Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz. Boy, has he been. Where is Ted? Boy, oh, boy, he's dying to get back there and ask those questions. I know. He said, let me out of here, President, I want to ask those questions. He's got some beauties, I'll bet. Thank you, Ted, for everything. You've been incredible.
- [00:22]
Michael Knowles
Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. Senator, my first question. What was that?
- [00:30]
Ted Cruz
Well, that was this morning at the White House. And this morning, the president signed the USMCA, the U.S. mexico, Canada Trade Agreement. This is what's replacing NAFTA. And there were a whole bunch of senators, whole bunch of House members, whole bunch of folks from all over the country that were there. It was outside the South Lawn of the White House. We're all bundled up in jackets and scarves and gloves.
- [00:51]
Michael Knowles
And this was before, obviously, the impeachment trial today.
- [00:54]
Ted Cruz
It was. It was this morning. The impeachment trial starts at one. So was there. And the President was making reference that we're getting ready to head into questions.
- [01:02]
Michael Knowles
I wonder if maybe the President has heard an episode or two of this show and knew you had a lot of good questions lined up.
- [01:08]
Ted Cruz
I am confident the President is downloading each and every episode.
- [01:13]
Michael Knowles
So before we get into the questions. Cause that's the big story of the day. And you had some of the most prominent questions and the questions that went viral. I have to point out it is after 1:00 in the morning. But the impeachment trial wrapped up around 11:15. The cameras get turned off. I suspect you were spending a little more time in the Capitol. Maybe there was some wheeling and dealing going on. Is there anything you can tell us?
- [01:38]
Ted Cruz
Well, there were a number of us that stayed afterwards, stayed in the cloakroom, which is a little room off. Both sides have a cloakroom. There's a Republican cloak room, a Democratic cloakroom. And several of us probably spent a half hour, 40 minutes back in the cloak room talking about, is there any way to resolve this witness issue? Is there any way to get to 51? We're gonna find out on Friday.
- [01:59]
Michael Knowles
So getting to 51 would end the impeachment trial. There would be no more witnesses. You'd go right to a vote, most likely. The President gets acquitted, it's all over.
- [02:09]
Ted Cruz
If we get to 51, it's saying enough is enough. We've heard enough evidence that the house heard 17, actually, 18 witnesses. We've heard the testimony. And let's end this. Let's not drag it on forever and ever. And we're close. We've got a shot at that. All 47 Democrats will vote to hear additional witnesses. They want to drag it on forever.
- [02:31]
Michael Knowles
Right.
- [02:32]
Ted Cruz
The question is, are there going to be four Republicans to join them? And the answer is maybe. It looks like two Republicans are pretty solidly going to vote with the Democrats on this. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins. From their public comments, they, they, they seem to have made up their minds.
- [02:48]
Michael Knowles
They've more or less said they're going to vote for witnesses.
- [02:51]
Ted Cruz
They have. And beyond that, I think the next two votes that are most in play are Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander.
- [03:00]
Michael Knowles
Lisa Murkowski is in Alaska. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee.
- [03:03]
Ted Cruz
Correct. And I don't know how they're going to vote. I can tell you there were several of us trying, trying to say, is there a way we can reach an agreement to get this over and done with? I don't know that it'll work, but I can tell you it was actually, it was several of us that were trying to see, all right, where is common ground? And I don't wanna. We'll see if we get it done. Great. And we'll know by Friday. But until that happens, we'll just have to see. They gotta make up their minds.
- [03:32]
Michael Knowles
I've gotta talk to my bookie after this. I wanna put money on this whole thing. We'll just have to wait and see. You're not going to make a prediction one way or the other.
- [03:39]
Ted Cruz
I think it comes down to those senators, and they're making a decision which direction they want to go. And, you know, at the end of the day, you try to make the case on the merits. You try to just, you know, talk through what are you worried about? What. What would help ease your concerns? What would get you to a place that you were comfortable? But, you know, look, I'll say one thing about whipping votes in the Senate is, is Senators, you know, brow beating is not very effective. So you're trying to listen as much as anything to say, okay, where do you want to get to? That actually determines it quite a bit. Do you want to end up at a yes or do you want to end up at a no? And that's not unique to the Senate. That's true in a lot of negotiations is getting a sense of where someone really wants to end up. If they're looking for an exit ramp, then it's easier to try to figure out, all right, how do you get there? If they're not looking for an exit ramp, that becomes a lot harder.
- [04:39]
Michael Knowles
Then there's really nothing you could Say, that could bring them there anyway. Okay, well, then switching gears into questions that do have answers, we got, obviously, the House Democrats, they had their arguments. The Trump team had their arguments. Now we move into questions from senators, but the senators are not the ones actually voicing the questions. It's the chief justice who is presiding over impeachment. He's the one who asks the questions. Can you just take us through this process a little bit before we get into the specific questions you asked?
- [05:09]
Ted Cruz
Well, sure. And the reason the senators don't ask the questions is actually the Senate impeachment rules. They're a separate set of rules that govern impeachment. And those rules provide senators cannot speak in open session. In other words, when the TV cameras are on, when the reporters are there, senators can't speak. And so the rules for questions are you write down your questions and then the chief justice reads them. And part of the reason for that, if you think about the Senate, is designed to ensure some civility, some decorum. Those rules are designed so you don't have senators screaming at each other and engaging in mortal combat.
- [05:46]
Michael Knowles
Right.
- [05:47]
Ted Cruz
The House has a lot of that. I mean, the House is a different chamber.
- [05:50]
Michael Knowles
That's the purpose of the House, I think.
- [05:52]
Ted Cruz
And so, so having the chief justice read the questions sort of calms the temperature.
- [06:00]
Michael Knowles
Okay, so there were some hot moments today. I don't know. I don't know that it completely calmed the temperature. And you had some of the biggest questions of the day. Can you just take us through them and maybe some of the answers?
- [06:11]
Ted Cruz
Well, sure. And if you look at Today, there were 93 questions that were asked today. There were 47 by Republicans, 46 by Democrats, and the process. So yesterday and this morning, I wrote a bunch of questions and submitted them. So leadership office was compiling questions. So I submitted a dozen questions, and a bunch of other senators submitted questions. And I think altogether there were a couple hundred questions that had been submitted by Republicans. And so the leadership office is trying to organize them and sort of group them together and fairly set the order. Everyone has a right to ask their question if they really want to force it. But leadership was trying to have a fair and equitable order and give everyone a shot who wanted a shot. So I submitted a dozen questions. But then you've also got, you're sitting there at your desk and everyone has little note cards, and they're kind of, oh, they're bigger than three by five, they're probably four by six note cards. And it ended up. So there were altogether four questions that I wrote that were asked three of the four I wrote right there on the spot.
- [07:16]
Michael Knowles
So you didn't come in, you didn't written them at home, and you were workshopping them.
- [07:21]
Ted Cruz
So I had submitted a dozen questions. Yeah, it ended up that three of the four were right there. So Tay was busy today. I was listening, working. So the first question I asked was one I hand wrote. And as. Just as I was listening to the first couple of answers that the House managers gave, and they're focusing on quid pro quo. The first question was just as a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? And is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?
- [07:49]
Michael Knowles
Quid pro quo, We've talked about this on the show a number of times. It's just, you give me this, I give you that. And that's been the phrase really at the center of this impeachment.
- [07:57]
Ted Cruz
Well, and they were bickering back and forth, is there quid pro quo or not? And that's the whole argument for Bolton and additional witnesses is, well, wait a second, you know, according to the New York Times, he says there was a quid pro quo. That's why we need Bolton. And my point is, look, it doesn't matter. It makes no impact on the legal issue. And so that was the question I wanted to emphasize at the outset to make clear the legal question is, does the President have the authority to do what he did? And in this instance, look, a point I've been making from the beginning. A president always has the authority to investigate corruption if there's credible evidence of corruption.
- [08:36]
Michael Knowles
So were you satisfied by the answer that you got?
- [08:39]
Ted Cruz
So I was. Alan Dershowitz got up and answered it, and he explained, no, that it doesn't matter if there's a quid pro quo. They happen all the time.
- [08:49]
Michael Knowles
Alan Dershowitz, being a lawyer for the.
- [08:50]
Ted Cruz
President, he was in fact, Dershowitz pointed out yesterday, both he and I were at the announcement at the White House of the President's Middle east peace initiative. Look, that on its face is a quid pro quo. You look at what the President is promising. The president is promising, among other things, to the Palestinians, that collectively the United States and other countries will invest $50 billion if the Palestinians stop terrorism. That's a quid pro quo. That's an exchange that happens in foreign policy all the time. And so I think that was important to make clear that an awful lot of what people are fighting about doesn't affect the question. The legal question before the Senate of whether the president committed impeachable crimes, whether the president committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
- [09:37]
Michael Knowles
And the House Democrats are not satisfied with that answer.
- [09:41]
Ted Cruz
Shockingly, look, this is a political impeachment. It is a party line impeachment. And it became clear. So the second question that I asked, it stemmed from an answer that Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, gave where he proposed a hypothetical and he said, imagine it was 2012. Would Barack Obama had been justified investigating Mitt Romney. And I think he was pretty happy with his hypo. He's pretty proud of it. So I'm back in the cloakroom a few minutes later. And in the cloakroom throughout questions today, there were Republican senators coming in and out and we're talking about questions, we're writing questions. So actually, so Lindsey Graham came up to me and Lindsey's a trial lawyer and Lindsey and I are good friends. We talk a lot, especially during impeachment. And so he's thinking like a trial lawyer. And he's like, well, what if, what if Obama had evidence that Romney was corrupt? And he like kind of throws that hypo out. And I'm like, look, that's good. And so I went back to my desk and got out the little note card and just sat there with my blue felt tip pen and wrote out the question. So the question I wrote out is using Mr. Schiff's hypothetical. If President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney's son was being paid a million dollars a year by a corrupt Russian company, that Schiff's hypo was Russia instead of Ukraine, and Romney had acted in his official capacity to benefit that company, would Obama have had the authority to ask that the potential corruption be investigated? So in other words, it's not just, hey, randomly investigate this guy. If you got evidence, if you got evidence that on the face of it looks pretty damn crooked, right?
- [11:30]
Michael Knowles
And it's a. And this is a direct parallel. This is a much more precise analogy.
- [11:34]
Ted Cruz
It is a much more precise analogy. So I hand wrote that card out, but I left the name blank. And so I called Lindsey back and said, hey, you know the hypo you suggested to me, I wrote it out for you. What do you think? He said, great. I said, all right, you ask it, I'll co sponsor it.
- [11:47]
Michael Knowles
Yeah.
- [11:48]
Ted Cruz
So he got up and he asked it. And you know, Schiff, look for a lot of these questions, most of the Republicans, and actually this strategy on both sides, most of the Republicans ask the questions of their own side because the principle Is, look, if you ask the other side, they're gonna get up at filibuster, they're gonna present their argument, they don't wanna answer the questions. And so the large majority of questions on both sides are directed at friendlies.
- [12:18]
Michael Knowles
Because the impeachment trial goes on so long, so few people are watching the whole thing, that, that unless you're looking at the highlights, unless you make a highlight, it just doesn't matter at all.
- [12:29]
Ted Cruz
That being said, there are a handful of us who tried to cross examine the other side. Now, do we know they're gonna filibuster to avoid the question? Of course. But there's value, I think, to teeing up that hypothetical, making clear that their position is, doesn't matter what evidence of corruption you have, you can't have an investigation if it's your political rival. Well, that's just nutty. I mean, that's not the law and that doesn't make any sense. And so, yeah, so Schiff wanted to avoid that pretty significantly, but I don't think that answer was effective.
- [13:03]
Michael Knowles
Right. And at the very least, you see him filibustering the question and simply not answering it.
- [13:09]
Ted Cruz
Well, and that was even more powerful with the next two questions. So the third question I asked is the only one today that I had written beforehand. And it actually was a question that was derived a number of the listeners on this show we've asked folks tweet out questions if you have questions you want me to ask. And a bunch of folks wanted questions about the so called whistleblower and about political bias of the so called whistleblower. So this is a question I had written out before that points out that the inspector general for the intelligence community wrote that the whistleblower had some indicia of arguable political bias in favor of a rival political candidate.
- [13:50]
Michael Knowles
And just to set the stage for people, the whistleblower so called is the one who made a complaint about the Trump phone call to Ukraine, started the whole thing. And the inspector general found that there was an indication that he had a political bias against the president.
- [14:08]
Ted Cruz
Well, the inspector general said there were some indications of that. So, so I don't want, I don't want to overstate what, what the inspector general said, but so there were some indications. So I asked, I said, I said, look, did the whistleblower ever work for Joe Biden? If so, did he work for Joe Biden on issues involving Ukraine? If so, did he assist in any material way with the quid pro quo that Joe Biden executed when he demanded that Ukraine fire the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son a million bucks a year. So Schiff completely refuses to answer. Just utterly dodges, won't answer it. Just, just, I mean nothing, Nothing. Instead he gives and look, we knew he was gonna do this, but he gives a prepared speech on we must preserve the sanctity of whistleblowers and protect their identity no matter what.
- [15:01]
Michael Knowles
That wasn't the question at all.
- [15:03]
Ted Cruz
So I got kind of and I got ticked off because he so dodged the question. But it was a tell. The fact that he was terrified by that question revealed a lot. So I got up the instant he finished asking, dodging the question, not answering, not answering the question. So I walked back into the cloakroom and instead of handwriting this, I asked the guys there, I said all right, does someone have a computer I can use? Yes. So I sat down on a computer because this was going to be long enough, I needed to type it. And so I typed out this question. I said, you refuse to answer the question on political bias. Are the House managers refusing to tell the Senate whether or not the so called whistleblower had an actual conflict of interest? And the question went on to say, cuz he said he wants to keep the whistleblower confidential. I said there are 7 billion people on planet earth. Almost all had no involvement, zero involvement in Biden's quid pro quo. Right. Are the House managers unwilling to say whether the so called whistleblower was a fact witness who directly participated in and could himself face criminal or civil liability for Joe Biden's demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma? Now amazingly enough the second time. So when I wrote this question out, actually the leadership team said look, you've asked a couple of questions, we don't want to ruffle feathers. Can you get anyone else to ask this question? I said sure. So I sit next to on the floor David Perdue from Georgia. I said hey David, what do you think of this? He read it, said great, let's go. So he asked it and we co sponsored great.
- [16:41]
Michael Knowles
But there was that Ronald Reagan line. It's amazing what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.
- [16:45]
Ted Cruz
Oh, this is very much a collective trying to drive the point forward. But it was amazing when this question was asked for the second time, Adam Schiff completely dodged the question. Would not. So Adam Schiff, the position of the House managers. They refuse to tell you whether this so called whistleblower has actual bias, has a conflict of interest and if he Actively participated if he was working for Joe Biden and if he was the guy Joe Biden used to say, hey, go to the Ukrainians and cut off their military aid until they fire this prosecutor, for all we know, and there are reasons to suspect, based on what the inspector general said, that this so called whistleblower is not some disinterested third party. He's right in the middle of it. He's a player.
- [17:38]
Michael Knowles
He's an active player.
- [17:39]
Ted Cruz
If Biden were. If an investigation shows Biden is in fact corrupt, it is entirely possible, or at least the House managers wouldn't tell us, if this so called whistleblower was worried about his own rear end, was worried about. Wait a second. If they go after Biden, they're gonna prosecute me because I was involved in this corruption. House managers, not only wouldn't they answer that, but one thing that was also very revealing on most topics, Adam Schiff would get up and he'd just kind of riff. He'd talk. And he's good. Look, he is a talented operator. Smooth. On these two questions, you could see him. He'd pull out a piece of paper and he would read word for word, the prepared answer. And he's speaking very precisely. Look, he's under oath.
- [18:24]
Michael Knowles
Yep.
- [18:25]
Ted Cruz
And he's speaking very precisely. And it was really clear that he didn't want to say something on this about what the inspector general said were significant indications of political bias on the part of the whistleblower. And that suggests this whole thing was cooked up in the beginning and was a crock from day one. Right.
- [18:48]
Michael Knowles
You know, it reminds me of when you were talking to the press yesterday and you got a little too close to the target and then the press started to lose their minds. Reminds me of that a lot. Before we get to Mailbag, we just have a few moments left, I want to ask you about a strange political stunt today that I don't understand and I think most people don't understand. I read reports that the Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer, invited to the impeachment trial, a Ukrainian criminal who was actually wearing an ankle bracelet at the time. What was that about?
- [19:20]
Ted Cruz
Well, you remember, this was this guy, Lev Parnas, who had his kind of 15 minutes of fame because in the middle of the trial, he ran on Rachel Maddow and said, oh, I've got all sorts of information. And this guy is under criminal indictment right now. So he is facing criminal prosecution by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for serious felony offenses. And Chuck Schumer Decided to invite him as his personal guest to come to the trial. Because, look, Schumer's trying to make the point, we need witnesses. So I guess inviting some guy under criminal indictment is my way of showing we need witnesses. So here's the funny thing up in the Senate gallery. To get in the Senate Gallery, you have to go through metal detectors. They have a rule of no electronics. Well, this guy, Lev Parnas has an ankle bracelet on.
- [20:07]
Michael Knowles
He can't put it through the machine.
- [20:08]
Ted Cruz
That is mandated because he's under criminal indictment right now. So what happened? He was told, we're not gonna let you in. You won't get into the gallery because you've got an ankle bracelet on, and we're not letting electronics in. And so he ended up never going. So Schumer's guest ended up never going in the gallery because he was wearing an ankle bracelet. It was.
- [20:30]
Michael Knowles
Tells you a lot about the desperation, I think, of the Democrats here.
- [20:34]
Ted Cruz
It tells a lot about everything going on with this trial.
- [20:37]
Michael Knowles
Okay, so in the remaining minute or two that we have, we've got to get to the mailbag. Few questions real quick from Ronald. Is it the House team's position that Joe Biden should not be investigated or Hunter Biden should not be investigated because Joe Biden is running for president or just because he's Joe Biden? Would it be okay with the House Democrats to investigate Biden after the election? In other words, does running for president give Joe Biden prosecutorial immunity?
- [21:09]
Ted Cruz
It's a great question. They haven't answered it. And the short answer is the House Democrats don't care. You know, it's like saying an ostrich with its head in the sand. Does it have a view on which way's up? They don't. They hate Trump. So on the question, what it comes down to, their position is that any investigation into Joe Biden and Barisman Hunter Biden is baseless, is frivolous, is phony, is a sham. All of those are words they've used that's just nuts. It may be that Joe Biden was not, in fact, corrupt, but there's plenty of basis to open an investigation. You know, there's a legal term that, when you talk about a tiny bit of evidence, that the legal term you use is even a scintilla of evidence. Although I keep a bunch of other Republicans want to write scintilla in their questions. I keep saying, nobody knows what a scintilla is. Don't write that. And then everyone in the cloakroom starts calling it a chinchilla instead. So that's chinchilla. It's very.
- [22:12]
Michael Knowles
Yeah, it evokes images. It's very confusing.
- [22:14]
Ted Cruz
So I don't think we've had a scintilla question. We keep suggesting, okay, replace it with like, let's talk English rather than fancy stuff. But the House Democrats aren't addressing any of the merits of that. They aren't addressing what Hunter Biden did for his million bucks. They aren't addressing Joe Biden's quid pro quo. They're just saying, I don't wanna hear it.
- [22:39]
Michael Knowles
Right. You know, it obviously seems crazy that if you run for president all of a sudden, you could get away with a crime. That would mean if I commit a crime, I. I could just start running for the Democrat nomination and frankly, I'd probably poll higher than a number of the candidates.
- [22:52]
Ted Cruz
Hey, listen, it's in flux right now.
- [22:54]
Michael Knowles
I could grab it before Iowa. I want to get into some of those 2020 politics, especially cuz I was a few days away. But we're out of time, so we're gonna have to do that tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [23:15]
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.