Speaker 1: A major win for conservatives at the Supreme Court, a
Speaker 1: major win for free speech, a major win for the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. And this case has Senator Cruz's name all
Speaker 1: over it. Literally, his name is on the case. This
Speaker 1: is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by Jennya Cell. How
Speaker 1: old does your mirror say you are? You can delay
Speaker 1: this question by five, ten, even fifteen years with Jennie
Speaker 1: Cell's new ultra retinal serum. You can see it sitting
Speaker 1: right here on the desk. Here's a testimonial from Marina.
Speaker 1: Marina lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She says, great product,
Speaker 1: My skin loves it. I have spent more money, she says,
Speaker 1: on creams over the years, enough to pay off my house.
Speaker 1: Just kidding, but it feels like that this product has
Speaker 1: changed my life like no other. Now Marina is flying
Speaker 1: high with Jennia Cell's new ultra retinal serum with hyaluronic acid.
Speaker 1: This works to hydrate your skin at the cell level.
Speaker 1: It builds on this deep moisture with incredible anti wrinkle effects.
Speaker 1: And gentlemen, you know that we ladies, we wives use
Speaker 1: your razors in the bathroom when you are not looking likewise.
Speaker 1: We know that you use our face products, our skincare products,
Speaker 1: and it's fun. All's fair in love and war. Now,
Speaker 1: if you go to my uurl that is genu cell
Speaker 1: dot com slash cactus, you can get up to fifty
Speaker 1: percent off genia Cell's new ultra retinal serum. That is
Speaker 1: fifty percent off. If you go to genueell dot com
Speaker 1: slash cactus, it's spelled gn ucel dot com slash cactus
Speaker 1: genu cell dot com slashcactus. Today's episode of Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by ip vanish. Did
Speaker 1: you know that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually
Speaker 1: protect your privacy? Without added security, you might as well
Speaker 1: give all your private data way to hackers, advertisers, your
Speaker 1: Internet service provider, and who knows who else. Ip Vanish
Speaker 1: helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by encrypting
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of your data. This means that your
Speaker 1: private messages, passwords, e l's browsing history, and other information
Speaker 1: will be completely protected from falling into the wrong hands.
Speaker 1: Ip vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple.
Speaker 1: Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering an insane
Speaker 1: seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like getting nine
Speaker 1: months for free. You have to go directly to ip
Speaker 1: vanish dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent
Speaker 1: off discount. Ip Vanish is super easy to use. Just
Speaker 1: tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't even
Speaker 1: know it's on. You can use ip vanish on your computers, tablets,
Speaker 1: and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't
Speaker 1: go online without using ip vanish. Don't forget. Verdict listeners
Speaker 1: get seventy percent off the ip vanish annual plan. Just
Speaker 1: go to ip vanish dot com slash cactus to claim
Speaker 1: your discount and secure your online life. That's ip va
Speaker 1: nish dot com slash cactus. This episode, A Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up.
Speaker 1: The US national debts is way way way up. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to heade your
Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
Speaker 1: right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your
Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA, they make it easy.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two again. The phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus three two. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I am Michael Knowles, Senator.
Speaker 1: This has been a big couple of days for you
Speaker 1: and for the First Amendment. And for conservatives, especially heading
Speaker 1: into the midterms, you had a major victory not in
Speaker 1: the capital, but in another branch of government at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Well, that's right, I final lawsuit against the
Speaker 1: federal government and one a six three victory at the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court based on the First Amendment. And what
Speaker 1: I was challenging is a part of McCain Finegold. Remember
Speaker 1: McCain Finegold was the big so called campaign finance reform
Speaker 1: bill that passed twenty some odd years ago, and it's
Speaker 1: a terrible bill. It has all sorts of terrible provisions.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is struck down a bunch of those provisions.
Speaker 1: Many of the provisions were designed with one thing in mind,
Speaker 1: to protect incumbent politicians. And you think about it, campaign
Speaker 1: finance laws are written by incumbent politicians and the one
Speaker 1: thing they can all agree on is they don't want
Speaker 1: anyone to beat them on election day, and so campaign
Speaker 1: finance many of these provisions, including the provision I challenge,
Speaker 1: are designed to make it hard for challengers to win.
Speaker 1: In particular, what this provision said is, if you're a
Speaker 1: candidate for office, let's say Michael Knowles decides to run
Speaker 1: for Senate in the state of Tennessee, and you're a
Speaker 1: first time candidate. You don't have a lot of name
Speaker 1: I d but you've saved some money and you decide,
Speaker 1: let's say you're a small business owner, and you decide
Speaker 1: to put five hundred thousand dollars into the campaign to
Speaker 1: loan your campaign five hundred thousand dollars to jump started,
Speaker 1: to run your first ads, to get started. Well, what
Speaker 1: McCain fine Gold provided is if you loan your campaign
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand dollars on campaign day, you were capped
Speaker 1: on what you could pay yourself back at two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars, and everything beyond that was essentially
Speaker 1: a gift to the taxpayers. So if you loan your
Speaker 1: campaign five hundred thousand dollars, you're out two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars. You can pay yourself back to fifty
Speaker 1: but not a penny beyond that with money raised after
Speaker 1: election day. The purpose of it was real simple. They
Speaker 1: didn't want people loaning themselves money to run against incumbents,
Speaker 1: and so I saw this as a practical matter when
Speaker 1: I first ran for senate. So I ran for Senate
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve, my opponent, David Duhurst, worth over two
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars, a gazillionaire. He put over thirty million
Speaker 1: dollars zone money and just wrote a massive check. I'm
Speaker 1: sitting I don't have thirty million dollars. I've got no name,
Speaker 1: I d no one's ever heard of me. I'd never
Speaker 1: run like, I'd never been elected office. This was the
Speaker 1: last thing I was elected to was student council. So
Speaker 1: I'm running this, this grassroots campaign, and the week before
Speaker 1: the primary campaign manager comes to me and says, okay,
Speaker 1: the only way you can survive is if you liquidate
Speaker 1: all of your quod net worth and drop it into
Speaker 1: the campaign and alone. And so Heidi and I we'd
Speaker 1: worked a number of years. We had one point two
Speaker 1: million dollars in savings, and I went by the way.
Speaker 1: I went to Heidi and said, sweetheart, what do you
Speaker 1: think about putting our whole liquid net worth into the campaign.
Speaker 1: I don't advise this conversation. This is a dangerous conversation
Speaker 1: to have with your spouse. Astonishingly, Heidi and second said, yes,
Speaker 1: do it. We did. That got us into the runoff,
Speaker 1: which ended up getting me into the Senate. This law
Speaker 1: was designed to say you can't pay yourself back. So
Speaker 1: I filed a lawsuit challenging this provision of McCain fine Gold,
Speaker 1: saying it's unconstitutional, saying it restricts political speech. We won
Speaker 1: in a three judge district court and won unanimously, and
Speaker 1: then it went to the US Supreme Court, was argued
Speaker 1: earlier this year, and just this week we won six three.
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts wrote a terrific opinion said this was
Speaker 1: clearly designed to stifle political speech, to stop challengers from
Speaker 1: taking on incumbents, to benefit career politicians, and so they
Speaker 1: struck the law down, the result of which is it's
Speaker 1: now easier for challengers to run for office and for
Speaker 1: challengers to take on and beat career politicians. Well, it's
Speaker 1: a great win. I'm glad that given the amount of
Speaker 1: money you had donated to your own campaign to really
Speaker 1: just to test this law, presumably you'll get back something
Speaker 1: like ten thousand dollars these days in the Biden economy,
Speaker 1: I think that'll pretty much just buy you a nice
Speaker 1: steak dinner, but I hope you enjoy it to celebrate.
Speaker 1: What I'm really interested in is what does this mean,
Speaker 1: practically for candidates who are running right now in the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two midterms, how do you think it's going
Speaker 1: to affect the landscape? So it has a big impact.
Speaker 1: I got to tell you, in the Senate and in
Speaker 1: the House, I cannot tell you how many current Senators
Speaker 1: and current House members have come up to me said
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, Like like I have I loaned
Speaker 1: my campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars or maybe even
Speaker 1: a million dollars or more, and I've never been able
Speaker 1: to repay myself. Like the level of gratitude among Republicans,
Speaker 1: but even among Democrats. They can't admit it because their
Speaker 1: side is a big fan of stifling the free speech,
Speaker 1: but they're grateful. And you know, it's amazing. The corrupt
Speaker 1: corporate media the way they cover this, Like the headlines
Speaker 1: from all of the media is like, now it's legal
Speaker 1: to bribes senators. I saw that headline. It's like, well, no,
Speaker 1: the contributions to pay back the loan or under the
Speaker 1: same contribution limits of twenty nine hundred dollars a person,
Speaker 1: same limit applies. So the idea is eighty six contributions
Speaker 1: at twenty nine hundred a piece, adds up to two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So eighty six contributions were
Speaker 1: just fine to pay yourself back, but the eighty seven
Speaker 1: was clearly corruption. It was all a croc. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's interesting if you look at the debate on the
Speaker 1: Senate floor, both Pete Domenici and Kay Bailey Hutcheson, my
Speaker 1: predecessor on the Senate floor, they were very candid why
Speaker 1: they wanted this provision. They said, look, we don't want
Speaker 1: someone to run against us and loan their campaign a
Speaker 1: million bucks or five million bucks. They might beat us.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting some of the coverage where they say, well, gosh,
Speaker 1: this is benefiting the candidates because they can put the
Speaker 1: money in their own bank account. The descent says you
Speaker 1: can take the money and use it to buy a
Speaker 1: car or join a country club. And this is the
Speaker 1: classic classic leftist like the ultimate definition of evil is
Speaker 1: joining a country club. I'm not a member of a
Speaker 1: country club, but it's how the left defines it. The
Speaker 1: one thing they seem to be omitting is it's your
Speaker 1: damn money. Like this is not that that's the funny thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, all right, you start out with in the
Speaker 1: hypothetical five hundred thousand you had it to begin with,
Speaker 1: you loaned it to the campaign that pays you back.
Speaker 1: You got the same damn money you started with. None
Speaker 1: of these leftists and the media acknowledge that at all. Now,
Speaker 1: speaking of money flying around the Capitol, there is a
Speaker 1: vote that just occurred. I think that seems to have
Speaker 1: divided the right, the Republicans, the Conservatives, and it's this
Speaker 1: vote over funding for Ukraine. And you voted for the
Speaker 1: funding in Ukraine. There is a lot of confusion about
Speaker 1: what this funding is for, what's included in the bill.
Speaker 1: So what do you have to say about that? Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: so we just had a vote on forty billion dollars
Speaker 1: in additional funding for Ukraine, and there are a lot
Speaker 1: of folks, a lot of grassroots activists, probably a lot
Speaker 1: of viewers of this pod, who are skeptical of that funding.
Speaker 1: I think the vote for the funding was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. I voted yes. I think there were
Speaker 1: a total of eleven no votes, So it was a
Speaker 1: relatively small group of Republicans that voted no, but it
Speaker 1: was most of the Conservatives. And look, if you ask
Speaker 1: a grassroots activist, I was up in Pennsylvania campaigning on
Speaker 1: Thursday and Friday, and the activists there, they're like, all right,
Speaker 1: forty billion dollars sounds like a ton of money. Anything
Speaker 1: going to something in a foreign country sounds like a
Speaker 1: waste of money. We got chaos in our southern border
Speaker 1: and people are pissed off. How come these jerks want
Speaker 1: secure the southern border and yet they want to send
Speaker 1: money overseas and then people are frustrated at all the
Speaker 1: other things like inflation and the baby formula shortage and
Speaker 1: everything else. They're like, focus on at home, not abroad.
Speaker 1: I understand all the sentiments. Here's why I voted yes
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine. It is in America's national security
Speaker 1: interest for Vladimir Putin to lose. If Russia wins, it's
Speaker 1: bad for America. Now, as you know, we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been in this war. This war is unnecessary. Biden's weakness
Speaker 1: caused it. Biden's waiving the sanctions on Nordstream too caused
Speaker 1: this war. We talked a lot on this podcast about
Speaker 1: Nordstream two, the sanctions legislation that I wrote that stopped
Speaker 1: that pipeline, that prevented the war. Until Joe Bidenate came in,
Speaker 1: waived the sanctions surrendered to Putin and caused the invasion.
Speaker 1: That being said, if Putin succeeds, it hurts America. It
Speaker 1: is bad for America. Putin wants to reassemble the old
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. We want our enemies to be weaker. We
Speaker 1: don't want our enemies to be stronger. If Putin conquers Ukraine,
Speaker 1: he will be stronger. He will have more of a
Speaker 1: stranglehold over energy. That's bad for America. We've seen energy
Speaker 1: prices skyrocketing. Putin controlling Ukraine gives him more of a
Speaker 1: stranglehold over our energy prices, and that is we will
Speaker 1: end up spending much more battling against Putin. If he wins,
Speaker 1: then if we provide Ukraine the weapons to beat him,
Speaker 1: of the forty billion, nine billion of it is replenishing
Speaker 1: US military stocks. So in other words, it's it's replenishing
Speaker 1: stingers and javelins and weapons that the American military has
Speaker 1: that have been given to Ukraine. And our stocks are depleted.
Speaker 1: And I don't know of anyone rational that can argue
Speaker 1: against those nine trillion that we obviously should be have
Speaker 1: the weapons necessary to defend ourselves. A total of twenty
Speaker 1: four billion. Of this amount is military aid to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So it's bullets, it's missiles, it's stingers, it's javelins, it's
Speaker 1: the weapons that Ukraine is using to win victories and
Speaker 1: defeating putin in battles ongoing. That's good for America to
Speaker 1: have the Ukrainians defeating Russia. There's an additional portion of this,
Speaker 1: it's about four and a half billion dollars that is
Speaker 1: focused in particular on food aid. And one of the
Speaker 1: consequences of this war. You know, Ukraine is called the
Speaker 1: bread basket of Europe, grows enormous quantities of grain. This
Speaker 1: war has shut down that food production and that the
Speaker 1: projections are that we could be facing massive famines throughout Africa,
Speaker 1: throughout Egypt, throughout the developing world as a consequence of this.
Speaker 1: I think providing some funding to prevent mass starvation and
Speaker 1: mass famine makes sense. Now, there's also in this bill
Speaker 1: about eight billion dollars that goes to the government of
Speaker 1: Ukraine for economic assistance. I think that's crap. I would
Speaker 1: delete that. I think it is almost certain a lot
Speaker 1: of that is almost certain to go to waste. I
Speaker 1: think some of it will go to corruption. You know,
Speaker 1: some of that who knows, could end up in some
Speaker 1: oligarch's yacht in the Baltic Sea. That's possible. It's also
Speaker 1: the consequence of having a bill that is drafted by Democrats,
Speaker 1: that's drafted by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: So I'm faced with a binary decision. I don't like
Speaker 1: that eight billion. I would cut that waste, I would
Speaker 1: get rid of it. But I think it would be
Speaker 1: a mistake. I don't think it would be the responsible decision,
Speaker 1: particularly when Ukraine is beating Russia, to say, Okay, we're
Speaker 1: going to cut off your bullets and cut off your
Speaker 1: missiles and put you in a position where the inevitable
Speaker 1: result is putin wins. That's bad for America, putin wins,
Speaker 1: and I don't want our enemies getting stronger because that
Speaker 1: ends up hurting us. Well, I think I think this
Speaker 1: is the strongest argument for the bill. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of conservatives roll their eyes when the arguments for
Speaker 1: funding the war in Ukraine are that Ukraine is this thriving,
Speaker 1: wonderful democracy, and you know, in the abstract, we need
Speaker 1: to defend you know, this flourishing republic, when in fact
Speaker 1: it's obviously a lot of corruption. Probably some of that
Speaker 1: money is going to go to that corruption. But I
Speaker 1: like the way you're putting it. You're saying, Look, it's
Speaker 1: a simple question. What is better for America. Is it
Speaker 1: better for America at Vladimir Putin run Ukraine or for
Speaker 1: Zalinski and the rest of these guys to run Ukraine.
Speaker 1: One of the frustrating things is I think a lot
Speaker 1: of the Republicans defending this, you were pretty kind a
Speaker 1: second ago. I think they're eye bleedingly horrible. And how
Speaker 1: they defend this, and they get up and say things
Speaker 1: like we must protect democracy, we must protect international norms.
Speaker 1: That's all hogwash, that's the kind of garbage, John Kerry says.
Speaker 1: And so one of the problems is some of the
Speaker 1: people who voted with me are saying things that I
Speaker 1: think are imbecilic, and I hate their justifications. It's not
Speaker 1: why I support the military a you know, it used
Speaker 1: to be all Republicans were agreed, we support a strong military,
Speaker 1: we stand up to our enemies. But let me give
Speaker 1: you what I think is the single best argument for
Speaker 1: this aid package. Listen, Rush is a very real danger.
Speaker 1: Putin is a very real danger, but there's a bigger danger,
Speaker 1: and that's China. Communist China is watching this. She is
Speaker 1: watching this, as you remember, And I said this on
Speaker 1: the podcast when Joe Biden surrendered to the Taliban and
Speaker 1: had the disastrous failure in Afghanistan. I said at the time,
Speaker 1: the chances of Putin invading Ukraine have just risen tenfold.
Speaker 1: And I said, the chances of China invading Taiwan have
Speaker 1: risen tenfold because they've looked at the man in the
Speaker 1: Oval office. They've taken the measure of the man. Well,
Speaker 1: right now, she is watching what happens in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: if Putin wins, and even more importantly, if Putin wins,
Speaker 1: because America lost the stomach for supporting our allies decided,
Speaker 1: you know what, even though the Ukrainians are heroically defeating
Speaker 1: the Russians, even while outmanned little old Grandmother's throwing Molotov cocktails,
Speaker 1: the Americans were so feckless we said, sorry, we're cutting
Speaker 1: off your bullets and missiles. Good luck winning a war,
Speaker 1: you know, with no bullets. I think the chances of
Speaker 1: China invading Taiwan. Skyrocket dramatically and you want to talk
Speaker 1: about profoundly dangerous. One of the reasons we don't want
Speaker 1: China to invade Taiwan. If they invade Taiwan, it gives
Speaker 1: communist China a stranglehold on semiconductors produced worldwide. Vast percentage
Speaker 1: of the semiconductors produced in the world are produced in Taiwan.
Speaker 1: It literally puts US in a position where we're dependent
Speaker 1: on China for essential electronics. And they're one of two
Speaker 1: outcomes in that. Either one they sell us chips that
Speaker 1: they put spywear on to monitor everyone, and that's the
Speaker 1: best case scenario. Best case scenario is China now has
Speaker 1: spywear everywhere. Worst case scenario as they say, screw you,
Speaker 1: no more chips for you. You know, it's like the
Speaker 1: soup Nazi and Seinfeld. No soup for you, no chips
Speaker 1: for you. That is a terrible outcome. And I believe look,
Speaker 1: she is watching this. At the outset of this Ukraine war,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration told Congress repeatedly said this war is
Speaker 1: going to be over in two three days. Russia is
Speaker 1: going to roll in conquered Ukraine. It's all going to
Speaker 1: be over. Nothing to see here turned out the entire
Speaker 1: Biden admin was spectactularly wrong. Every day this war drags on,
Speaker 1: every Russian casualty, every dollar that the Russians pour down
Speaker 1: a rat hole in this war A hurts Russia and Putin,
Speaker 1: which is good for America, but b I think increases
Speaker 1: the deterrence on China of further military aggression. So I
Speaker 1: don't want America to project so much weakness that we
Speaker 1: invite China to be aggressive an invader neighbors. And by
Speaker 1: the way, invite Venezuela to do the same thing, Invite
Speaker 1: North Korea to do the same thing, Invite a Rand
Speaker 1: to do the same thing. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: bad guys in the world. Yeah, that's a much stronger
Speaker 1: argument than some of your colleagues. And I think if you,
Speaker 1: if you just view foreign policy not just but primarily
Speaker 1: view it through what is in the national interest of
Speaker 1: the United States, that that's a reasonable way to approach
Speaker 1: this question. And people's eyes won't glaze over in the
Speaker 1: way that they do when you hear the peons to
Speaker 1: you know, democracy in the abstract, which in reality often
Speaker 1: doesn't really exist. Now, speaking of democracy, speaking of the
Speaker 1: will of the people, we get questions on this show, Senator.
Speaker 1: We get questions all the time from our listeners, and
Speaker 1: we never get to more than one or two of
Speaker 1: them per show. So I've got a lightning round of
Speaker 1: questions for you from the mail back from our great listeners.
Speaker 1: Our listeners, of course, can join the Verdict Plus community.
Speaker 1: They can subscribe on Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play, YouTube,
Speaker 1: my Space, I don't know. You can subscribe wherever leave
Speaker 1: a five star review. Let's get to the first question.
Speaker 1: I think probably the most pressing question. This is from Jonathan.
Speaker 1: The Women's March was this weekend. We are seeing women
Speaker 1: like Amber Heard, Jada Pinkett Smith, Meghan Markle, Kim Kardashian.
Speaker 1: Is it time we start talking about toxic femininity? So look,
Speaker 1: Jada Pinkett's Peggott Smith. It seems unfair to blame her
Speaker 1: for the fact that that that Will Smith went and
Speaker 1: took it, took a swing at someone. So I'm not
Speaker 1: sure you know he has he has agency, so I'm
Speaker 1: not going to blame her for that. Um, Amber Heard,
Speaker 1: I'll confess I haven't watched this trial. I've seen like
Speaker 1: snippets of it, and it seems a little bit like
Speaker 1: watching a celebrity car crash. But but I haven't actually
Speaker 1: watched it. I do not want to confess, Senator, that
Speaker 1: I've watched this trial. It's riveting. It's riveting. It's the
Speaker 1: best thing on television right now. I believe you. And
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp seems like a weird dude. And I know,
Speaker 1: like if twitters to believe, Amberhard is kind of really
Speaker 1: bizarre and more in the wrong than people thought. But
Speaker 1: I don't know that that that that is truly an
Speaker 1: ignorant statement. Um, Kim Kardashian, she didn't done anything lately.
Speaker 1: I mean she seems Kim seems fine. She Uh the
Speaker 1: SNL guy, I don't, I can't, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: team Kanye. I know, what can I say? Uh? I
Speaker 1: mean Pete david said, all right, how come that dude
Speaker 1: gets all of these like hot women because of toxic femininity? Senator?
Speaker 1: That is the evidence that something has gone wrong. Pete
Speaker 1: Davidson was dating Kate Beckinsdale. I mean, you're talking underworld,
Speaker 1: You're talking like super hot vampire in black leather trench coat,
Speaker 1: and you're like, really this an l dude? Like wow? Um?
Speaker 1: And who was the fourth one. Uh. The fourth one
Speaker 1: was oh oh, the the former Duchess and future President
Speaker 1: Megan Markle. I am happily in a Royal free zone.
Speaker 1: I cannot stand their antics. They're sort of they seem
Speaker 1: left wing as a matter of social virtue, socialist because
Speaker 1: they've inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, and as best
Speaker 1: I can tell, trivial and not focused on actually things
Speaker 1: that matter. Although again I say that with a degree
Speaker 1: of ignorance. Maybe they're doing wonderful things in charity that
Speaker 1: I don't know. But everything I see in the headline
Speaker 1: seems to be inane vanities and trying to prove to
Speaker 1: leftist that they're as woke as anyone wants them to be.
Speaker 1: I've always been a great defender of Her Majesty the Queen,
Speaker 1: but I now have a conspiracy theory that actually the
Speaker 1: whole mexit phenomenon was a plot by the royal family
Speaker 1: to send this woman and Prince Harry to America to
Speaker 1: rise through the political ranks to become president, to undo
Speaker 1: the American Revolution and return the United States to the Commonwealth.
Speaker 1: I don't I can't prove it yet. You'll be back,
Speaker 1: You'll you'll be back. I've seen Hamilton, and that's that
Speaker 1: the That's that's what our predecessors says. That's true. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: now that we've covered that important topic. Uh, next question.
Speaker 1: This one's a bit more trivial from Galen. I would
Speaker 1: like to know Senator Cruiz's position on civil asset forfeiture,
Speaker 1: the legalized theft of personal property by the government with
Speaker 1: no crime alleged. Very good question. Um, I've got real
Speaker 1: concerns about civil asset forfeiture. I think it is abused
Speaker 1: with some frequency. UM. I think there is a role
Speaker 1: for civil asset forfeiture for an asset that was used
Speaker 1: in carrying out a crime. Um. That's where it's legitimately applied.
Speaker 1: I think it can be abused. The threshold is far
Speaker 1: less than than than convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: And I think there's been lots of allegations of law
Speaker 1: enforcement abusing it because they want to seize a bunch
Speaker 1: of assets even if someone hasn't done anything wrong. I look,
Speaker 1: my basic view is if you commit a crime, if
Speaker 1: if you're living on a you know, in a fancy
Speaker 1: mansion and selling drugs out of the mansion, you can
Speaker 1: lose the mansion and that that's part of the criminal law,
Speaker 1: and I think it is an appropriate ancillary to a
Speaker 1: criminal conviction. But I have long been vocal about the
Speaker 1: abuse of civil asset forfeiture, and I think it needs
Speaker 1: to be rained in. There's a question that we've heard
Speaker 1: a whole lot about with regard to this overruling of
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade. This has become one of the top
Speaker 1: Democrat talking points. Questions from Pittsburgh, who says, do you
Speaker 1: believe that interracial marriage would be at risk if Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade is overturned? Absolutely not, It's utterly absurd talk. Last podcast,
Speaker 1: I made fun of the New York Times, which suggested
Speaker 1: that that if Roe was overturned, that there are several
Speaker 1: states that would in fact ban in a racial marriage.
Speaker 1: Which which what is it? I think I had some
Speaker 1: sort of long that they were like crazy, moronic, full
Speaker 1: of crap. I don't even remember. It was a whole
Speaker 1: string of adjectives making fun of the New York Times
Speaker 1: because they have this view that only Manhattan could have
Speaker 1: of tripping contempt for the rest of the country. No,
Speaker 1: no state wants to ban in a racial marriage. No,
Speaker 1: there's no risk of that No, there's no risk of
Speaker 1: the law allowing it. That that that's all an absurd
Speaker 1: slippery slope. And I can quantify precisely the chances of
Speaker 1: that happening, and it's zero point zero zero. What about
Speaker 1: zero point zero zero zero point zero zero zero one?
Speaker 1: I mean, is are you saying there's a chance now? No? No,
Speaker 1: not not even the dumb and dumber stand standard. I'm
Speaker 1: not even saying there's a chance. There is zero chance. Yep.
Speaker 1: From Kim, Let's be the last question. Why isn't the
Speaker 1: Biden administration changing course? This, I think is a really
Speaker 1: good political question. She says, the regime has dismal poll numbers,
Speaker 1: worsening economics, and are obviously completely incompetent. So, even just
Speaker 1: from a purely political perspective of self preservation, why isn't
Speaker 1: the Biden administration changing on anything? So? I don't know
Speaker 1: for sure, but I do have a theory, which is
Speaker 1: that the kids are in charge. I think Biden is
Speaker 1: truly checked out. I think his mental capacity is so
Speaker 1: diminished that he's not running things. And when I really
Speaker 1: became convinced of that, oddly enough, was at the State
Speaker 1: of the Union and the state of the Union. Biden
Speaker 1: was competent in reading what was on the teleprompter, but
Speaker 1: any president looking at where things are now, it is
Speaker 1: not rocket science to recognize that the Democrats are headed
Speaker 1: to a blood bath in November. At this point, everyone
Speaker 1: knows this. Republicans know this, Democrats know this. The State
Speaker 1: of the Union was Biden's best opportunity to try to
Speaker 1: change course. And by the way, we saw Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: masterfully use State of the Union addresses to change course
Speaker 1: and pull the Democrats path out of the gutter, Biden
Speaker 1: didn't even try. I mean the question that was asked
Speaker 1: that they're not trying to change course. They're doubling down
Speaker 1: on crazy ass left wing radical Any principle would say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, let's not accept that we're headed
Speaker 1: to a blood bath and losing the House. Let's not
Speaker 1: accept that we're probably losing the Senate. Let's at least
Speaker 1: try to hold onto a majority somewhere. They're not doing this,
Speaker 1: and I think what is happening is you have people
Speaker 1: like Ron Klaine, the chief of staff that's running it,
Speaker 1: that they're like you're seeing the movie Doctor Strangelove. They're
Speaker 1: like the guy with the cowboy hat, riding the bomb down.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna take it all the way down and
Speaker 1: blow the hell out of it. And if there were
Speaker 1: a responsible principle running things, they'd at least try to
Speaker 1: save them. For people who are unfamiliar with the term,
Speaker 1: when you say principle, you're talking about the guy, the
Speaker 1: elected guy, the person who's supposed to be in charge,
Speaker 1: the elected official, and it's just it's fundamentally different. I've
Speaker 1: been a staffer, but it is fundamentally different when your
Speaker 1: name is on the ballot, when you are the elected official,
Speaker 1: when you've got the election certificate. There's just an awareness
Speaker 1: of Okay, let's think through what the consequences are, what
Speaker 1: the next steps are. Any president who was aware of
Speaker 1: his surroundings would at least try to save this. The
Speaker 1: fact that they're not, I think the children, the staffers
Speaker 1: are running it, and they're just like, strew it, screw
Speaker 1: it all the way, let's go on like we don't care,
Speaker 1: let's ram everything through. And oh well, if we lose
Speaker 1: the House and Senate Cowboy hats On ride the bomb
Speaker 1: all the way down, that is very scary. Well really,
Speaker 1: I guess scary for them, it's wonderful news for conservatives.
Speaker 1: We don't always get wins, especially when conservatives raut of power,
Speaker 1: but there have been a lot of wins. Congratulations on
Speaker 1: your court win, Senator, thank you all right, and before
Speaker 1: I go, you have more to talk about. We've got
Speaker 1: our wonderful show the Cloakroom with Liz Wheeler. Liz, what
Speaker 1: are you guys going to talk about? Hi, Michael High, Senator, Yes,
Speaker 1: we have a fascinating topic that we're discussing on cloak
Speaker 1: Room today. So, in the wake of Nina Jenkowitz and
Speaker 1: the Disinformation Governance Board coming down from the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: there's this idea on the left that there's limits on
Speaker 1: free speech, and they always use this phrase you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater as their
Speaker 1: justification as the precedent that they point to for these
Speaker 1: limits on free speech. And we are going to examine
Speaker 1: the actual history of that phrase and whether or not
Speaker 1: it actually does impose limits on free speech. You can
Speaker 1: join us on Cloakroom if you go to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash Plus. It's for Verdict Plus
Speaker 1: subscribers only. Verdict with Tedcruise dot Com slash Plus. If
Speaker 1: you use my access code, which of course is Cloakroom.
Speaker 1: You can get your first month free on your annual
Speaker 1: subscription Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash Plus. Make
Speaker 1: sure to go check out the Cloakroom. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of fun. Until next time. I'm Michael Knowles.
Speaker 1: This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict
Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise is being brought to you by Jobs,
Speaker 1: Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to
Speaker 1: supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to
Speaker 1: donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the
Speaker 1: Republican Party across the nation.