Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:01]
Michael Knowles
One vote away, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer. The Democrats were one vote away from passing the massive $2 trillion spending spree package, the build back better plan. The Republicans were against it, the Democrats were for it. And then West Virginia Senator Democrat Joe Manchin said no. He said no to the package. A major win, no major legislative achievement for President Biden in his first year, but lots of scary stuff around the corner nonetheless. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. And Liz, before we get to all that scary stuff around the corner that President Biden can do outside of the Congress, tell us about some happy stuff this Christmas season.
- [00:52]
Liz Wheeler
Well, some happy stuff, I mean, the happiest stuff that I can think of is our merch sale, which we've extended through January 15th. So if you want to sport one of those sweet, sweet cactus hats, you can now get that for just 20% off the regular price if you use the promo code. Cheers. As I said, this sale has been extended through January 15th. So not Christmas, not New Year's, January 15th. And Michael, this is actually really important to talk about this year because it might be ending on this high note with Joe Biden's build back better package being torpedoed by Senator Joe Manchin. But that hasn't been the entire year. The entire year has been a series of victories for Joe Biden. If you're thinking from Joe Biden's perspective, Joe Manchin might just put a topper on the end of this year.
- [01:34]
Michael Knowles
So, Senator, you're the only person in this room who happens to know Joe Manchin. I don't think any of us were expecting him to actually side with the Republicans. Say no to the president in his own party. What happened?
- [01:46]
Ted Cruz
Well, it's a big deal. And I will say Joe has surprised me all year long. You gotta understand Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin is from West Virginia. Joe is a likable, he's an affable guy. Everyone who knows Joe likes him. He's easygoing. He slap you on the back. He was a football player at West Virginia. He was a college football player. He was a jock. He was governor of West Virginia. Among Democrats, he is the most moderate of the Democrats. He is the closest to a centrist among the Democrats. And you know, I gotta say, this whole past year, Joe has astonished me. You know, you know, when I arrived at The Senate now nine years ago, beginning of 2013, I remember Jim DeMint pulled me aside and he said, Ted, Joe is like a purple unicorn. He will always Always be with you right until the moment you need him. And that was the pattern consistently, which is that Manchin was somebody who, if we had 51 votes, you could get a 52nd. He could make it bipartisan. So for example, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed with, with Republicans plus Joe Manchin. So he was willing to be a Democratic vote along with the Republicans. But in the nine years I served with Joe prior to this year, I'd never seen him once stand up to Chuck Schumer on any issue that mattered, where he was the deciding vote. And so we've talked about on this podcast throughout the year that I've always been skeptical that Manchin would hold the line and say no to Schumer. Well, as we're closing in on the end of 2021, number one, he's held the line on the filibuster, which is enormously consequential, really the worst legislative kind of game changing policies that the Dems want to push through all. Take ending the filibuster. And Manchin hasn't wavered on that. And then number two on the Build Back Broke bill, and by the way, I refuse to call it Build Back Better because there's nothing better about trillions in spending and debt and taxes and Bernie Sanders socialist fever dreams, which is what the bill is. But on Build Back Broke, Manchin has consistently tapped the brakes. He's consistently said it's too much money. It was initially scored at $3.5 trillion. That was always a bogus score because it assumed a bunch of the programs in it expired after four, five, six years. Everyone knows that the closest thing to eternal life on planet Earth is a government program. And if you scored the original Build Back Broke bill under just a 10 year window, which is normally how government legislation has scored, it was about a $5 trillion proposal. Manchin had been saying over and over again, this is too much, this is too much, this is too much. He'd then been amplifying it by saying that he was worried about inflation, that the Democrats have already spent over $3 trillion this year in new spending. Totally aside from Build Back Broke, we're seeing inflation across the country. And Manchin had been saying, well, I'm worried about inflation. This is too much money. I don't want to have these massive tax increases. And it was really quite striking. The Democrats approach to Joe was basically to beat him with sticks, to yell at him, to be nasty, to be hideous to him. And Joe wasn't wavering. He was, you know, Biden was calling him Regularly. He brought him up to Delaware to meet with him. Biden was working on him constantly. Schumer, the left, they were pounding him. They were pounding him. And then a week ago, we saw Manchin announced, we're not gonna do it this year. Remember, Schumer had been threatening, we're gonna stay through Christmas and pass Build Back Broke. And Manchin said, no, we're not. We're not. I'm not doing it this year. Forget about it. Schumer was pissed. The Democrats were pissed. Biden was pissed. Everyone was pissed. And then on Sunday, after the Senate ended its business for the year and everyone went back home on Sunday, Manchin went on Fox News Sunday and he said, categorically, I'm a no on Build Back Broke. He called it Build Back better, but I'll give him that because the no is the important part.
- [06:13]
Michael Knowles
Well, I just. On this point of the personal aspect, you know, the White House is badgering Manchin. They think they can bully him into it. Do you think this was a matter of just. Joe was always gonna be a no. It was too expensive, and that's the way it goes. Do you think this was a matter of politically, it's more advantageous for him to oppose it, or do you think the personal aspect really played a role and that the White House overplayed their hand with him?
- [06:35]
Ted Cruz
So I think all of the above. I think he is genuinely skeptical of the massive size of this. I think it's also good politics. Listen, West Virginia is a very red state. Trump won West Virginia by 39 points. To give you a sense of it, the only state Trump won by a bigger margin was Wyoming. So it's the number two Trump state in the country. And Manchin, miraculously, as a Democrat, holds on. So frankly, for Manchin, standing up and saying no to Biden on this massive spending bill is pretty good politics. The fact that he announces it on Fox News Sunday, that was not lost on anybody. He was speaking to West Virginia voters back home, and he needs a bunch of voters that are right of center for him to get reelected. But then on top of that. So I think there's substance, I think there's politics, but I think the personal also matters. The Democrats are just being jerks to him. Bernie Sanders. Look, Bernie Sanders is gruff and unfriendly to every senator he serves with both Ds and Rs. He's not. He doesn't treat people nicely. But he blasts Manchin over and over again. How dare you? One senator doesn't have a right to do this. You know, he wrote an op ed in the biggest paper in West Virginia blasting Manchin for opposing his bill. And I gotta tell you, in senatorial world, to write an op ed in another senator's state in their paper blasting them. I've never seen it done. I mean, I mean it is, it's, it's kicking a senator in the nuts. And wow, you know, I gotta say I, my, I don't think Manchin took well to it. I don't think. And to be honest, in some ways Manchin pissing off Bernie Sanders is about as good a politics as he could hope for in West Virginia. I'll tell you a vignette. A few weeks ago I was standing with Manchin and it's probably, I don't know, four or five or six Republican senators and we were talking and one of them there was Dan Sullivan from Alaska. Dan's a good friend. And Dan said, Joe, we need to do what Cruz has suggested. This is an idea I'd floated to Dan. He said, we need to make you, Joe, the chairman of the committee on everything. And Joe laughed at that. And I followed up, I said, Joe, look, one of the two parties actually likes you. And Manchin howled at that.
- [09:09]
Liz Wheeler
Here's my question, Senator, and I think a lot of people are wondering this. You know Senator Manchin personally, so you'll be able to speak to this. Is this a negotiation tactic not just between Senator Manchin and his constituents, but between the White House and Senator Manchin? Cuz Press Secretary Jen Psaki painted this as a betrayal. Senator Manchin betraying President Biden, is this just another ploy? And maybe, maybe it'll happen next year. Another ploy for Manchin to get what he wants in this bill next year.
- [09:36]
Ted Cruz
So let me give you the negative and the positive. The negative is very possibly yes. The fact that Manchin has said no to this bill and put out a big statement, I think that probably ties him in pretty firmly to being no on this bill. That doesn't mean that Manchin can't go back next year and negotiate some different bill that he wants that has a bunch of spending and a bunch of taxes. He said that he wants 1.75 trillion instead of 5 trillion. Okay, that's moving in the right direction, but you can do a lot of damage with 1.75 trillion, particularly depending on what the details are. So I think it's entirely possible that Manchin goes back and agrees to something different that's not this bill, but could still be a bad bill. The Good side of it, though, is the personal, which is, you know, I was saying a minute ago whether Manchin would become a Republican. I'm skeptical. I don't think he will. And I've tried to convince him. Every Republican senator, I think all 50 of us have tried to convince Joe to come over. And you gotta think of it culturally. So Joe has been a Democrat his whole life. He was governor as a Democrat in West Virginia. He's been senator in his second term as a Democrat. He is the godfather of Democrats in the state. I mean, it is his being, it's his culture. Think about every staffer he's had from when he started in politics. They're all Democrats. They're all staffing Democratic lobbyist firms. Think about all of his donors. They're all big Democrats. And so he's got so much culture, so much of his identity is tied up in being a Democrat, that to flip over is hard. Now, the countervailing piece, and this is what you asked about, Liz, is the personal. The Democrats are being horrific to him. I mean, they're, you know, we've seen video of him walking down the street in D.C. being chased by an angry group of leftists screaming and berating him. You know, when he's in D.C. he lives on a houseboat. I've actually been to his houseboat. It's a very nice houseboat. And that's where he lives when he's not in West Virginia. You know, we've all seen leftists got in kayaks and rode up to his houseboat to harass him in D.C. you know, Kyrsten Sinema, obviously leftist, chased her into the ladies room. And I do think there's a possibility, you know, Manchin said earlier this week, he said, you know, he was asked about still being a Democrat, and he said, yes, if they will have me. And it was an interesting qualifier where it could be that the left, you know, Jen Psaki, you know, I'm very impressed that she thinks so highly of herself. That is a press flack for the White House. She feels perfectly fine dressing down not just a Democratic senator, but the pivotal 50th vote they need to accomplish anything. I gotta tell you, at any functioning White House, if a press secretary did that, the chief of staff of the president would drag them in on the carpet and say, what the hell are you doing? And I'll point out, look, you know, if you remember back when George W. Bush was president, you had Jim Jeffords, who was a very, very moderate to liberal Republican, and he switched parties he became a Democrat. And when Jeffords did that, it switched control of the Senate from Republican to Democrat. And part of why Jeffords flipped is I think he felt mistreated by the Bush White House that they had been pretty bare knuckled and mean to him and he got mad. I think the Biden guys risk that, and particularly the Bernie Stan. The Bernie brothers are so passionate and nasty that I think there's a chance they chase Manchin out, that they make it so inhospitable that he says enough is enough.
- [13:39]
Michael Knowles
Now the water is warm. Joe Speaking of the personal touch, Liz is going to go collect mailbag questions from all of our Burdick Verdict plus subscribers. Do I have that right?
- [13:47]
Liz Wheeler
Liz that is correct. Don't forget there's a sale at the Merch store if you want that sweet cact. We have T shirts, we have stickers, we have all kinds of awesome Verdict merch. That's over at verdict with TedCruise.com shop. You can get 20% off until January 15th. And if you want to submit a question for Senator Cruz, Michael Knowles or me to answer on air, go over to verdict with TedCruz.com/Verdict+ subscribers get a score to ask all the questions on the episodes and we're getting to that shortly.
- [14:16]
Michael Knowles
All right, wonderful. Thank you, Liz. Senator, this all happened in the wee small hours of the morning on Friday night and Joe Manchin was the no. And it went dead. And then Schumer sent everybody home. There was something else consequential that happened in the wee small hours. You got a major win off of Chuck Schumer and it's not really making too much news.
- [14:34]
Ted Cruz
We got an enormous victory at about one in the morning Friday night, early Saturday morning. And it was concerning Nord Stream 2. And we've talked a lot about Nord Stream 2 on this podcast. The pipeline that Vladimir Putin is building from Russia to Germany, and I've been leading the fight against it, authored and passed twice bipartisan legislation stopping Nord Stream 2 defeating Russia. All of our victories, national security victories on Russia on Nord Stream 2, were given away by Biden, who waived the sanctions and basically gave a multibillion dollar gift to Putin. That in turn set the stage for the hundreds of thousands of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine right now, as we talked about just a couple of podcasts ago. Well, in response to Biden waiving sanctions on Nord Stream 2, I placed a hold on every State Department nominee in the Biden administration, every single State Department nominee and also a handful of treasury nominees as well and have been trying to use those holds as leverage to force Biden to actually have the stones to stand up to Russia.
- [15:46]
Michael Knowles
For those of us who are not super familiar with Robert's Rules of Order and the way the Senate works, what does it mean to put a hold on a nominee?
- [15:52]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, so it's a great question. A hold is not a blanket block. So I don't have the ability as an individual Senator to prevent anyone from being confirmed. But what a hold does is slows down a nomination considerably because many of these nominees, particularly ambassadors, routine ambassadors, career ambassadors, move forward by what's called unanimous consent. And unanimous consent is what it sounds like. It's all 100 senators agree. The rules of the Senate are really slow and cumbersome. And so a lot of how the Senate operates is through unanimous consent. Now, the flip side of unanimous consent is any one senator can say, no, I don't consent. And suddenly the wheels grind to a halt. And so when I placed a hold on these nominees, it meant that to confirm any one of them took time on the floor, took significant time. And Schumer had to make the decision to invest time to do that. Democrats were outraged. And so for the past several months, we've had multiple Democrats going to the floor, giving speeches about how I'm a terrorist, how it's terrible that I'm stopp these nominations, but what I was doing with these holds is using leverage to cause movements. So throughout the course of it, I've been transparent, incremental. So, for example, early on, I negotiated with Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State. And Blinken offered to put out a really strong statement threatening sanctions on Nord Stream 2. I said, all right, I'll lift three holds in exchange for that. And I actually, my office, we edited the statement before they put it out. The instant they put it out, I lifted the holds. And so kind of all throughout, I've tried to use these holds as leverage to make progress on stopping Nord Stream 2 and stopping Russia. Well, three, four weeks ago, I had an agreement with Chuck Schumer to have a vote on sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in exchange for I was gonna lift seven holds. And we were gonna do that as part of the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. And there were about 20amendments coming up, one of which was my sanctions amendment on Nord Stream 2. Then unfortunately, all the amendments got torn down on the ndaa. It was a fight over an unrelated matter. And so there were no amendment votes. And so the deal went away. Well, beginning of Last week, I extended an offer to Schumer. I said, all right, I'll tell you what. I'll lift the holds on 16ambassadors. 16 nominees, mostly ambassadors.
- [18:29]
Michael Knowles
There's 16 total. Not in addition to those other seven.
- [18:32]
Ted Cruz
The seven were included. So I basically doubled the addy and took it from 7 up to 16 in exchange for a vote on Nordstream 2. And one of the things to understand is the leverage. So presidential appointments expire at the end of the year. So every nominee that is not acted on by the Senate, that nomination expires. And Biden has to come back in January, resubmit the nomination. They go back to committee. The committee has to consider it again, and it takes a long time. So the Democrats are feeling real pressure at the end of the year. We want to move on noms. So I put forward 16. You'll be amused. One of the noms that was in that group was Rahm Emanuel. Now, look, I am not a fan of Rahm Emanuel. He was a hardcore partisan Democrat in the Clinton White House. He was mayor of Chicago. He's been nominated to be ambassador to Japan. But Rahm was lighting me up. And Rahm was getting all sorts of people, all sorts of people who are friends and supporters of mine to call me and say, hey, you really need to clear Rahm and let him move forward. And so I decided, all right, I'm gonna throw Rahm into this package. And I called Rahm and I said, all right, Rahm, I'm adding you to the group that I'm offering to Schumer to lift the holds on. And you have proven to be a formidable lobbyist. You have been lighting me up from every direction. So, Rahm, I'm doing this for one reason and one reason only. I want you to direct that relentless lobbying at Chuck Schumer and get him to take my damn deal. Cuz I've now teed it up, and all you gotta do is get your own party to say yes. And so Rahm was lighting the Democrats up. Well, I offered 60.
- [20:14]
Michael Knowles
So he went along with it.
- [20:15]
Ted Cruz
Oh, no, no. Rom thought it was fantastic. He's like, great. And he immediately. I mean it. It was exactly what it was intended to do, which is what I wanted. I wanted Rahm to be, you know, hitting Schumer from all directions to take the deal. Well, Schumer said no to 16. I then put. And he came back and he said, every nominee, which was about 60 nominees, I want all of them. I'm like, well, no. And actually, his initial offer was lift Every hold and promise never to make a hold again. And it's like, okay, well, screw you.
- [20:51]
Michael Knowles
In your entire Senate career.
- [20:53]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, like, you gotta understand, Schumer was angry. And he was angry at Manchin. He was angry at Build Back Broke. He was angry that, like, he wasn't getting what he wanted and he was lashing out emotionally. So I initially teed up 16, then I ended up. And the negotiations, as they started getting late Friday night, I upped it to 28, ultimately at 1. And Schumer was no. And he was coming back with, you know, 51. He was coming back with big numbers. And look, if you're engaged in a negotiation, one of the most important things is that people learn that your threats are credible, that you don't bluff. And so as they're insisting on big, big numbers, I'm like, look, fine, I don't care. Then have every one of your nominees expire. That's fine by me. It's not like I'm vested in having a bunch of rich Democrats move into mansions in European capitals and start throwing parties with expensive wine. That may be a big priority for you, but. But my life is just fine with that being delayed a few months more. And it was finally, oh, I don't know, it was midnight, one in the morning, where Schumer, I think, finally believed I was ready to walk away from the deal.
- [22:15]
Michael Knowles
Were you? Would you reveal to us if you would walk away from the deal?
- [22:19]
Ted Cruz
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, in a heartbeat. I was ready to walk away from the deal. He believed it, but because it was the case, and I was. I was absolutely at the point of, all right, we're done. And so then he blinked and he scheduled a vote on sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in the first two weeks of January. So by mid January, we'll have the vote. By the way, I had to have the vote in January and not in December because a bunch of Republicans had left. And so I didn't want the vote when, like, the Republican senators weren't there. So I had to wait till January.
- [22:52]
Michael Knowles
When you lose on the vote, Right?
- [22:53]
Ted Cruz
Yeah. I mean, to have the vote and then like not have your own guys, there is a real problem. But he agreed in exchange for my lifting the holds on 32 different nominees. And so those 32 went through and they got confirmed. And most of those were fairly non controversial. The whole point of the holds was leverage to make progress. But, you know, let me get a little bit into the weeds because it's. We were having a fight. Schumer wanted to Vote on what's called a side by side, which is my sanctions amendment alongside a Bob Menendez sanctions bill that would sanction Russia if they invade Ukraine. So after the fact, after an invasion, the reason Schumer wants a side by side is it's easier for Democrats to vote against my bill. Cause the Menendez bill gives them political coverage. So what I told Schumer is I said, look, I'll accept it one of two ways. Either you can tee up Menendez's bill and have my sanctions as an amendment to his bill. But if you do that, my sanctions have to be at a 50 vote threshold, which means if we hold the Republicans and get one Democrat, we win. And I knew for a fact we'd win at a 50 vote threshold. Cause a number of Democrats told me they were voting for my bill. I said, alternatively, you can tee up my bill as a standalone vote at a 60 vote threshold. Well, Schumer didn't want either one because he's afraid that the White House will lose it either way. And so it was all about leverage to get a good vote. It was one in the morning where he blinked and said, fine, we'll give you a standalone vote at 60. And so that's what we did. And we're gonna come back in January. And one of two things will happen in January. Either we will narrowly lose the vote. It may be that the White House puts so much pressure on Democrats that they vote to surrender to Russia and basically throw Ukraine overboard and set up a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a really tough vote for Democrats. They don't want to do that, but they might. Partisan pressure might get them to do that. Or if it looks like we're getting north of 60, it wouldn't surprise me if we suddenly, if they give the green light and all, or virtually all Democrats vote and my thing passes by a big margin. So either way, we've got a major vote scheduled in January that, that I gotta tell you, at 1 in the morning. Schumer was so pissed, he wouldn't look at me. He was scowling. It didn't help that a bunch of senators were like high fiving me when, when he conceded that, that, that was a little bit spiking the football, but, but, but it was a big win.
- [25:37]
Michael Knowles
That's great. So we're having too much good news. Before we get to the mailbag, I wanna touch on a couple bad news stories. And it all has to do with the vaccine. So, you know, I'm moonlight, my other gig outside of our work here at verdict with our good friend Cactus and Liz. And the whole audience is that I'm at the Daily Wire. Daily Wire sues the Biden administration over the private vaccine mandate. So we go, we get some good indications out of the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is where we're bringing our lawsuit. And then right in the night on this past Friday, the 6th Circuit reverses its stay of the vaccine mandate, meaning that they had put a hold on the vaccine mandate. You don't need to go get the fauci Ouchie. Now they're saying, yes, you do. A lot of companies are following suit. This around the same time you are grilling the CEO of United Airlines because United Airlines is imposing a vaccine mandate on their employees, regardless of what the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals says. So on this vaccine issue, great, we won. Build Back broke. Great, we won. Or we might win. Nord Stream 2 are we gonna lose on the vaccines?
- [26:42]
Ted Cruz
So I hope not, but it was a very disappointing development. So as you noted, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the Federal Court of Appeals that covers Texas, had issued a stay, had stayed Biden's vaccine mandate for private employers. And as we've talked about before on this podcast, there are four different Biden mandates. One for active duty military, one for federal civilian employees, one for federal contractors, and then one for private employers with 100 or more employees. And we've talked about, I think all of them are legally suspect, but I think the most problematic is the mandate for private employers employees. That's the OSHA mandate. The fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals had issued a stay, had ordered that the OSHA mandate would not go into effect. Now here's what happened. There were a bunch of lawsuits filed over the OSHA mandate. And there's a provision in the federal rules that when you have a bunch of lawsuits over the same topic, they can be consolidated in one court of appeals so that you don't have multiple court of appeals all resolving the same or similar issues. And so what happened is by lottery, the circuit that got it was the sixth Circuit. So that was just happenstance that suddenly the cases all went to the 6th Circuit and the 6th Circuit on Friday night reversed course and it vacated the stay that the Fifth Circuit had entered in. And the Sixth Circuit, it's a divided opinion. So it's a 2:1 opinion. The majority opinion is written by a appellate judge nominated by Barack Obama. It's joined by a George W. Bush appellate judge. The dissent is by Joan Larson, who was a Trump Appointed Court of Appeals judge. She was on his Supreme Court list. She was a former clerk to Justice Scalia, very smart, very capable judge. And it was a straight out dispute over the legality of the mandate. And so the majority opinion of the 6th Circuit said the 5th Circuit was wrong and the plaintiffs are likely to lose and that OSHA has the authority to issue this ruling. It was a bad ruling on the merits. Judge Larson's dissent is a very effective dissent. It goes through and slices the majority's reasoning to bits. Where we stand today is that the plaintiffs have appealed to the Supreme Court and asked for emergency relief. We'll see if they get it. What has also happened is OSHA has stayed its own mandate until January 10th. So nothing will happen until January 10th. We've at least got a little bit more of a window. But if the ruling stays where it is, that's not good.
- [29:34]
Michael Knowles
So, you know, the players involved, I guess we were one vote away on this 6th Circuit decision as well. One vote away in the Senate on Build Back Broke. So what's gonna happen up at the Supreme Court? Are the originalists and the conservatives gonna go squishy or are they going to say, no, you don't have the right, President Biden, to force this mandate on private employers?
- [29:53]
Ted Cruz
You know, I hope that the court follows the law. I gotta say, when it comes to Covid, it's a bit, a little bit all over the map. In my view, it's a pretty straightforward statutory question. That OSHA lacks the authority that this is a vast, vastly exceeds OSHA statutory authority. Fifth Circuit agreed and said it was brazenly in excess of its authority. The U.S. supreme Court, they've been a little bit nervous. We talked in a recent pod about the religious liberty fights coming out of New York where the justices were reluctant to step in on Covid. And so where it comes out, if this were a sort of non Covid type issue, it'd be easy that the court would rule, no, you don't have the authority to do this if you.
- [30:50]
Michael Knowles
Took the COVID out of it.
- [30:53]
Ted Cruz
I think there are some justices that are nervous about COVID as we talked about last podcast, Justice Gorsuch's dissent, analogizing it to wartime rulings that in wartime people get really nervous and sometimes justify bad policies because they're scared of their enemies. And I think Gorsuch made a good analogy that when it comes to Covid and pandemics, we're seeing bad policies justified because they're scared of the pandemic. You know, I will say you mentioned the airlines. So last week in the Senate Commerce Committee, we had the CEOs of the major airlines testify. And for several years, I've been either the chairman or the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee of Commerce, so the lead Republican on all airline related issues. During the pandemic, when we were passing the CARES act and there was billions of dollars of relief for airlines to make sure that we had pilots and an aviation industry when they were allowed to fly again, I was the lead Republican making all that happen. And so we had the CEOs, I know the CEOs all. Well, I pointed out, I said, look, two of the companies, both based in Texas, Southwest and American Airlines, have been really good on vaccine mandates in particular. The CEOs of both have said to me directly, but also publicly that no employee will be fired because they decline to comply with a vaccine mandate, that they will be generous in granting exemptions and they will not fire anyone. That's the right thing to do. I commend both of them for doing that. Delta, the CEO, has likewise said they will not fire anyone for failing to comply with a vaccine mandate. The one big outlier is United. And United, look, United's an airline I know well, because I live in Houston. And United, they're, you know, one of their big hubs is in Houston. So if you live in Houston, you gotta fly United. You basically fly mostly United and Southwest if you're a Houstonian. And so, I mean, I fly United all the time. United is based in Chicago. And I don't know if they have decided they're a Democrat airline, that they're an adjunct of the Biden White House. But their CEO has been draconian on this. He said, if you don't get the vaccine, you're fired. And they fired pilots, they fired flight attendants. I talked to, you know, and I went through, in the hearing, I questioned Scott Kirby and I said, look, why aren't you doing what your peers are doing? Why don't you give a damn about the rights of your pilots and flight attendants and employees? There are about 2,000 United employees who are standing up and fighting against United. About 14,000 United employees in Texas. And I gotta say, he was just defiant. He's like, well, this is safety and we're gonna mandate it for safety. And it was, what United is doing is wrong. And one of the things I pointed out to him, I said, look, I fly United pretty much every week, almost without exception on every single flight I get on, either a United pilot or a flight attendant or sometimes multiple pilots or multiple flight attendants come up to me and they just say thank you. Thank you for fighting for us. And I said, you know, Mr. Kirby, what the hell is wrong with you that your employees are thanking me? You're the CEO. Why aren't you fighting for your employees? And he had no good answer to that.
- [34:28]
Michael Knowles
Right, Right. And you hope that enough pressure will bring him into line with the other airlines. But a lot of uncertainty on the vaccine. So before we keep dreading what awaits for us in 2022, perhaps let's bring Liz back in for a little end of the year cheers so we can hear from all of our wonderful members in Verdict.
- [34:47]
Liz Wheeler
Thank you, Michael. Yes, there are so many good questions for the episode tonight. As always, if you want to submit a question for Senator Cruz, for Michael or for me to answer live on air during these episodes, you can go to verdict with TedCruz.com plus we do have, we've extended our sale through January 15th so you can become an annual subscriber for just $56 a year. That is, by the way, the cheapest price that you're ever going to get on that. So now's the time. Time is, as they say, go ahead on over to verdict with Texas. Tedcruze.com Plus, Senator, the first question isn't so much political as personal. We are about to enter into 2022 after a tough year politically. Do you have any New Year's resolutions that you make?
- [35:29]
Ted Cruz
You know, I don't have any formal New Year's resolutions. Look, I would like to do what I suspect a lot of folks would like to do, which is lose some weight. You know, I turned, turn 51 tomorrow. And you know, when I was a kid, when I was in high school and college, I was skinny as a rail. When I graduated from college, I was 511 and about a buck 35, a buck 40 and was skinny for a long time. But as I've gotten older, I've put on a few extra pounds and, you know, I'm working out and trying to watch what I eat. But is it a firm resolution? I wish it were firmer than that. But lifting, lifting weights a couple times a week and playing basketball a couple times a week and trying to, trying to cut down the carbs. And we'll see if that makes any progress.
- [36:21]
Liz Wheeler
We'll be able to tell, we'll be able to hold you accountable because we'll see who wins the arm wrestling contest between you and Michael?
- [36:27]
Ted Cruz
Well, that depends on how people vote.
- [36:30]
Liz Wheeler
That is, that is my new year's resolution is a recurring one. I always try to read 50 books a year. I actually, this year, I have to admit, I did not come anywhere close. I think I'm only about 3, but I did give birth at the beginning of the year, so I think that gets me out of it this year. But I do try to read a book a week.
- [36:46]
Michael Knowles
That's true. My resolution is a little closer to the senators, but I guess it's sort of the opposite. I've resolved to get much fatter this year. You know, I'm something of a skinny boy myself. I don't cut a very imposing figure, so I want to eat lots of hoagies and pasta and really cut a physically intimidating appearance. And please wish me luck.
- [37:03]
Ted Cruz
You know, I will say, Liz, your 50 books will get a lot easier now that you're a mom, because reading books like One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish really stacks up the numbers fast.
- [37:14]
Liz Wheeler
If I counted those, then my number would be much, much higher. I didn't actually think of counting those.
- [37:19]
Michael Knowles
So.
- [37:20]
Liz Wheeler
Senator, there's an interesting theme. Throughout this year, since the Biden administration has been inaugurated, since they've been in the White House, there is this. It's not even an underlying sentiment among a lot of the American people. There's an open sentiment among the American people wanting accountability for or institutions that they don't trust or politicians that they feel are corrupt. And so the questions tonight are all of the same nature. People, the American people, voters, your constituents, Biden's constituents, wanting accountability for actions that they deem unethical and wrong. And so I wanna start with a question from Philip Beach. He says, I would like to ask what will be done in the near future in terms of bringing charges against Dr. Fauci. The man has lied repeatedly to Congress and the people in regards to his role in gain of function, disease, diseases in Wuhan. Yet he continues to peddle his misinformation and strut about national tv. Senator, how do you answer that question?
- [38:08]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, look, it's a great question. The unfortunate answer is, in the next year, my prediction is not a damn thing will be done about it. And the reason is the way our Constitution is structured, it is the executive that brings charges. It is the executive that can bring an indictment. And only the executive, only the Biden administration can do so. So in Congress, we can. If we had the majority, we could hold hearings. We can call, we can shine a light. We can draw attention to it. But as a senator, I don't have any ability to bring Criminal charges, only the executive can do so. And as you rightly noted, Dr. Fauci, listen, he's been wrong on a host of things about COVID from the beginning. But in terms of criminal conduct, criminal conduct is not whether you agree or disagree with someone. It's not even whether you like the edicts that he's issued. Criminal conduct is, have you violated the criminal laws? And what that question asked put the finger on the clearest violation of criminal laws, which is that Fauci has testified in front of Congress multiple times that the NIH has never funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Gain of function research is where you're modifying a virus to make it more infectious, to make it more deadly, to make it more dangerous. And he has said unequivocally, repeatedly in congressional testimony, no, no, no, no, we have not done that. A couple of months ago, the NIH in writing, confirmed that, yes, the NIH has in fact funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of virology. Those two statements are directly contradictory. They're 180 degrees opposite. When Merrick Garland was testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked him about this. I asked him, will you investigate? Will you prosecute Fauci? And the reason it's prosecution is 18 USC Section 1001 makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to lie to Congress. And so on the face of it, it certainly appears that Fauci lied to Congress and committed a criminal act. And so I asked Garland, will you investigate and prosecute? And if you won't, will you appoint a special counsel? If you're too politically compromised, if your partisan loyalties to Biden are too great, will you appoint a special counsel? And Garland, following the lawless pattern we've seen from this Attorney General and this Justice Department, said, I won't comment on investigations. But he just refused to answer. I'm gonna continue shining a light on it. I'm gonna continue calling for accountability, but I have no confidence that this administration is willing to enforce the law if it's politically inconvenient for them to do so.
- [41:08]
Liz Wheeler
Right. Well, I think that they've proved that. I mean, the fact that Attorney General Garland refused to comment on it, I mean, pretty much says all. All that we need to know. Although we appreciate you pushing this. So T.M. erickson has a very similar question, saying, Congressman McCarthy has openly declared his desire to investigate Mr. Biden. If the GOP retakes the House in 2022. Do you think that's smart?
- [41:31]
Ted Cruz
Yes, and I think that is extremely likely to happen. I'm very optimistic about 2022. I put the odds of Republicans winning the house at about 9010, and it may even be higher than that. What's interesting is in Washington, everybody assumes Republicans are gonna win. I think all the Democrats assume we're gonna take the House. It's almost baked into the cake of how everyone handles decision making and the assumptions. I put the odds of our taking the senate at about 50. 50. I think it's gonna be a really good year, but it's a bad map. We have more vulnerable Republican seats up in 2022 in the Senate then we have vulnerable Democrat seats. So we've got to have a few things bounce, Right? But if we take the House, which, as I said, I think is overwhelmingly likely, then I think we will see serious investigations of the Biden administration. We will see oversight, which is Congress's responsibility, but with Democrats in control, they have no interest in actually engaging in real oversight. And if we take the Senate, I hope we see the Senate engaging similarly in real oversight with teeth.
- [42:39]
Liz Wheeler
And, Michael, this is a pretty interesting question. So as we close out this year of verdict, it's worth noting that every year of verdict so far, Trump has been impeached. There hasn't yet been a year of verdict without a Trump impeachment. Do you expect to see that in the upcoming year?
- [42:54]
Michael Knowles
Yes, I do expect them to impeach Trump again. I'm not sure how they're gonna do it, but I think they'll probably find a way. Even though he's out of office, the guy could probably be dead for about 50 years, and they'll still be impeaching him. Senator, since you're the only one of us who holds a federal office, I'll flip it around to Joe Biden. Do you think there's any chance that a Republican House would impeach President Biden?
- [43:14]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, I do think there's a chance of that. And whether it's justified or not, as we talked about, when verdict launched, the Democrats weaponized impeachment. They used it for partisan purposes to go after Trump because they disagreed with him. And one of the real disadvantages of doing that is, and this is something you and I talked about at great length, is the more you weaponize it and turn it into a partisan cudgel, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I said at the time, when we have a Democratic president and a Republican House, you can expect an impeachment proceeding. That's not how impeachment is meant to work. But I think the Democrats cross that line. I think there'll be enormous pressure on a Republican House to begin impeachment proceedings. I think there are potentially multiple grounds to consider for impeachment. Probably the most compelling is the utter lawlessness of President Biden's refusal to enforce the border, his decision to just defy federal immigration laws and allow 2 million people to come here unimpeded in direct contravention of his obligation under Article 2 of the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That's probably the strongest grounds right now for impeachment. But there may be others. And because the Democrats decided this is just another tool in the partisan war chest, I think there's a real risk that turnabout will be fair play.
- [44:47]
Liz Wheeler
And that's gonna be interesting to watch. So as we close out 2021, I mean, we're closing out with Senator Manchin saying no to build back broke, as you say. Looking ahead to 2022, do you have any predictions politically of what we can expect even, even before the midterm elections actually happen? Just political policy. Anything from Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court. What do you expect to see in 2022?
- [45:10]
Ted Cruz
I think we will see more terrible nominees. I think we will see more terrible judicial nominees. It's striking how the Biden nominees, they're not picking centrists, they're going hard left. The judges they're putting forward are hard left wing activists. The nominees they're putting in the executive branch are by and large hard left wing activists. I think we'll see a lot of that. I think we'll see Schumer trying to ram through more bad policy. And sadly, even though Manchin said no to build back broke, he's a Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema is a Democrat. And I think they will vote for bad bills next year that do harm. I think you'll see more spending. I think you will see bad policy enacted. I am hopeful they don't end the filibuster. And if they don't end the filibuster, we won't see D.C. and Puerto Rico become a state. We won't see the Corrupt Politicians act, the federal seizure of elections pass into law. And we won't see them pack the U.S. supreme Court. So in terms of big structural harms, those won't happen. But we may well see, we probably will see trillions more in spending and potentially trillions more in taxes. Too, right?
- [46:25]
Liz Wheeler
And of course, everybody's eyes, the entire year will be on the midterm elections. So even the policies and the politics will reflect that. As a reminder, if you want to ask Senator Cruz a question, Michael Knowles, a question, or me a question, you can do so at verdict with TedCruz.com plus, for the very cheap, very inexpensive price of $56 a year, you could become an annual subscriber. It is the cheapest price that we are going to offer and you can get it between now and January 15th. Michael, I will hand it back to you.
- [46:51]
Michael Knowles
How wonderful that as we head into what President Biden is calling a winter of severe illness and death, we have got some real wins, some real tangible wins. And the host of this show happened to be there and happened to be causing some of those wins last Friday night. So that's a wonderful thing, something to be grateful for. We're very grateful for all of you who have listened to the show for two years now. Looking forward to seeing you next year. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [47:27]
Liz Wheeler
By the way, don't forget our tremendous giveaway in honor of the two year anniversary of Verdict. If we reach 15,000 members on Verdict plus by January 21st. January 21st being of course the anniversary, the inaugural episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz. And we will bring one Verdict plus member to a live taping of Verdict.
- [47:49]
Ted Cruz
Now.
- [47:49]
Liz Wheeler
You don't have to pay anything. This is an unpaid. All you have to do is join the Verdict plus community at verdict with TedCruz.com+ if we reach 15,000 members by January 21st, maybe you will be invited to a live taping of verdict. Also on YouTube. We will be selecting 15 random people who leave comments on episode 100. That's episode 100 on YouTube. 15 random people. We will be selecting to get a box of Verdict merch from the Verdict merch store. We're talking about sweet cactus hats, we're talking about T shirts, we're talking about stickers. Really cool stuff. You could be one of the 15 lucky people, head on over to our YouTube channel and leave comments. 15 of you are going to get a box of Verdict merch. And perhaps the most fun, this isn't exactly a giveaway, but it's even better if we get to 50,000 reviews on Apple podcasts. That means that you go over, you subscribe to the show Verdict with Ted Cruz, you leave us a five star rating. You give us a glowing, obviously great review over there. If we get to 50,000 reviews, then we're going to do a poll to see exactly what Michael and Senator Cruz are going to do in 2022. These are the options. And by the way, shout out to Real Truth Cactus for this idea. These are the options. Either the Senator wears a Braves jersey for a whole episode, or that's option number one. Option number two Michael and the Senator arm wrestle. I'm very biased, but this one's my favorite. Option number three, the Cactus makes a guest appearance on our show. Or option number four, Michael roasts Princeton and the Senator roasts Yale in a Throwdown episode. 50,000 reviews on Apple Podcasts and this. You will be in control of one of the episodes in 2022. Head on over to Apple. Subscribe, give us a great review and those are our giveaways for the two year anniversary of Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [49:31]
Ted Cruz
This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security pac, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In 2022, jobs, freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.