Michael Knowles (4:40)

Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles Senator, you have had a very, very busy week. The entire world has had a very, very busy week. I want to get to Ukraine and other senators, met with President Zelensky. I know that you met with President Biden's new Supreme Court nominee. There's a lot to get to. But first, I want to get to the thing that hits closest to home. $4.17 national average for gasoline per gallon, over 5 bucks per gallon in California. The answer is, we stop taking the Russian oil, we start taking the Venezuelan oil. We don't drill for any oil at home. What is going on in the energy sector?

Ted Cruz (5:25)

Well, on energy, we've seen since pretty much the instant Joe Biden became president, we've seen the price of energy going up and up and up. We've seen the price of oil going up and up. We've seen the price of natural gas going up and up. We've seen the price of gasoline going up and up. And that's not a surprise. That is cause and effect. Biden came in with an aggressive agenda designed to weaken and to cripple domestic energy production. You know, it's interesting, right now, the White House's talking point. In fact, Biden said this today. They realize that they're exposed on inflation, that people are unhappy with inflation, and in particular, they're unhappy with how prices have skyrocketed at the gas pump. And so their talking points now is, it's all Putin. It's Putin's fault. All of it is Putin. Well, there is the little problem of facts. Literally, Biden's first day in office, he shut down the Keystone pipeline. That was 11,000 jobs destroyed with a stroke of a pen. 8,000 of those jobs were union jobs. Also, the first day in office, he halted all new leases on federal lands. Now, that's both onshore and also offshore. So he just shut down new production. Also, early on in the administration, he halted development of anwr. ANWR is a tiny little strip up in Alaska where there are vast oil reserves, massive reserves. As part of the 2017 tax cut, Congress authorized the development of ANWR. Joe Biden gets in and shuts it down. All of those had their intended effects. And if you look at last year, we saw the rig counts, the number of rigs that are drilling for oil, that are drilling for natural gas plummet. That was by design, by the way. The Biden White House also wrote, their OMB wrote into their rules that no federal funds will go to any infrastructure that benefits, directly or indirectly, oil and gas, which, among other things, has Texas Ports freaked out. Because if the standard is directly or indirectly, every port in Texas, every road in Texas, every highway in Texas benefits directly or indirectly. Oil and gas. This has been a relentless war on oil and gas. And so now the chutzpah of Biden to say the reason gas is higher is because of Putin is just utter crap. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, gasoline prices had risen 48% under Joe Biden. And it's a simple cause and effect. When you reduce supply, price goes up. And in this instance in 2019, the United States, under President Trump's policies, became energy independent. We were a net energy exporter. We are the largest producer in the world of oil and natural gas. Last year, in 2021, we lost our status of energy independence. We're now a net energy importer because Joe Biden actively, aggressively worked to throttle production. And you know what? He's still doing it. Even with the crisis in Europe that he created, even with the mess in Ukraine that he created, he's still not willing to greenlight US production and it's it. So he's trying instead to play a political blame game of saying the consequences of his policies, it's all because of Putin.

Michael Knowles (8:51)

Now, okay, I think you have totally disabused people of the Putin ate my homework excuses that we're getting from Joe Biden. Everything that's gone wrong, it's all Putin's fault.

Ted Cruz (9:00)

Russia, Russia, Russia. Where have we heard that before? That's right.

Michael Knowles (9:03)

That has been the constant refrain of the last many years at this point. But what do you make of the White House talking point? Jen Psaki in particular has been pushing this, that regardless of Keystone, regardless of all these other energy policies that Biden has put into place, these oil companies have plenty of opportunities to drill. They've got lots of leases that they're not using, and so they can use those up first. Before we worry about anwr, before we start talking about projects like the Keystone pipeline, is this a case where we should, as the Democrats seem to be suggesting, blame the oil industry? It's not the government. Look at the industry.

Ted Cruz (9:42)

So it's utterly asinine. And I had a reporter in the Capitol ask me about this today and I couldn't help but laugh and mock it and said, you know, it's almost like the White House's talking points are being written by an 18 year old intern fresh from his college socialism class who has no idea how oil and gas is produced, no idea how actually markets work. So their theory is the oil companies can drill for oil and Gas, they can get it. And mind you, it's trading at 130 bucks a barrel. But they don't want to. That is. Okay, there's a technical term for that, which is a dumb ass theory.

Michael Knowles (10:20)

It's an economics term, right?

Ted Cruz (10:21)

Yeah. Like it is truly idiotic. Look, there are all sorts of leases that are granted, but many of them are granted for projects that are not viable for all sorts of different reasons. And so you look at any producer, they analyze, and if there is a viable project that the cost of production is less and significantly less than the projected revenue it'll produce, that's when they greenlight the project. And the problem is that the Biden administration has taken a lot of those projects off. One of the reasons that projects don't get greenlit is because there aren't pipelines to deal with the output. So let's say you want to drill for natural gas and you've got a bunch of resources there. Well, if you can't build a natural gas pipeline, it doesn't do any good to drill for natural gas. You drill for natural gas and you can't get it anywhere. It's ironic that Psaki says, well, Keystone doesn't matter. Look, Keystone wasn't a drilling permit. It was a pipeline to bring the oil from the Canadian tar sands down to the United States. And by nixing the pipeline, it prevents us from accessing that oil. And by the way, one of the administration's talking points is they say, okay, we're finally gonna boycott Russian oil and gas. And let me point out, I've been calling on them to boycott Russian oil and gas. When they first put sanctions in, Biden exempted oil and gas. Nevermind that Putin's major source of revenue is oil and gas. He literally exempted the thing that was funding the war on Ukraine. But when he did, finally, when you had Republicans and Democrats just pounding the heck out of the White House, finally this week Biden gave in and announced a boycott of Russian oil and gas. But they're justifying, they're saying, well, the Russian oil and gas is heavy sour crude. So we need to go to Venezuela where you have the same type of crude. Well, look, Venezuela is Nicolas Maduro, who is a dictator, who has illegitimately seized power, who murders and tortures his citizens. You know where else you have heavy sour crude in Canada in the tar sands. It's literally what Keystone was going to bring to the United States that Biden shut down. And so I got a crazy suggestion. Why don't we rely on Oil from our friends. The last I checked, the Canadians aren't invading anybody. They're really nice. They're kind of cold, but they're really nice. And they're not invading anybody. And so instead of running around, it's bizarre. This Biden White House they want. They're down in Venezuela. Last week, they had administration officials down in Venezuela trying to open up and buy oil from Venezuela. They're in Vienna right now negotiating an Iran deal, trying to buy oil from Iran. And apparently they think that sending billions of dollars to Maduro and the Ayatollah, while both of them hate America, while the Ayatollah is funding terrorism against America and chanting death to America, that's a better idea to them than importing Canadian oil and gas. Or even worse, from their perspective, actually allowing Americans to develop our own damn resources and create jobs in our own damn countries. It is bizarre.

Michael Knowles (13:45)

This is the part that is really hard to wrap your head around, because I agree with you. Even considering Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister Castro, up there in Canada, who is not exactly a wonderful leader.

Ted Cruz (13:59)

Don't be making paternity jokes about Canada there.

Michael Knowles (14:03)

No, I would never. I never meant to insinuate in any way that Fidel Castro is obviously the father of Justin Trudeau. I would never say such a thing.

Ted Cruz (14:12)

I'm glad you didn't insinuate that. Good.

Michael Knowles (14:15)

Still, I would rather deal with the Canadians than the Venezuelans or the Iranians. How is it the case that you can say Russia bad, so we're not gonna buy oil from Russia, instead we're gonna buy it from the Ayatollah? And I guess then my question is, if we're dealing with oil at all, why would we not do it here? And is the argument that the White House is making that really we just need to get America off of oil entirely and onto windmills and, I don't know, unicorn tears and whatever sustainable source of energy they want to go with, Is that a legitimate alternative?

Ted Cruz (14:53)

So it's not. We don't have nearly enough production to provide for our energy needs. It's unreliable. For example, at times of freeze and bad weather, solar and wind work very unreliably. And it's also terrible for the environment. So you look at, for example, the Europeans. The Europeans have gone very, very green, and they're hurting the environment. Why? Because they shut down. Like, they've shut down their nuclear plants, many of their nuclear plants. And now they've realized that the wind and solar is very unreliable. So they're opening coal plants. They're literally going backwards. You know, if you look in recent years at the country on planet Earth that reduced carbon emissions the most, more than any other country on Earth, it is the United States. Why is that? The principal reason is the widespread substitution of natural gas for coal in the production of electricity. You know, everyone likes to say, get a Tesla. I mean, that's what Biden said. Buy a Tesla. Well, the last I checked, the electricity you put in your Tesla, it's not coming from those unicorn tears, it's not coming from pixie dust, it's coming from a power plant. And those power plants, by and large, they're either burning coal or they're burning natural gas. And by the way, if you replace a coal plant with a natural gas plant, it pollutes much, much less. It releases much, much less carbon. So if the environmentalists actually meant what they said, they would be the most full throated advocates of natural gas on the planet. Because number one, the United States, and in particular Texas is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. They're the largest reserves on planet Earth. We've got enough natural gas to literally provide for the world. And to do that would enable much of the world to shift from coal to natural gas, which would produce massive reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas. But they don't want to do that. They just hate natural gas and they want to see it go out of business. And they're okay with developing countries relying on coal instead and polluting more in the hope that one day in the future they'll erect a windmill. I mean, it really is irrational. And by the way, if the only criterion you cared about was the environment, you didn't care about inflation, you didn't care about jobs, you cared about nothing else but the environment. On that criterion, the Biden administration is an absolute failure. You shut down the Keystone Pipeline, they transport the oil either using trucks and trains to the south to the United States, or on ships to the west to China. Both of those pollute more and they got a higher risk of spills. And the results of Biden. The United States and the world are polluting more and emitting more greenhouse gases as a result of their supposedly green policies. And here's one other point. What has Biden done? Reduced U.S. energy production and shifted more of our energy consumption to foreign oil and gas, to foreign oil and gas from countries like Russia, from the Middle east, all of which are dirtier. So I want you to understand they're shifting from relatively clean production in the United States that pollutes less to overseas production that pollutes more and emits more carbon, but it lets John Kerry feel good about himself as he boards his private jet and flies all around lecturing us on the need to go into poverty.

Michael Knowles (18:23)

Well, listen, John Kerry, he's special.

Ted Cruz (18:25)

He really is special. Well, now, isn't that special?

Michael Knowles (18:30)

Okay, now I want to get to your meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

Ted Cruz (18:35)

Are you old enough to remember Dana Carvey and the church lady?

Michael Knowles (18:38)

Of course. It was the last time SNL was funny. Okay, just barely though. I was a wee lad at the time. But those were the halcyon days when SNL actually told jokes.

Ted Cruz (18:47)

All right, let me ask you this. Which was better, Carvey's impression of George Herbert Walker Bush or Carvey's impression of Ross Perot?

Michael Knowles (18:57)

Wow. I am partial to the Bush impersonation. I also love that Bush invited him to the White House to do it at the White House Christmas party. But Ross Perot was great too. And still, I think neither of them hold a candle to Norm MacDonald's Bob Dole.

Ted Cruz (19:11)

Norm MacDonald's Bob Dole was inspired. But I gotta say, when Bush 41 is on with Dana Carvey and Carvey used to do, you know, Bush would go, not going to do it. Not going to. And the way Carvey would do it, he'd go, nagada. Nagada. And like Bush was like, what's nagada? That's not English. I don't say that. And then by comparison, Ross Perot, he just said, there's a giant sucking sound from Mexico. A sucking sound. It was side splittingly funny. This has nothing to do with anything.

Michael Knowles (19:40)

Well, there is a connection, because Dana Carvey's Nagada was almost as incoherent as the Biden energy policy. Which is why I have only one more question to ask before we move on to your meeting with President Zelensky. And I just want it so that I have ammo. The next time that a leftist gives me a talking point, I want to be able to answer that. What Jen Psaki and the White House and Joe Biden are all saying right now is the reason that it won't matter even if we have American domestic energy production. Sorry, specifically oil and natural gas production is. Listen, oil and natural gas, those are still global markets. And so the price of gasoline at the pump, it's gonna vary based on what's going on in Russia, based on what's going on in Saudi Arabia, based on what's going on in Iran, no matter what we do on the American side of oil production. And so because of that, we've just gotta ditch oil entirely and move on to windmills and solar and pixie dust.

Ted Cruz (20:42)

So look for an administration that hates oil and gas. They sure do a lot of gaslighting because their arguments are just asinine. I mean, I really want Biden or Psaki or Harris to try to just address Economics 101, your first econ class in college, and they explain the most basic rule of economics, which is supply and demand. You've got supply and demand, and where the two intersect is the price. And so if supply goes up, then the price goes down. If, on the other hand, demand goes up, then the price goes up. And the intersection between those two determines where the price is. What has Joe Biden presided over? Supply going down, going down dramatically. But not just supply. If you look at futures, futures are priced not just present supply, but the expectations of future supply. When you put in regulatory zealots that are talking about the methane rule, that are talking about going after fracking, that are expressing a manifest hostility to oil and gas, people don't want to invest in the future. And so people are anticipating not just current supply, they're anticipating future supply of American production is going to be reduced, because these guys are zealots. So, for example, if you want to defeat Russia, if you want to stop the Russian war with Ukraine, there are two tools you rely on. Number one is weapons for Ukraine, and we'll talk about that in a minute when we talk about Zelensky. But number two is energy. If you look at Putin, the source of his power is that he is a petro tyrant. He earns his revenue. In fact, I was looking at some of the stats. So Russia is the number three oil producer in the world. It's responsible for a little more than 10% of the global supply of oil. In 2020, Russia produced 10.5 million barrels per day in total petroleum liquid fuels. Russia is also the second largest producer of dry natural gas. In 2020, it produced 22.5 trillion cubic feet. Now, the United States imported roughly 8% of our oil from Russia. It's about 672,000 barrels that we brought in. And so that's what we just boycotted. Although, interestingly enough, the oil companies had already cut off the Russian imports. I think they anticipated this and recognize in the face of this war, there was no upside to bringing in Russian oil. So we were already seeing that Russian oil drop. But if you look at Putin's source of power, both present day and future, what he is counting on is that Europe is addicted to his oil and gas. He's counting on that massively, that no matter what he does, he invades Ukraine, he invades Poland, he invades Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania invades Finland. And as we talked about in an earlier pod, his speech suggested he wanted to invade all of those countries he's counting on. Europe is like a crack addict. It has to have that Russian gas. It has to have that Russian gas. That's the source of his power. If you want to really weaken Putin, if you wanna get the oligarchs to rise up, the old KGB guys to rise up and say, enough already, Vladimir, you're out of here. The best way to do so is threaten the long term revenues of Russia from oil and gas. Now how do you do that? One step, and the right step is cutting off U.S. purchases. But today, Biden's Undersecretary of State, Toria Nuland was testifying in front of Foreign Relations. And I asked her, I said, look, is Europe going to cut off oil and gas? And she basically said no. And I said, well, all right, are you guys pressing Europe to do so? And she drug her feet. But basically what she said is no, we're not pressing them to do so. Here's why they're not pressing them to do so. Because the only way they could get Europe to stop importing natural gas and oil is to ramp up U.S. production to replace that natural gas and oil. We've got the reserves to do it. We have the resources to do it. But for example, right now in the Biden administration, there are pending six separate applications to export liquid natural gas. Biden administration is just sitting on them. The State of the Union. Last week I pulled Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State, aside. I said, if you want to do something to hurt Putin, Biden ought to go on national television and sign approve those applications instantaneously in the morning. I asked Tori Nuland today, is the administration going to do that? And she humming a humming hum and a wouldn't answer that question because the answer is no, they don't want to produce more here, which means they're fine with Europe continuing to import from Russia. And as long as that happens, Putin has a revenue stream to fund war in Europe. And sadly, that's what's happening and it's why also they're incoherently saying go to Venezuela and go to Iran. Let me mention one other thing that is truly incoherent. So today President Biden announced the boycott on Russian oil and gas. Also this week is expected that Biden will announce a new deal with Iran. They are in Vienna right now negotiating a new deal with Iran. It was expected to come out several days ago, and then there was suddenly a wrinkle thrown in at the last minute, which is the Russians came in in the last couple of days and said, well, now, hold on a second. You're not getting a deal with Iran if it's going to impact us negatively. Are these sanctions you're putting on us going to impact Iran? And I'll tell you what Biden and their administration said, no, no, no, no, no, no. We love the Ayatollah so much. You don't worry, Vlad. These sanctions aren't going to impact you at all with Iran. So literally, the results of the Iran deal, and I think we will get it in the next day or two, are going to be that Russia and Putin will make billions off of Iran and they're somehow exempted from everything they announced today will make billions off of Iran, not just in oil and gas, but also they want to make Russia the leading nuclear authority for Iran, which will benefit it enormously. And Russia wants to sell Iran billions in weapons, in missiles and weaponry to attack their neighbors. So Biden is simultaneously sanctioning Russia and subsidizing Russia with the Iran deal. It is completely incoherent. They know it, but it's where their ideology takes them.

Michael Knowles (27:44)

Right? Right. They've been pushing for this Iran deal ever since they got the first one, and then it went away. And so that was always going to happen, even if it contradicts other parts of the policy. So I guess this brings us to the war in Ukraine. You met with President Zelensky. He piped in to the U.S. senate what happened.

Ted Cruz (28:03)

So he did. We had, this weekend, we had a video conference call. And so it was on computer and it was kind of cool. He's in, you know, kind of combat, a combat T shirt in an underground and undisclosed bunker. And we were all asked, do not put out anything publicly about this call until after the call. Obviously, his location is closely guarded secrets that if Putin and the Russians could kill him, they would. And he started the call by telling all of us, this may be the last time you ever speak to me or ever hear from me. And he is leading a war and doing a remarkable job of it. You know, when the Biden administration tried to evacuate him, Zelensky said, look, I need ammunition. I don't need a ride. The conversation with Zelenskyy was a very interesting conversation. He said several things. One thing he said clearly and unequivocally. He said if the United States had imposed sanctions on Nord Stream 2 last year, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. He said it flat out and every member of Congress heard it. On that call, as we've talked about, ad nauseam, that's what I was fighting tooth and nail for. And Biden didn't want to enter those sanctions. He wanted to capitulate to Putin, which is why we have the biggest war in Europe since 1945, since World War II.

Michael Knowles (29:27)

This is a big deal, Senator. Yes, because, you know, we've said it. You know, we hate to say we told you so.

Ted Cruz (29:33)

No, we don't. We actually kind of like that. Although it's a serious topic, but a very serious topic.

Michael Knowles (29:40)

That's why it's so important though, is this was an issue that you saw pretty clearly. A lot of other conservatives saw it too and said, you know, this is a big deal, guys. You think this is just a little tit for tat with Putin? It's not. This could be the difference between war and peace. And so you were calling for that sort of thing. And yet when we talk about it, sometimes it can sound as though it's just a cheap partisan shot. This isn't a cheap partisan shot. You've got the President of Ukraine himself saying exactly what we said on this show weeks and months ago. This Nord Stream 2 pipeline was the difference between war and peace.

Ted Cruz (30:17)

It is why Putin did not invade Ukraine in 2019 or 2020. And it's why he did invade Ukraine this year. Because in 2019 and 2020, we had the sanctions legislation that I'd authored and that Trump had signed. And in 2021, Biden waived those sanctions and gave a multi billion dollar generational gift to Putin and an invitation, a golden ticket come invade Ukraine. And Biden took him up or Putin took him up on it. So that was one piece that I thought was very important that Zelenskyy said. Zelensky also said a number of us asked, what do you need most? And what he needs most is weapons. And he needs Stingers and he needs javelins. And we've been providing him some. The Biden administration has dragged their feet. They've been very slow on it. Twice last year in April and December, they froze military aid to Ukraine because they were trying to pressure Ukraine to concede and make to appease Russia. They finally were guilted into it. So we're providing them some javelins and Stingers which they're using to perform far better in the war. Than Putin expected. But what Zelenskyy said he needs more than anything else are fighter jets. And he said, listen, control of the air is critical. And he says right now Russia has control of the air. And he says we need the jets. But he also said we've got the pilots, Ukrainian pilots are ready to fly them, but we need the jets. And so what he was urgently asking us for is if you provide the fighter jets for us, we can fly in combat. We can defeat the Russian jets. Now, what is striking is in the Senate, there is almost universal agreement that providing Ukraine with fighter jets is incredibly important. Republicans agree on that, and Democrats agree on that. And I've been in meetings with multiple senators, both dnr, pounding the heck out of the Biden administration. Here's the curious thing. You know who doesn't agree with that? The Biden administration. They don't want to provide Ukraine with jets and where it has real bite. So the jets that the Ukrainian pilots know how to fly are MIGs. You know, they're part of the Soviet Union. Remember the Soviet MIGs? Remember the movie Top Gun? The MIG that flies upside down and flips the bird at Tom Cruise? So those are the jets that the Ukrainian pilots are trained on. There are a whole bunch of MIGs in Poland because Poland also was controlled by the Soviet Union. So they've got MIGs. And so the natural solution was for Poland to allow Ukraine to use the MIGs and let Ukrainian pilots fly and combat use them. Well, Poland was asking, saying, hey, that's fine with us, but will the US backfill? Will you provide us with F16 so that we're not left with no jets to protect our country? Which was a reasonable request. If they're going to step up and help out their neighbor, then the US should help. And what is amazing, the Biden administration really, really didn't want this to happen. So the Biden administration's public stance was Poland can do what it wants. Poland is a sovereign country. You decide if you want to give them MIGs or not. It's up to you. We don't have any views, you know, Joe Biden, no view at all on whether or not Ukraine should get the fighter jets to defend their people against Russia invading and conquering them. We don't have a view of the Biden White House. It's up to you, Poland. I can tell you I've been beating up the Biden admin saying, why aren't you urging Poland to do that? Why aren't you saying, sure, we will make sure the F16s are available for you to backfill. Make this happen. This is what Zelensky said he needs. It's what both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have said, let's make happen. Well, Poland, I think, got frustrated because the Biden White House was clearly playing a game. They were saying, hey, we said Poland can do it, but you know the Poles, they're just not helping. Those temperamental Poles don't want to help the Ukrainians. Isn't that a shame? So Poland today did something really quite extraordinary, which is they flew the MiGs to a US Air Force base. They said, all right, here are the.

Michael Knowles (34:51)

MIGs, they're yours, they're yours, do what you want.

Ted Cruz (34:54)

So they just called Biden's bluff because he's saying, oh, it's the polls. They don't want to give them. They're like, here, they're yours. We're happy for Ukraine to take them. So now the Biden admin is like, oh, crap, now we have the MIGs that they want. So the Pentagon put out today, no, no, no, we're not gonna let, let the Ukrainians have these MIGs. So now the Polish MIGs that Ukraine wants and needs, the Biden admin is saying, no, we won't provide you with those fighter jets. It's consistent with what they have done for years, for over a year. And actually going back to Obama prior to that, starving the Ukrainians of military assistance because they're afraid of angering Putin.

Michael Knowles (35:38)

Now, is there a legitimate fear here though, that if you're trying to get the MIGs from Poland to Ukraine, you're probably not gonna tow them across the border, you're gonna fly them in. And so you're flying into contested airspace. Is there, is there a fear that Russia shoots down one of these planes and all of a sudden we're in a full on war between NATO and Russia?

Ted Cruz (36:01)

So of course, and that's why, and we've talked about this at length, it's why I strongly oppose America imposing a no fly zone on Ukraine. Because the way you impose a no fly zone is you put your fighter jets up in the air with a promise to shoot down anyone else who's up in the air. And that is inviting direct combat between American troops and Russian troops. And that is an incredibly dangerous powder keg that I think would be really foolhardy to risk. What we should be doing is providing the weaponry to let Ukrainians defend themselves. So what Ukraine is perfectly happy to do is send their pilots to the planes and put Ukrainian pilots in the plane and let them fly back. So listen, if the Russians shoot them down with a Ukrainian pilot, that's part of warfare. They can shoot at each other and that's. That is they're gonna be in combat. It's anticipated that the Russians will shoot at the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians will shoot at the Russians. What I don't want is the Russians shooting at Americans. And the Biden admin has this weird view that, well, we're giving them Stinger missiles and Javelins, which they're using to shoot down planes and to shoot tanks and to kill Russian soldiers, but somehow providing them with planes is different from a Stinger or a Javelin. And I'm not sure how that distinction makes any difference if we're providing the weapons that are killing Russian soldiers. Whatever degree of complicity Putin wants to put on us, we got already.

Michael Knowles (37:30)

Right?

Ted Cruz (37:31)

And the reality. So what Biden is arguing publicly is Ukraine doesn't need jets. No, no. When Zelensky told every member of Congress, what I need more than anything is fighter jets, he doesn't really mean it. He doesn't need jets and we're not gonna provide it. And it's. Their orientation is weakness. They believe Russia will win. They're consigned to a Russian victory, so they're already managing the loss. And they don't have any vision that Ukraine can or should win. And it is reminiscent of. Of the 60s and 70s when Democrats viewed the Soviet Union as. The answer was detente, which I've joked is French for surrender. The Biden administration cannot envision this. That our objective here should be Putin loses and Ukraine remains a free country. Now, we're not gonna send American soldiers to make that happen, but the two weapons we have are, number one, military equipment so the Ukrainians can fight and defend their own homeland. And number two, using energy aggressively to cut off Putin's revenue streams. Biden is too scared and timid to fully use either one of those.

Michael Knowles (38:51)

Well, the message from Zelensky seems clear enough and it's not being filtered through the White House. You heard it from him directly. I do wanna turn from the foreign sphere to the domestic sphere for a second. You also met with Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee this week, someone who actually, you know, from all the way back in your law school days.

Ted Cruz (39:11)

Yeah, so I met with Ketanji Brown Jackson. I've known her. She was a year behind me in law school. So I was class of 95 at Harvard Law School. She was class of 96. We were both on the Law Review together. So the Law Review has a total of 80 students on it. There are 40 second year students and 40 third year students. And so she was a 2L when I was a 3L. And so we were on it together and I knew her and we were friendly with each other. We weren't close, we weren't particularly friends. But 80 students is not that many. And you basically the building that the Law Review is in is called Gannett House. And basically the Law Review editors are all nerds that are in Gannett House all the time studying and working. And so I knew her and in law school she was friendly, she smiled a lot. She was well thought of, she was well liked. I mean, she was a capable, smart, well liked law student. I sat down and met with her just under an hour in my office today. And I would say all of that by all appearances has continued. She personally can be very charming. She smiles and laughs easily. She's very bright, she's very capable. We spent a lot of time talking about, talking about her experience in law school, talking about her experience clerking on the Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Breyer, I clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist. We were a couple of years apart clerking. But we talked about that experience. We talked about why she wanted to be a judge. We talked about her jurisprudential approach. But, you know, we saw this in her confirmation hearing for the D.C. circuit. She's very guarded in what she'll say about her jurisprudential approach. She has not, she doesn't have the kind of paper trail that some Supreme Court nominees have where they said bunches of things that are clearly incriminating. In some ways, it reminds me of John Roberts. You know, John Roberts, when he was nominated to be Chief justice, he had lived an entire life being very careful with what he said so that there was nothing you could point to that would be disqualifying to go to the Court. And Ketanji reminds me in some ways about that. She has been very careful in what she said. Now, I still expect we'll have a vigorous confirmation hearing, but she is going to be, I think she is charming and will acquit herself well in the hearing. And we'll see what I expect to be a vigorous examination of her record and we'll see what the outcome is from there.

Michael Knowles (41:53)

So you're saying that she is gonna be a tough nominee to beat.

Ted Cruz (41:59)

Look, particularly given that barring something a big smoking gun that nobody knows about now, every Democrat will vote for so if nothing else happened and they got all the Democrats, she'd get confirmed.

Michael Knowles (42:13)

Right.

Ted Cruz (42:14)

You'd have to think there's a real likelihood that several Republicans vote for her. I mean, the natural people you would start to think about would be Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Mitt Romney would be someone who is certainly a possibility. Lindsey Graham voted for her last time, although he's mad that Biden didn't pick the South Carolina judge he wanted. So maybe Lindsey votes no. And for that matter, I could see a retiring Republican senator or two voting for. So that's the dynamic coming in. There are some in Republican leadership that are saying, well, don't pick a fight. Don't just kind of let this go forward. I gotta say what I'm urging the conference is, listen, we shouldn't get nasty and personal. We shouldn't behave like the Democrats did on Brett Kavanaugh. We shouldn't engage in personal slurs and slander. But we ought to have a vigorous process that questions her on the record, because these issues matter. And I think most of the Republicans agree with that, but maybe not everybody.

Michael Knowles (43:23)

Well, I do like the idea that we will not be grilling her and saying, ketanji, do you still like beer? That seems unfit for the process.

Ted Cruz (43:33)

So I'll tell you a couple of interesting. Just moments from meeting in my office. Number one, when she was there, I offered her and everyone there some Cuban coffee. As a Cuban American, I sometimes when people come to my office, we make Cuban coffee. And she turned down the Cuban coffee, which I gotta say, anyone that turns down coffee, I'm highly suspect of, I enjoyed the Cuban coffee. And that, by the way, for the crazy fact checkers, that was tongue in cheek. Secondly, interestingly enough. So her handler, her Sherpa, is Doug Jones. So Doug Jones was former Democratic senator from Alabama. You know, Doug's a nice guy. He served with all of us. Two interesting points about Doug. Number one, at the beginning of the Biden administration, they stopped using the word Sherpa. Hmm. Because Sherpa was culturally insensitive to Nepal or whatever, like. But apparently now with Doug, they're calling him the Sherpa again. So it's hard to keep track of the politically correct dictionary.

Michael Knowles (44:49)

Doug Jones is not Nepalese, last time I checked.

Ted Cruz (44:52)

You know, Doug joked and said that his friends back home were saying, are you a shepherd now? Which I believe that struck me as quite plausible. Secondly, and I didn't plan on this, but as I'm sitting there talking to Ketanji, we're both in Chairs. And in between us is a table with a bust of Winston Churchill that I always have in my office. And I look over, we're actually talking about Martin Luther King. And I look over at the table between us, and I start laughing and said, well, this was not planned, but actually, Doug Jones is the only senator whose signature I have in this office. And sitting on the table next to the bust of Winston Churchill is a printed copy of Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. And when Doug was in the Senate, he started a tradition of reading the entirety of Letter from a Birmingham Jail on the floor of the Senate. And he did it as a bipartisan. He invited six senators to participate. And so I participated a couple of different years in reading a portion from the Letter from Birmingham Jail, which is such a powerful, moving piece. And I had read it in school, but it had been decades since I reread it. And just having the chance A, to reread it, but B, to read it out loud, to hear the words out loud. And one of the things people forget about the Letter from Birmingham Jail, it is directed, it is addressed. Do you know to whom it's addressed?

Michael Knowles (46:28)

I don't remember. No.

Ted Cruz (46:29)

To the members of the clergy, because Dr. King was also Reverend King. And it is a letter to Christian pastors to stand up against racism and stand up against evil. And there's a great portion in it where he says, the church and leaders in the church, we should be a thermostat and not a thermometer. In other words, we shouldn't just reflect the temperature of those around us, but rather the leaders of the church should be influencing those around us with truth and with justice. And it's incredibly powerful. So I had the bound copy, the Letter from Birmingham Jail that Doug gave me and signed, and it just. It always sits in my office. I didn't put it out there because he was coming, but I did kind of laugh and said, well, for whatever reason, Doug, it. You're the one guy whose signature is sitting in here.

Michael Knowles (47:19)

Now, before we move on, and I know there's a lot to talk about on Cloakroom, I do have to ask you this. This is just the eternal optimist in me. You've known this woman for a long time. You just met with her. It looks like she's gonna make it through to the court. Historically, Republican nominated justices have disappointed the presidents who have nominated them. That has generally not been the case with Democrat nominated justices. But you say, look, there's basically no paper trail here with Ketanji. Is there any chance that it will turn out that this Supreme Court nominee is a secret conservative who's gonna give us good proper votes on the bench and lots of conservative jurisprudence?

Ted Cruz (48:03)

No.

Michael Knowles (48:04)

Okay, fair enough.

Ted Cruz (48:06)

And by the way, Michael, you will be interested. I actually asked her that question. Did you? And what I said is, I said, listen, let me tell you a perspective that millions of conservatives have across the country, said all across the country, the perspective is when Democrats nominate justices, their justices 100% of the time in the big cases vote exactly like the Democrats want them to without fail. And Republicans, when Republicans nominate justices, we're terrible at it. And more than half of Republican nominees vote against conservative principles over and over and over again. And I'd asked her previously about justices growing in office. And I said, it seems when a Justice grows in office, it's always in one direction. It's always to the left. No one ever grows more conservative. And her answer, she basically is like, no. And I said, what do you think about that? I said, there are millions of people that believe that. What's your reaction to that? Is how I asked them question. And she's like, no, no, I don't see that at all. She just kind of pleaded ignorance. I don't know what you're talking about. I have no views about that at all. And it is part and parcel of the game that Biden nominees play at every confirmation hearing where they're like, no, no, I have no views on that. No. Never thought of that. No. Have no idea. No, I don't know anything about that. Right, right. You know, that's. So that was her response. But I asked her that question. And let me put it this way, in Dumb and Dumber, they said one in a million. So you're saying I got a chance, I got a chance in this instance, it ain't one in a million.

Michael Knowles (49:57)

Well, at least there's clarity. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm glad you asked the question. I'm glad that any hope that I had has been totally quashed and I don't need to even entertain that any further. Now, you had another meeting this week that I believe you're gonna be getting into on the Cloakroom with our friend Liz Wheeler. Liz, is that right?

Unknown (50:18)

That is correct. Hi, Michael. Hi, Senator. By the way, I love hearing about the behind the scenes stuff that's happening. I love hearing about your conversations with Ketanji Brown Jackson. And we're gonna get into even more behind the scenes stuff over on the Cloakroom on Verdict. You can join us at verdictwithtedcruise.com I have a promo code. If you use the promo code, cloak room, obviously, what else is it going to be? You get one month free on your annual subscription. That is the first month free. We're going to be talking about the senators meeting with the leaders of the People's Convoy, which is the American version obviously of the truckers convoy, the freedom convoy and what exactly went down in that meeting because the truckers have some very interesting concerns, reasons why they have not yet gone into D.C. and so we are going to be talking about that tonight. And a couple great questions from the verdict. Plus, again, you could join us on Verdict Verdict with TedCruz.com and use promo code cloakroom.

Michael Knowles (51:12)

I can't wait. I can't wait to hear about it. I hope it went better than the meeting with the future Supreme Court justice.

Unknown (51:19)

Yes, I hope so, too.

Michael Knowles (51:21)

I'll have to tune in in the meantime. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz (51:31)

Foreign.

Liz Wheeler (51:34)

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.