ted would be great. Well, look, I appreciate
Speaker 1: Lisa saying that, And that's a question that I get sometimes.
Speaker 1: I will tell you that the short answer is is
Speaker 1: that I'm not interested in doing that. Really, why not.
Speaker 1: You've worked in the Supreme Court, you clerked, you have
Speaker 1: argued cases before the Supreme Court. I respect, I admire
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. I think it's massively important, you know
Speaker 1: the big reason. And when I've said this people they
Speaker 1: sometimes don't believe me. But I think a principled federal
Speaker 1: judge stays out of policy fights, stays out of political fights. YEA,
Speaker 1: if I were a judge. That's what I do. If
Speaker 1: I found myself on the Supreme Court, I would follow
Speaker 1: the law and I would follow the Constitution, even if
Speaker 1: it doesn't go along with your particular preference. I don't
Speaker 1: give an issue, and I don't want to stay out
Speaker 1: of policy fights. I don't want to stay out of
Speaker 1: political fights. I want to be right in the middle
Speaker 1: of them. And the right place in our constitutional system
Speaker 1: for that is the Senate. I mean, the Senate was
Speaker 1: established for that, and and and so listen. I would
Speaker 1: like to be part of nominating and confirming two three, four,
Speaker 1: five strong principled constitutionalists of the Supreme Court into the
Speaker 1: lower courts as well. Um, I think it matters massively,
Speaker 1: But I don't want to pull out of the fray.
Speaker 1: That's too much fun. And when I look at the
Speaker 1: Senate and you don't no disrespect to my colleagues, but
Speaker 1: I don't see a whole lot of people leading the fight,
Speaker 1: right and and if we're going to win people's hearts
Speaker 1: and minds, we got to be prepared to engage and
Speaker 1: fight and and and and and that's what I want
Speaker 1: to do. And you know, I'll tell you one part
Speaker 1: of it all. So I so this is not an
Speaker 1: entirely theoretical question. Uh. For both of the last two
Speaker 1: Supreme Court vacancies, for Neil Gorsich and Brett Cavanaugh, the
Speaker 1: President and I had very serious conversations about the seat extended,
Speaker 1: especially for the first one, the Gorsuch seat that was
Speaker 1: Scully a seat we had. The President and I and
Speaker 1: his team and I talked for probably two hours about it. Wow. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and I don't want to overstate it. He didn't
Speaker 1: offer me the job, but it was a really serious
Speaker 1: He didn't talk to me about it, you know. So
Speaker 1: it's a little bit and maybe the next you know,
Speaker 1: I can see you as a Ruth Bader ginsback. I mean,
Speaker 1: it'd be a good look for you. Um. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you I wrestled with it. I thought about it.
Speaker 1: I actually spent several weeks with Heidi. I mean we
Speaker 1: were praying about it. I mean that that's I revere
Speaker 1: Anton and Scully and and and to have the possibility
Speaker 1: of filling his spot, like holy cow. That It's one
Speaker 1: thing to say it theoretically, but when it was being
Speaker 1: discussed for real, you you really have a all right,
Speaker 1: let's think about this humbling experience and and I came
Speaker 1: very much to peace. So I told the President in
Speaker 1: both instances, I'm not interested. I don't want the position. No,
Speaker 1: thank you. He didn't offer it to me, but I
Speaker 1: made very clear I didn't want it. Um. When I
Speaker 1: was thinking about it for the during the first discussions,
Speaker 1: one of the things that happened my my pastor came
Speaker 1: over to the house. It was I forget it was
Speaker 1: a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and spent a couple of
Speaker 1: hours talking through with me. And I got to say,
Speaker 1: among my close friends, almost everybody was saying, you're an idiot,
Speaker 1: Like what is I wasn't going to say it, but
Speaker 1: I got a lot of that. Um. It was interesting
Speaker 1: my pastor's take on it. He said he understood because
Speaker 1: I was from the very beginning very hesitant and pretty
Speaker 1: sure I didn't want to do it, but I was
Speaker 1: agonizing because it was becoming a more real possibility. And
Speaker 1: my pastor used an analogy. He said, you know, if
Speaker 1: someone came to me and offered me the opportunity to
Speaker 1: be the leading theologian in the world, to go to
Speaker 1: some divinity school and drive theological thought across across the planet.
Speaker 1: But I'd have to give up being a pastor. And
Speaker 1: I couldn't meet with the members of the church. I
Speaker 1: couldn't visit them when they're sick. I couldn't. He said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'd turned that down. And it matters
Speaker 1: a lot. I want good theologians to think. And but
Speaker 1: but my calling, my passion is to be a pastor,
Speaker 1: and and and I have to admit that that analogy
Speaker 1: resonated with me, and and and and I want to
Speaker 1: be fighting for conservative principles in the Senate, winning these fights.
Speaker 1: And also, you know, one of the things Ted Kennedy did.
Speaker 1: Ted Kennedy was a liar of the Senate, and he
Speaker 1: raised up He trained generations of left wingers who went
Speaker 1: and populated all of government, did enormous damage to the country. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm working very hard to train young conservatives libertarians to
Speaker 1: go and fight for the constitution. That's a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: And I'd rather do that, not just in the Senate,
Speaker 1: but here. I'm glad you're staying in the fight in
Speaker 1: both places. And we've got a lot more to get
Speaker 1: to because we've got the final verdict on impeachment. But
Speaker 1: I'm glad to say we don't have the final Verdict podcast,
Speaker 1: and we will be back with a lot more to
Speaker 1: look not just backward on this force of an impeachment trial,
Speaker 1: but to look forward at what is at stake coming up.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much to everybody who has made this
Speaker 1: podcast such a big success. Please head on over if
Speaker 1: you don't mind, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your podcasts and leave a five star review,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back with a whole lot more. I'm
Speaker 1: Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode
Speaker 1: of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you
Speaker 1: by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee
Speaker 1: dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans
Speaker 1: to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help
Speaker 1: the Republican Party across the nation.