Speaker 1: This investigation of the president was corrupt. The FBI and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice were politicized and weaponized. And in
Speaker 1: my opinion, there are only two possibilities that you were
Speaker 1: deliberately corrupt or woefully incompetent, and I don't believe you
Speaker 1: were incompetent. This has done severe damage to the professionals
Speaker 1: and the honorable men and women at the FBI because
Speaker 1: law enforcement should not be used as a political weapon,
Speaker 1: and that is the legacy you have left. This might
Speaker 1: be my favorite aspect of the show. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what we've been seeing since impeachment, all the way
Speaker 1: back what was it eight nine months ago? Now is
Speaker 1: we get the first look and the first talk with
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz after all of these extraordinarily consequential events. Senator,
Speaker 1: you have just come from a hearing with former FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey. James Comy is not just a controversial figure,
Speaker 1: but he has, in your words, either incompetent or worse.
Speaker 1: Let's if you wouldn't mind take us through the hearing. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: so he was testifying about his leadership at the FBI
Speaker 1: and his role in the investigation of President Trump of
Speaker 1: his campaign of Michael Flynn of Carter Page, and I
Speaker 1: got to say, you know, you know, Comy at this
Speaker 1: point just blames everything on Oh, mistakes were made, the
Speaker 1: passive voice was used, nobody as an actor. It just
Speaker 1: just happened to happen. Oh up, some things were sloppy.
Speaker 1: And I gotta say I thought too many Republican senators
Speaker 1: were willing to credit him with Oh, you just didn't
Speaker 1: know what was going on, Bologny. Comey knew exactly what
Speaker 1: was going on. Comy, I believe bears very direct responsibility
Speaker 1: for politicizing the FBI, for politicizing dj and Obama and
Speaker 1: Biden used Komy and used Brennan to turn dj CIA,
Speaker 1: FBI and the political weapons to go after Trump. And
Speaker 1: I think Komy was complicit the hearing today which I
Speaker 1: just came from. I spent most of the morning over
Speaker 1: at the hearing. He's very good at dodging and weaving.
Speaker 1: He's slippery. He doesn't like to answer a direct question.
Speaker 1: So you know, he talked about well, anytime, anytime the
Speaker 1: FBI is thought of as less than competent or honest,
Speaker 1: that's a problem. And I pointed out that in according
Speaker 1: to the Inspector General report, they made seventeen material misstatements
Speaker 1: to the Federal Court. And he's like, oh, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's competent and honest and and and he said, well
Speaker 1: he was honest at least, and I said, well, no.
Speaker 1: One of those was when an FBI lawyer who worked
Speaker 1: for you fraudulently altered a document from the CIA. He
Speaker 1: emailed the CIA and said, hey, it's Carter Page a
Speaker 1: source for you because he's talking to the Russians. But
Speaker 1: if he's talking to the Russians on behalf of the CIA,
Speaker 1: that's very different than if he's running around with Russian agents. See.
Speaker 1: I said, oh, yeah, he's a source for us. And
Speaker 1: the FBI lawyer fraudulently altered that email and added the
Speaker 1: words is not a source, literally turned it to the
Speaker 1: opposite of what it said. I mean, I mean reversed
Speaker 1: its meaning one hundred and eighty degrees, and they used
Speaker 1: that as the basis for a submission to the Federal Court. Comy,
Speaker 1: being slippery as he is, said no, no, no, that's
Speaker 1: not what the Inspector General concluded. And fortunately I had
Speaker 1: the IG report right in front of me, so I
Speaker 1: pulled it over and read the damn quote from the report,
Speaker 1: and he just he had nothing to say on that.
Speaker 1: I like this dichotomy that you drew between incomptance and corruption.
Speaker 1: I think even I and I think for so many
Speaker 1: people who are listening, who don't have the time to
Speaker 1: go through all of the aspects of what this means
Speaker 1: for spying on the Trump campaign and the Russian collusion narrative,
Speaker 1: and on and on and on, and it's complicated. It's
Speaker 1: hard to figure out. It is hard to figure out.
Speaker 1: And we know that bureaucracies are incompetent a lot of
Speaker 1: the time. So I think even a lot of us
Speaker 1: who are pretty conservative will say, Okay, maybe we'll give
Speaker 1: them the benefit of the devil. What you're pointing to
Speaker 1: here is one the language that Komy uses, this passive
Speaker 1: voice which he always uses, is designed to push away
Speaker 1: any sort of guilt, and we can read in the
Speaker 1: report that there was flagrant intentional dishonesty. Yeah. A couple
Speaker 1: of additional observations. Komy at the hearing today and at
Speaker 1: the press all the time, makes all these dispersions. Like
Speaker 1: he said at the hearing, I think the Russians have
Speaker 1: something on Trump. And mind you, he has no basis
Speaker 1: he was leading the FBI. It used to be the
Speaker 1: that you actually have something based on evidence rather than
Speaker 1: just making making wild accusations. But listen, I know James
Speaker 1: Comy not well, but I've dealt with him for a
Speaker 1: number of years. I think Comey was deeply, deeply political,
Speaker 1: small p political political in the maneuvering, and I think
Speaker 1: Comey had delusions of grandeur. He worked in the Jed
Speaker 1: gro Hoover building, which is the headquarters of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and I think he thought he was Jed Groover. I mean,
Speaker 1: Hoover famously abused the power of head of the FBI
Speaker 1: and basically blackmailed people, had you know, all sorts of
Speaker 1: incriminating information on lots of players. And I think Comy, look,
Speaker 1: Comy played a role in twenty sixteen and torpedoing Hillary
Speaker 1: at the end and then an exonerating Hillary and going
Speaker 1: back and forth, and I think he was playing politics.
Speaker 1: And then I think he felt guilty about the role
Speaker 1: he played in Hillary. And I think he hated Trump
Speaker 1: and he was perfectly happy to have the FBI be
Speaker 1: a political weapon. And there needs to be accountability. People
Speaker 1: need to go to jail for breaking the law and
Speaker 1: to date, they haven't, and I hope they do. Will
Speaker 1: they be held to account? I mean, I know we're
Speaker 1: having hearings at the Senate, we're having the investigation from
Speaker 1: the DOJ into all the mess that happened. Is there
Speaker 1: going to be some consequence to all of this or
Speaker 1: are the nefarious players just going to run out the clock? Look,
Speaker 1: I pray they will. I don't know. I think Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is doing a terrific job. I think if anyone
Speaker 1: can ensure some accountability, it's bar. That being said, it's
Speaker 1: been four years and there hasn't been much of any
Speaker 1: And you know, one of the things I asked Comey
Speaker 1: about is is he testified under oath and under penalty
Speaker 1: of perjury that he had never leaked to the press
Speaker 1: and that he'd never authorized anyone to leak to the press.
Speaker 1: Concerning this, Andrew McCabe, who was his deputy, has publicly
Speaker 1: stated that he leaked to the press and that Comy
Speaker 1: authorized him to do so, and he knew about it.
Speaker 1: And so I asked Coomy about it. I read the
Speaker 1: two statements. I said, Look, these are directly contradictory. They
Speaker 1: can't both be true. So who's telling the truth and
Speaker 1: Comy again under oath, reiterated that he never leaked and
Speaker 1: never authorized anyone to leak. McCabe's coming before the Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee next week, and you better believe I'm going to
Speaker 1: ask him the same thing. One or the other. Is
Speaker 1: lying and doing it in front of the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: Is perjury that is punishable by prison term. Well, we'll
Speaker 1: obviously have to cover that next week. You know, I
Speaker 1: want to get to the debates a little bit. And
Speaker 1: actually this ties directly in one one line that President
Speaker 1: Trump came back to last night, as he said, there
Speaker 1: was an attempted coup. The previous administration spied on my campaign,
Speaker 1: they drove up this whole ridiculous narrative. They tried to
Speaker 1: impeach me over absolutely nothing. And so it's not a
Speaker 1: minor issue. It's not enough to just say, oh, well
Speaker 1: that was a few years ago. We'll move on. You know,
Speaker 1: this is an issue that gets to the heart of
Speaker 1: the integrity of our political system, and that there was
Speaker 1: a little bit of a parallel I felt at the debate,
Speaker 1: which is that it's supposed to be the two people
Speaker 1: who disagree, right, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and a
Speaker 1: neutral moderator. There are supposed to be neutral, nonpartisan elements
Speaker 1: to our government, and the moderator, just like a lot
Speaker 1: of elements of the government, turned out to be a
Speaker 1: partisan Democrat weighing in on the side of Joe Biden. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think Chris Wallace did an abysmal job. I think
Speaker 1: he's consistently been a really bad presidential debate moderator because
Speaker 1: he's biased, and he's condescending, and he thinks it's all
Speaker 1: about him. And so you saw, you know, before the debate,
Speaker 1: he said he wanted to be invisible, but that disappeared
Speaker 1: when the debate started, where he you know, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of stomping his foot and you know, I'm
Speaker 1: in charge here, listen to me. You know, reminded me
Speaker 1: of South Park, you know, respect my authority. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean that that was Chris Wallace, and yes, and
Speaker 1: but he was also Look, a lot of people get
Speaker 1: confused because Wallace is on Fox News, and so they
Speaker 1: assume he might must be a Republican or right of center.
Speaker 1: He's a liberal Democrat and he's been in the entire
Speaker 1: time I've been in the Senate. I've seen Wallace do
Speaker 1: it over and over again, that he attacks conservatives, that
Speaker 1: he carries water for the left. You saw with the questions,
Speaker 1: you know, one of his questions to Trump was the
Speaker 1: New York Times hit piece on the taxes, which you know,
Speaker 1: conveniently two days before the debate, entirely designed to be
Speaker 1: the attack on the debate. Now, mind you, the New
Speaker 1: York Times doesn't actually release the tax documents, so it's
Speaker 1: purely the Times's characterization of them. But but Wallace does
Speaker 1: none of that to Biden. Apparently there are no issues
Speaker 1: with Biden. Did you know that there are no criticisms
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden? Lucky guy? You know, at times Wallace's
Speaker 1: question were almost like, you know, mister Vice President, are
Speaker 1: you more handsome or brilliant? Like like like it was,
Speaker 1: and his little his laughter, his snide comments. There is
Speaker 1: zero doubt for whom Chris Wallace is voting, that he
Speaker 1: is voting for Joe Biden. And that's not a good
Speaker 1: thing for for a moderator. Now, you know, we were
Speaker 1: talking about Senate Judiciary Committee a minute ago and how
Speaker 1: the witnesses testify under penalty of perjury. I think it's
Speaker 1: a good thing that neither of the candidates last night
Speaker 1: were testifying under penalty. There's some exaggerations perhaps in there,
Speaker 1: or worse, it was wild and Woolley. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's ever been a debate like this in the history
Speaker 1: of presidential debates. At times it was ugly. I drew
Speaker 1: an analogy to the Detroit Pistons basketball team in the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties in that there were a lot of hard
Speaker 1: fouls and miss shots. And you know, Trump at times
Speaker 1: was Bill Lambier, coming with this massive arm and slamming
Speaker 1: Joe across the head. Now Joe was rabbit punching back,
Speaker 1: and I mean it was at times it almost became
Speaker 1: Jerry Springer and I expected someone to grab a chair
Speaker 1: and like throw it at the other. It was disappointing,
Speaker 1: I felt, I have to say it was. It was
Speaker 1: obviously a two on one debate Wallace and Biden against
Speaker 1: Trump to begin with, but I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people were dispirited because you felt on the substance, Trump
Speaker 1: had much more than Joe Biden. And even even on
Speaker 1: the attacks, Joe Biden's attacks were just to call Trump
Speaker 1: a clown and a racist and tell him to shut up,
Speaker 1: man and come on man. But it was so childish
Speaker 1: and I understand maybe the President's strategy was to off
Speaker 1: foot Biden a little bit, but I felt there were
Speaker 1: too many interruptions. I felt that was counterproductive. It was
Speaker 1: just dispiriting. I felt for both camps. What do you
Speaker 1: think the upshot of it is going to be for
Speaker 1: both campaign and how do you think that they can
Speaker 1: do better next time? Yeah, Look, I don't think the
Speaker 1: debate moved many votes last night. I think the people
Speaker 1: that came in supporting Trump left supporting Trump. The people
Speaker 1: that came in supporting Biden left supporting Biden. I don't
Speaker 1: think there were a whole lot of undecided voters whose
Speaker 1: views were changed. Both candidates had good moments in the debate.
Speaker 1: Trump I think his best moment was when he called
Speaker 1: out Biden and he explained that Biden is supporting shutting
Speaker 1: down the economy, shutting down small businesses, shutting down restaurants,
Speaker 1: destroying job, shutting down schools. And Trump contrasted that says
Speaker 1: he wants people to open, go back to work, go
Speaker 1: back to school. That was really important, and Biden didn't
Speaker 1: have a good response to that. Biden was trying to
Speaker 1: run away from his positions. I thought that was a
Speaker 1: very positive exchange. I also thought Trump was particularly good
Speaker 1: went on law enforcement. You know, Joe made reference to
Speaker 1: being supported law enforcement, and Trump said, really, name one,
Speaker 1: name one law enforcement organization in all of America supporting you,
Speaker 1: and Joe just kind of blinked, wide eyed and had
Speaker 1: no idea. And then, of course Chris Wallace jumped in
Speaker 1: and bailed Joe out. Wallace should have shut up and
Speaker 1: stayed out of it right then, and Trump should have
Speaker 1: been quiet yeah and pressed it. It's one very powerful
Speaker 1: thing in a negotiation, in an interview is silence. Silence.
Speaker 1: People hate silence. People want to fill silence with space.
Speaker 1: And you know, the question Trump asked, name one law
Speaker 1: enforcement agency in the entire country that has supported you.
Speaker 1: I think if Trump had just simply looked at him
Speaker 1: and waited, and there had been two three, four, five
Speaker 1: six seconds of silence as violent Biden had no answer,
Speaker 1: it would have been really powerful that being said, the
Speaker 1: point was made. Nonetheless, the point was made, and it
Speaker 1: was too bad that Chris Wallace jumped in. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously I guess that was what he was there for,
Speaker 1: was to go in and help the Democrat. But there
Speaker 1: is this basic rule in politics I don't need to
Speaker 1: tell you this, which is that when your opponent is
Speaker 1: destroying himself, don't get in the way. There's no reason
Speaker 1: to interrupt that well, and by the way, an another
Speaker 1: quick example, you know Joe Biden, he tried a couple
Speaker 1: of times to run away from some positions of the left.
Speaker 1: He pretended he didn't support packing the cord, or actually
Speaker 1: technically he said he wouldn't answer that question, which means yes,
Speaker 1: he supports packing the cord. He did help himself, I
Speaker 1: think when he came out strongly and said that he
Speaker 1: opposed defunding the police, although I think both Wallace and
Speaker 1: Trump should have pressed back on him hard. And I
Speaker 1: thought it was interesting that he ran away from the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal and said I don't support the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal. If Wallace were actually being a fair and
Speaker 1: impartial moderator, the natural follow up question to that is
Speaker 1: why aspects of the Green New Deal do you not support?
Speaker 1: You're running mate as a co sponsor of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: there was no substance, so he was able to say no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, I don't I don't support that, but
Speaker 1: with no details, and he wasn't pressed one iota. And
Speaker 1: the first question of the debate actually is what we
Speaker 1: were talking about on the last episode. The first topic
Speaker 1: dominated the beginning was the Supreme Court, and it was
Speaker 1: on this issue of court packing, and it was on
Speaker 1: other other aspects of the Supreme Court. Coincidentally, you happen
Speaker 1: to have a book out on this subject, One Vote Away.
Speaker 1: But I do think it kind of vindicates what we
Speaker 1: were saying on the previous episode, which is that, however
Speaker 1: it is today, I don't however it came to be
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is the dominant issue in the presidential elections. Now,
Speaker 1: I think that's right. It was the number one question
Speaker 1: in the debate. The book, One Vote Away, it came
Speaker 1: out yesterday. It's actually done really well. We did podcast
Speaker 1: yesterday and we asked folks thank you for going going
Speaker 1: online to Amazon or wherever and buying it. We've been
Speaker 1: in the top ten national best sellers on Amazon. Actually
Speaker 1: right now on Amazon's best seller list for political conservativism
Speaker 1: and Liberalism, which is sort of an odd odd list
Speaker 1: if you're I guess a righty or lefty. Um, the
Speaker 1: book is right now number one, and I gotta say
Speaker 1: I think Verdict listeners, you guys are a huge part
Speaker 1: of why that is thank you that really it makes
Speaker 1: a difference, and I think I think you'll find the
Speaker 1: book really interesting and informative and helpful, hopefully for the
Speaker 1: same reason that that you find verdict helpful. Right. Well,
Speaker 1: it's actually I think it would be a good contrast
Speaker 1: to the debate, which is that I am professionally obligated
Speaker 1: to watch every minute of that debate, and if I
Speaker 1: were not professionally obligated to do it, I would not
Speaker 1: have it. I didn't feel it was productive. It was
Speaker 1: difficult often to watch and listen to. But it's different
Speaker 1: when you're talking about the book. You're you actually do leave.
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm not just shilling for your book. I
Speaker 1: really am enjoying it because for this reason, you leave
Speaker 1: with actual information, so you can say, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: this is ammo I can use frankly, when I'm having
Speaker 1: these debates with my friends and I'm at the water
Speaker 1: cooler or I'm wherever at a dinner party. Well, and
Speaker 1: you know the debate last night. The first question, actually
Speaker 1: Wallace asked a good first question. It was a neutral
Speaker 1: moderator question where he said, mister President, your position on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court vacancy is as follows. Vice President Biden,
Speaker 1: your position is as follows. And he fairly neutrally characterized
Speaker 1: both sides, and he said, tell us why, why you're right?
Speaker 1: And then so he just teat up the issue and
Speaker 1: then let them engage. That was actually a pretty good beginning.
Speaker 1: It was it was not as biased as some of
Speaker 1: his later questions. I got to say. The president's response,
Speaker 1: he essentially said, well, I'm president, and I got elected,
Speaker 1: so I get to nominate, and we won. And I
Speaker 1: wish I wish the president had focused on why it matters,
Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court matters, what's at stake. I wish
Speaker 1: the president had focused on the issue is really at
Speaker 1: the core of the book. One vote away that he
Speaker 1: talked about free speech or religious liberty of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: You know, when I was a college debater, we used
Speaker 1: to think all the time, when when you were in
Speaker 1: an opposition of of focusing on harms. In fact, you know,
Speaker 1: I would say, harms, harms, harms, how does it impact you?
Speaker 1: And and a little bit of the back and forth
Speaker 1: between Trump and Biden, it was about them and and
Speaker 1: and I really think it would have been more effective
Speaker 1: for it to be about you at home, if you're
Speaker 1: the soccer mom at home watching this debate. Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: people elected the president. And by the way, Biden had
Speaker 1: a huge created a huge opening because he came and said, well,
Speaker 1: the American people deserved to have a say. They get
Speaker 1: to vote on a president, they get to vote on
Speaker 1: the Senate, and they deserve to have a say. That
Speaker 1: was his reason why we shouldn't vote on him. And
Speaker 1: Trump had a natural response of you know what, Joe
Speaker 1: was absolutely right. The American people deserved to have a say,
Speaker 1: and they did. They elected me in twenty sixteen. I
Speaker 1: told him what kind of justice I was going to appoint.
Speaker 1: They elected a Republican Senate. They told him what kind
Speaker 1: of justice we were going to confirm. And Joe, there's
Speaker 1: a reason the American people that they want free speech.
Speaker 1: They don't want the government prohibiting you criticizing politicians. They
Speaker 1: want religious liberty, they want to be able to worship.
Speaker 1: They want the Second Amendment. And Joe, your justices would
Speaker 1: take away Second Amendment rights from Americans. It was a
Speaker 1: great opportunity that Joe kind of stuck his chin out
Speaker 1: there and asked to be clavered, not in a personal attack,
Speaker 1: but really a substantive of your vision for America is
Speaker 1: not what the American people want, and it's not how
Speaker 1: they voted in twenty fourteen in the Senate, in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen in the Senate and the presidency, or in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen in the Senate. That's a great insight. I mean,
Speaker 1: I saw that missed opportunity there. I felt you could
Speaker 1: have hit it. But I like the framing that you've
Speaker 1: just described, which is it's not about me, it's about you,
Speaker 1: and don't forget that was a huge help to President
Speaker 1: Trump in the general election in twenty sixteen when Hillary's
Speaker 1: slogan was I'm with her, and he said, forget that,
Speaker 1: I'm with you, completely flips there races I'm with you.
Speaker 1: And in the spirit of that, as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I do want to get to some mail bad questions
Speaker 1: from you, not you senator, but you out there. And
Speaker 1: this does relate to the debate. This question is from
Speaker 1: Brandon what changes could be made to make the debates
Speaker 1: more effective or I'll add listenable. Look, at some level,
Speaker 1: it's impossible if the two are going to yell at
Speaker 1: each other. President Trump in particular want like is looking
Speaker 1: for a brawl. I actually think he would be better
Speaker 1: off sort of ratcheting down a little bit and engaging
Speaker 1: in a more more of a conversation and discussion. But
Speaker 1: I think it would be benefited from having moderators. I
Speaker 1: think rather than pretending people are unbiased, we ought to
Speaker 1: just admit. So I'd have a Republican moderator, a Democratic moderator.
Speaker 1: I'd have a you know, how about have Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: and Rachel Maddow moderator debate together and everyone will know
Speaker 1: which hat they're wearing, or you know, or Mark Levin
Speaker 1: or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Knowles or Ben Shapiro. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, can you imagine Ben modering a debate and fine,
Speaker 1: get some whatever, smart lefty, get lefty Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 1: Chris Hayes. That would actually be an interesting debate. Now
Speaker 1: everyone gets that Shapiro would ask questions. He's coming from
Speaker 1: a perspective, and Hayes is coming from a perspective, and
Speaker 1: they would ask questions to advance their perspectives. I think
Speaker 1: that actually be a more honest debate, an interesting debate,
Speaker 1: because it would expose the weaknesses of both sides and
Speaker 1: help people make an intelligent decision. Absolutely, I totally agree
Speaker 1: this idea of when can we get back to a
Speaker 1: perfectly balanced, neutral objective press that probably never existed, that
Speaker 1: I think is missing the point. Let's just be honest
Speaker 1: about it, and that way you get to some fairness. Now,
Speaker 1: this question is going to come from the opposite end
Speaker 1: of watching or listening to last night's debate from Margot.
Speaker 1: What does Senator Cruz do for fun to take a
Speaker 1: break from politics? Play basketball? I love hoops about the past.
Speaker 1: I played two hours of hoops yesterday, played two hours
Speaker 1: of hoops two days ago. I can barely walk because
Speaker 1: I turned fifty and a couple of months, so for
Speaker 1: to five hours of hoops is a bit too much. Um.
Speaker 1: I like playing tennis. I love movies. I'm I used
Speaker 1: to go to the movies at least once a week.
Speaker 1: I mean, I love being in the big movie theater.
Speaker 1: Um play with my kids. I mean the girls are
Speaker 1: nine and twelve, so so free time at home is
Speaker 1: family time. We play games. I'm love to play games,
Speaker 1: play poker, UM play backgammon with Catherine, she likes backgam
Speaker 1: and we play monopoly, played dominoes. UM, dominoes is a
Speaker 1: Cuban favorite. So every Thanksgiving and Christmas, the family will
Speaker 1: get around. Cubans, by the way, play double nine dot
Speaker 1: double sixes, and and and my college and law school
Speaker 1: roommate guy named David Panton, who's Jamaican. In Jamaica, they
Speaker 1: play a lot of dominoes as well. They played double sixes.
Speaker 1: And David came to visit the house a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago when when Heidi was out of town, and
Speaker 1: so we just had kind of a boy's weekend hanging out,
Speaker 1: and a couple other guys came over and we played
Speaker 1: dominoes at the dining room table and and and that
Speaker 1: particular time, David's a very good Domino's player. I happened
Speaker 1: to win that particular night, and so I called up
Speaker 1: my dad. My dad is a very good Domino's players too,
Speaker 1: And I called up and I said Dad, and my
Speaker 1: father knows David really well. And I said, Dad, you
Speaker 1: really need to come for David right now. And actually
Speaker 1: I want to ask you to pray for him, because
Speaker 1: you know, he just flew all the way to Houston
Speaker 1: and he just got got humiliated at dominoes and and
Speaker 1: and he's hurting and so dad and I have him
Speaker 1: on FaceTime and I said, you know, Dad, I'm asking
Speaker 1: you to to commiserated. My father had just finished playing
Speaker 1: dominoes with my cousin and my dad happened to have
Speaker 1: one too, and so my father was having He said,
Speaker 1: you know what, we ought to get David Marino together
Speaker 1: and then they can commiserate on on what it's like
Speaker 1: to to need to study dominoes. More so, it was
Speaker 1: not we weren't showing a whole lot of compassion at
Speaker 1: that moment. Senator, I've got to tell you, while I'm
Speaker 1: picturing you playing dominoes at the table, all I'm picturing
Speaker 1: is you guys lining them all up and then you
Speaker 1: push one down and they all that's that's I don't
Speaker 1: know how to play dominoes. That's all I know how
Speaker 1: to do with them, But it creates a much funnier
Speaker 1: immage you. I notice you left one thing off the list,
Speaker 1: which is my favorite hobby that we've ever done together.
Speaker 1: The cigars. Where are the cigars? It doesn't make the
Speaker 1: top ten? Um, so when I play poker, I love
Speaker 1: to smoke cigars. Um. All right. A funny Heidi story.
Speaker 1: When Heidi and I were engaged. Um. I used to
Speaker 1: host a regular poker night and my buddies would come
Speaker 1: over at the dining room table and we'd we'd play
Speaker 1: poker and we'd smoke cigars sitting at the dining room table,
Speaker 1: and they were like, man, your girlfriend or your fiance
Speaker 1: is amazing, Like I can't believe she let you smoke inside.
Speaker 1: And I'm just like, yeah, yeah, that's like you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm yeah, that's that's just how cool it is. Cool's amazing.
Speaker 1: And we got married May twenty seventh, two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: We're coming up on our twentieth anniversary. We literally get
Speaker 1: back from the honeymoon. I'm getting rid of host poker game.
Speaker 1: She says, get the damned cigars outside. You are never
Speaker 1: to smoke it inside again. And I never have. It's
Speaker 1: been twenty years since I've been able to smoke a
Speaker 1: cigar inside. So so sometimes the engagements rules are different
Speaker 1: from the marriage rules, and then I can see that
Speaker 1: it's sort of it changes like that. I suppose. I
Speaker 1: suppose marriage is a bad sacrifice, good though, to be
Speaker 1: able to take a moment to relax, even if you
Speaker 1: have to do it outside. Now, to have a little
Speaker 1: bit of fun, because a lot to celebrating gratulations on
Speaker 1: the book going so far up up the list, and
Speaker 1: be sure for everyone to go out there and get
Speaker 1: a copy of One Vote Away. I promise it will
Speaker 1: be a substantive distraction from all the madness that you're
Speaker 1: going to be getting in the media for the next
Speaker 1: couple months of the presidential cycle. We're gonna be back
Speaker 1: forgetting about our relaxation. We're gonna be back talking about
Speaker 1: all of that. Obviously a lot coming up, but in
Speaker 1: the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought
Speaker 1: to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political
Speaker 1: action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates
Speaker 1: across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and
Speaker 1: Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for
Speaker 1: Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.