Republicans' Secret Impeachment Weapon

Summary

Podcast Summary: Republicans' Secret Impeachment Weapon

Podcast Information:

• Title: The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
• Host/Author: Premiere Networks
• Episode: Republicans' Secret Impeachment Weapon
• Release Date: January 23, 2020

Overview: In this episode of The 47 Morning Update, host Michael Knowles engages in a comprehensive discussion with Senator Ted Cruz regarding the unfolding impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. The conversation delves into the core accusations against the President, the procedural dynamics of the trial, and strategic insights into the Republican defense. The dialogue is rich with analysis, notable quotes, and an exploration of potential outcomes.

---

1. Introduction to the Impeachment Trial

Michael Knowles opens the discussion by highlighting the ongoing impeachment trial, emphasizing its limited attention from the American public. He introduces Senator Ted Cruz, who has been deeply involved in the proceedings.

• Timestamp [00:01]: "The second full day of President Trump's impeachment trial has just concluded. And Senator Ted Cruz has come straight from the Capitol to our studio..."

2. Understanding the Articles of Impeachment

Senator Cruz provides clarity on the two articles of impeachment brought against President Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

• Timestamp [01:17]: "So the House Democrats voted out two articles of impeachment. The first one is something they're calling abuse of power. The second one they're calling obstruction of Congress."

Cruz asserts that neither constitutes a crime or an impeachable offense.

3. Abuse of Power: The Core Accusation

The discussion shifts to the specific allegations under the abuse of power article, focusing on the alleged delay of military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

• Timestamp [01:37]: "Abuse of power is where they focused most of their time... the president delayed military aid to Ukraine."

Cruz outlines the geopolitical context of Ukraine, its tensions with Russia, and the historical precedent of U.S. military aid to support Ukrainian democracy.

4. Obstruction of Congress

While primarily focused on abuse of power, the conversation briefly touches upon the obstruction of Congress charge, with Cruz emphasizing its lack of illegality in this context.

5. Quid Pro Quo Explained

Cruz demystifies the term "quid pro quo," arguing that such exchanges are standard in foreign policy and not inherently illegal.

• Timestamp [04:54]: "Quid pro quos are not illegal. This would surprise anyone who's turning on the 6:00 news..."

He provides historical examples, including sanctions against Venezuela and the Iran nuclear deal, to illustrate legitimate quid pro quos in international relations.

6. House Democrats' Narrative and Strategy

Cruz criticizes the House Democrats for repeatedly asserting that President Trump sought investigations into the Bidens, labeling their arguments as overstated and lacking substance.

• Timestamp [07:01]: "And almost zero to proving that asking for the investigations was illegitimate or inappropriate."

He emphasizes that the President's intent to investigate corruption should not be misconstrued as an abuse of power.

7. The Role of Witnesses: Hunter Biden's Potential Testimony

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the possibility of calling Hunter Biden as a witness, a move the House Democrats have resisted.

• Timestamp [17:02]: "But if the House Democrats are going to stop that, they do not want Hunter Biden to testify."

Cruz highlights the Senate's authority to grant transactional immunity, allowing forced testimony without repercussions for Hunter Biden.

• Timestamp [20:30]: "But you can find out, you can get his testimony and that's something the Senate can do."

8. Procedural Dynamics of the Impeachment Trial

Cruz sheds light on the unique structure of the impeachment trial, where senators act both as judges and jurors, differentiating it from typical judicial proceedings.

• Timestamp [07:43]: "And oddly enough, were also the judges. And it's a Strange dynamic under the Constitution..."

He critiques the repetitive nature of the House Democrats' arguments, suggesting that it fails to sway the impartiality of the senators.

9. Political Implications and Future of Impeachment

Addressing the broader political landscape, Cruz speculates on the likelihood of future impeachment attempts should the current trial fail.

• Timestamp [26:02]: "I think they'll certainly be Democrats that want to. They could easily. I don't think Pelosi wants to."

He attributes the impeachment efforts to "Trump derangement syndrome," indicating a persistent partisan motive rather than genuine misconduct.

10. Audience Interaction and Final Thoughts

In the closing segment, Knowles and Cruz engage with audience questions, further elaborating on procedural concerns and the potential ramifications of extending the trial through additional witnesses.

• Timestamp [23:04]: "But if you do call additional witnesses, then we might finally hear from Hunter Biden."

Cruz reinforces the importance of focusing on substantive evidence over procedural delays, urging for a fair and swift resolution to the trial.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz [01:37]: "Abuse of power is where they focused most of their time... the president delayed military aid to Ukraine."
• Senator Ted Cruz [04:54]: "Quid pro quos are not illegal. This would surprise anyone who's turning on the 6:00 news..."
• Senator Ted Cruz [07:01]: "And almost zero to proving that asking for the investigations was illegitimate or inappropriate."
• Senator Ted Cruz [17:02]: "But if the House Democrats are going to stop that, they do not want Hunter Biden to testify."
• Senator Ted Cruz [20:30]: "But you can find out, you can get his testimony and that's something the Senate can do."
• Senator Ted Cruz [26:02]: "I think they'll certainly be Democrats that want to. They could easily. I don't think Pelosi wants to."
• Senator Ted Cruz [27:06]: "A lot of these Democrats called for impeaching Trump within days of his being elected before he'd been sworn in."

---

Conclusion: This episode provides an in-depth Republican perspective on President Trump's impeachment trial, dissecting the validity of the charges, the strategies employed by both sides, and the potential implications for future political maneuvers. Senator Cruz articulates a defense centered on the legitimacy of the President's actions and critiques the procedural focus of the House Democrats, advocating for a trial grounded in substantive evidence rather than partisan theatrics.

Transcript

[Michael Knowles]

The second full day of President Trump's impeachment trial has just concluded. And Senator Ted Cruz has come straight from the Capitol to our studio here to help give us all a behind the scenes look into what this means for the president and the country. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. I am joined by the senator himself, clearly a glutton for punishment, not sleeping at all this week, going straight from the impeachment trial to the studio right back to the Capitol.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, Michael, I'm thrilled that it's at least 11pm and not 3 in the morning like it was last night.

[Michael Knowles]

This is an early night.

[Ted Cruz]

It's been 22 hours now of the impeachment trial and we've still got a distance to go, but we're making progress.

[Michael Knowles]

You know what I want to do before we get into what happened today? Because I think some significant things happened today. We're 22 hours in. I think the vast majority of Americans have completely tuned out this impeachment. They are simply not paying attention. What is it that the House Democrats are accusing President Trump of having done what is at the core of this whole impeachment trial?

[Ted Cruz]

So the House Democrats voted out two articles of impeachment. The first one is something they're calling abuse of power. The second one they're calling obstruction of Congress. Neither one of those is a crime. Neither one of those, I believe, is an impeachable offense.

[Michael Knowles]

But what do those refer to specifically?

[Ted Cruz]

So abuse of power is where they focused most of their time. And what they're arguing is that the president delayed military aid to Ukraine. Now, Ukraine is a country in Europe, used to be part of the Soviet Union, broke off. It's now separate democracy. It's a friend, it's an ally. Remember back in 2014 when Obama was president, Russia invaded, Ukraine invaded what's called Crimea. And Russia and Ukraine have been in real tension. The Ukrainians don't like that. The Russians have had a bad history of riding in with tanks and invading their country. And so we've given them military aid. And what the Democrats are arguing is the president delayed that military aid in exchange for asking Ukraine to launch two investigations. One, an investigation into whether Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, the election between Trump and Hillary.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay.

[Ted Cruz]

And two, an investigation into Burisma, which is a Ukrainian natural gas company that on whose board Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, sat. They paid Biden a whole lot of.

[Michael Knowles]

Money, and it was not for his expertise in Ukrainian natural gas.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, that is certainly true.

[Michael Knowles]

Right, so this is what people refer to as the quid pro quo.

[Ted Cruz]

Yes.

[Michael Knowles]

That Trump was withholding military aid and he wasn't gonna release the aid until they launched an investigation into the Bidens because he is afraid that he's gonna run against Joe Biden in 2020.

[Ted Cruz]

And they've spent almost every minute of the last 22 hours trying to prove those two points. Okay, here's the problem. Number one, temporarily delaying military aid is not illegal, and it's not an impeachable offense. Presidents have done that over and over and over again. All sorts of foreign aid, you see temporary delays that are put into place. But number two, asking a foreign country to engage in an investigation is not illegal on its face, and it's not an impeachable offense. That's what there's. And in fact, the president admits he asked Ukraine to engage in these investigations. So it's really kind of stunning. They're standing up there arguing over and over again, the president wanted Ukraine to investigate. And Trump has said on live TV over and over again, yes, I wanted Ukraine to investigate.

[Michael Knowles]

We've seen the transcripts from this phone call with the president of Ukraine. Right. This was released. I know most people's eyes glaze over when everyone gets into the weeds over what he did with Ukraine, and is that impeachable? And on and on and on. But I think we all basically agree on the facts of the case, which is they withheld the aid, then they released the aid. President Trump did ask for an investigation by Ukraine into this corruption. And I guess what doesn't make sense to me is they impeach the president for this, except Ukraine got the aid and we never got an investigation into the corruption.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, and it's even more. You're right on both of those points. But, but, but even more broadly, so, so it's the, the narrative from the House Democrats has changed. You remember there was, for a couple of months, we were hearing over and over again the, the phrase quid pro quo.

[Michael Knowles]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

Quid pro quo is a sort of phrase. Look, most people don't know quid pro quo means. It's a Latin phrase. It sounds kind of scary. Quid pro quos are not illegal. This would surprise anyone who's turning on the, the 6:00 news because the, the, the, the media were breathlessly saying, my God, this may have been a quid pro quo. So quid pro quo is Latin for an exchange of something of value for something else of value.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, it means literally this. For that, right, I give you this, you give me that.

[Ted Cruz]

You know, it would take a Yale graduate to really dive down on the Latin translation.

[Michael Knowles]

You know what it is? It's my Roman heritage. That's where it comes from.

[Ted Cruz]

But look, quid pro quos in foreign policy, we do every single day. They're not only not illegal, it's the bread and butter of foreign policy. I'll give you an example. Nicolas Maduro is the dictator of Venezuela right now. We have sanctions, economic sanctions in place against Venezuela. We have said if Maduro steps down, we'll lift those sanctions. That's a quid pro quo. It's out in its open. We're lifting sanctions if Maduro steps down. You look at Obama's Iran nuclear deal. That was a quid pro quo. Obama gave over $100 billion to. To Iran in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons. Now, that's a promise they weren't keeping. And they used the money to try to kill Americans. But that was a quid pro quo. So all of this focus on was this a quid pro quo misses the point. The question is whether it was done with corrupt intent. And that all comes down to whether these investigations, whether the president had a valid reason to ask Ukraine to engage in these investigations and to withhold the aid, either or both. But the real piece, if the president had a valid reason, a legitimate reason to ask Ukraine to engage in the investigations, then everything the House is saying, everything the House Democrats are saying is nonsense.

[Michael Knowles]

Right?

[Ted Cruz]

And what is interesting now, two days into it, is they've devoted virtually every moment to trying to prove that he asked for the investigations, which he admits.

[Michael Knowles]

Which we already know. This is something we all agree on.

[Ted Cruz]

And almost zero to proving that asking for the investigations was illegitimate or inappropriate.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, this is what I want to get to. So you've now had to sit through 22 hours of this because there are three groups here, right? There are the House Democrats, they're being led by Adam Schiff, and they're the people who are pushing impeachment. There's President Trump's legal team, the White House counsel and his lawyer, and they're the ones defending the president. Then there's the jury, because this is a trial and this is a special jury, because the jury is you guys. The senators are the jury in the impeachment trial. You've been listening to this, and let.

[Ted Cruz]

Me correct you briefly on something. Yes, the senators are the jury, but oddly enough, were also the judges. And it's a Strange dynamic under the Constitution, the hundred senators decide every question of law and every question of fact. And it's not a jury like, you know, if you turn on law and order, it's not a jury like that. You think about it, a jury is not supposed to know anything about the case, is not supposed to know the defendant is not supposed to know the prosecutor is not supposed to have conversations. In this case, Senators, look, senators deal with the President, deal with the President all the time. The framers knew that when the Constitution gave impeachment to the Senate, they knew fully well senators would be dealing with players, would be involved, would be speaking to the public. And so actually, I will point out.

[Michael Knowles]

That the President did tweet out this very podcast today. So obviously there is some relationship.

[Ted Cruz]

Sure. But you know, it's interesting. When Bill Clinton had an impeachment trial, there was actually an objection. So one of the people in the trial referred to the senators as jurors, and they raise an objection. And Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who's the Chief justice, sustained the objection and said, you're right, you're not jurors, you're senators. And it's a different responsibility under the Constitution because it's.

[Michael Knowles]

Because. Not to get even more complicated here, but there is a fourth role, which is that the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, head of the Supreme Court, is presiding over impeachment, but he's not quite a normal judge and the jury is not quite a normal jury. And that is because an impeachment trial is unlike other kinds of trials, very much so. Now, you've spent 22 hours listening to these two arguments from the House Democrats.

[Ted Cruz]

And let me say, by the way, to lock 100 senators in a room and to prevent all of them from speaking. Look, I gotta say, every one of us is suffering DTs. There's a reason I'm launching a damn podcast in the middle of this. I can't not talk for that long. It's so pent up without medical treatment.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, you know, they used to say that the most dangerous place in Washington, D.C. was between Chuck Schumer and a television camera. Now I think having.

[Ted Cruz]

We actually don't know because no one's ever survived that experience.

[Michael Knowles]

It's true. We need more investigation. I'm actually thinking, having watched the House Democrats case for impeachment, I think the most dangerous place might be between Adam Schiff and a camera, because he's the one leading that case. And I just want to hear your thoughts on how each side is presenting their case, the House Democrats pushing impeachment, the White House lawyers defending the president.

[Ted Cruz]

So yesterday we had procedural fights all day long. Half the time was the House Democrats, half the time was President Trump's lawyers. I thought they both did fine. I thought they both presented their case. When you and I talked last night, I shared my views that I think the White House lawyers need to focus less on process and more on substance, more on demonstrating more why the President is innocent, why the conduct that he admits to is not illegal, is not inappropriate and is perfectly legitimate and justified for a president to investigate corruption and to ask a foreign government to investigate corruption, that they need to make more of the affirmative case.

[Michael Knowles]

So you've argued a lot of high profile cases. So what you're saying is maybe we're missing a little bit of the 30,000 foot view. We're missing a little bit of the big picture from the White House.

[Ted Cruz]

You can get lost in the weeds and it's easy to do it. And I don't want that to happen to the American people. They just see a lot of bickering that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The underlying, if you want to understand this case in one sentence, can the President investigate corruption? Yes or no?

[Michael Knowles]

Okay.

[Ted Cruz]

And the Democrats are saying, no, you can't investigate corruption. That he couldn't ask Ukraine to investigate Burisma, this natural gas company, because Joe Biden, his son was making millions of dollars from him. And that is nuts.

[Michael Knowles]

That's not a very good argument.

[Ted Cruz]

Any president has the authority to investigate corruption, but has the responsibility to investigate corruption. And so I think we need to be talking more about the substance. So today, though, President Trump's lawyers didn't get to talk at all. So we're in opening arguments. So today was all day long, nothing but House Democrats. It was the, the Adam Schiff show. That's not easy to say three times, by the way.

[Michael Knowles]

There's some slips that come in there.

[Ted Cruz]

Sometimes, but they were presenting their case and as I said, it's all focused on proving things that everyone agrees to.

[Michael Knowles]

How did they do in the sense of the political theater? Do you think if you're just judging this from the effectiveness of, of their objectives, that the House Democrats are making a good argument?

[Ted Cruz]

Look, I think most partisans stayed where they are. In other words, if you hate President Trump and think he's the embodiment of evil, you probably thought today was a wonderful day because it featured 10 hours of house Democrats describing how horrible Donald Trump is. If you think the President has done a Good job. And we've gotten good results. And you're tired of House Democrats just attacking the presidents all day long. Then today was really hard to listen to. And it was made worse by the fact that it was incredibly repetitive. So yesterday, when we were having procedural arguments, the House Democrats basically gave their opening argument, right? And then today they turned around and gave the same thing. So they keep making the same points and playing the same clips and reading the same quotes over and over and over again. And we've got two more days of opening arguments. We're gonna spend all day long tomorrow, all day long, the next day with them, making them.

[Michael Knowles]

But did anything new happen in terms of the Democrats case?

[Ted Cruz]

I think the single biggest thing, and I think the House Democrats made a strategic mistake, which is they opened the door to Hunter Biden testifying. Now, here's why Adam Schiff got up and he argued in his opening argument, he based their whole case on the proposition that the two investigations that the President asked for were sham investigations. I want to read you a little bit from what Adam Schiff said. He said that the President wanted Ukraine to launch investigations, quote, that were completely without merit, that were sham investigations that he later says the allegations are untrue and they've, quote, been widely debunked, patently false. So that's the central question, that these investigations are untrue. Now, let's take Burisma, which is the most important of the investigation.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay?

[Ted Cruz]

Burisma, big natural gas company, has had major problems with corruption. Tomorrow when we talk, we're gonna talk a little bit more about the evidence on Burisma that the White House lawyers have laid out and the media doesn't wanna talk about.

[Michael Knowles]

I wanna drill down. We'll do it tomorrow. Cause it's gonna take a lot of time. But I wanna drill down into Burisma and Hunter Biden. Because to me, that seems like the whole heart of this impeachment question.

[Ted Cruz]

It is the whole ball of wax. Now, the Democrats look in. In the House, House Republicans wanted to call Hunter Biden as a witness. And. And Adam Schiff said no. Said, we're not allowing you. And it was interesting yesterday. Adam Schiff said, if you have a trial and don't allow the defendant to put on evidence of innocence, it's not a fair trial.

[Michael Knowles]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

And. And it was, you know, it was all I could do not to laugh out loud. Cause that's what they did in the House, because they based their whole case on arguing that asking for an investigation into Burisma is false. And completely without merit. It raises, not just as relevant, but as central to the defense. Okay, what evidence was there that this was real corruption that needed to be investigated?

[Michael Knowles]

And even beyond. I mean, because I think when you get into this Ukrainian company and this relative of Joe Biden, it's easy to get lost in it. I just wonder if you're investigating the question of whether Trump should or should not have asked for this investigation, whether that's an impeachable offense. Perhaps the most important person to talk to and get testimony from would be.

[Ted Cruz]

Hunter Biden to ask him. And by the way, I don't know as a fact that it was corrupt. There's a lot of indication that it could well have been. But the House Democrats have had zero interest in asking and they run around with their hair on fire. If you even suggest that anyone would ask, much less ask Joe Biden, you know, hey, Joe, why, why was your son getting paid a million bucks a year by a gas company? We didn't know anything about gas. I mean, I mean, this is not subtle and sophisticated, Right?

[Michael Knowles]

But if the House Democrats are going to stop that, they do not want Hunter Biden to testify. Obviously, Joe Biden is right now the front runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential race. So they really don't want Hunter Biden to testify. Last time I checked.

[Ted Cruz]

Although I do have to say I kind of wonder if Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar are secretly rooting for Joe and Hunter to testify. But they haven't indicated that.

[Michael Knowles]

At least they have not yet. However, they could give a little support to their Republican colleagues, because last time I checked, it is your political party that controls the Senate. So can the Republicans in the Senate make Hunter Biden testify before the Senate?

[Ted Cruz]

Absolutely. It takes 51 votes, 51 Republicans. We can call Hunter Biden. Now, the way it works actually is the parties call, call the witnesses. Okay, so what it would mean is President Trump's lawyers, if they want to call Hunter Biden, I've been saying for months we ought to call Hunter Biden. Why? Look, the prosecutors, the House democrats, they had 17 witnesses in the House. They built the prosecution side in what was basically a kangaroo court where you say only prosecution witnesses and we don't allow the White House to call witnesses.

[Michael Knowles]

So you've got 17 witnesses for the anti Trump pro impeachment side and you've got zero witnesses.

[Ted Cruz]

The President has not been able to call a single witness. Now, if the President could call one, I'm pretty sure it would be Hunter Biden. If the President could call two, it might be Hunter Biden and the so called whistleblower. If he could call three, my guess is Joe Biden might be number three on that. We can call those witnesses or any others. And it just takes 51 votes. We have 53 Republicans. So if you simply have Republicans saying, you know what, we want to have a fair trial, one side has had all their witnesses, the other side, the defendant, the accused has had zero witnesses. That's not fair.

[Michael Knowles]

So is it going to happen? I mean, is, is the White House going to call Hunter Biden to testify?

[Ted Cruz]

So it's up in the air the fight we had yesterday as we adopted basically the same scheduling order the Clinton impeachment trial had, which is we'll go through opening arguments and questions from senators first and then we'll decide whether additional witnesses are needed.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay.

[Ted Cruz]

And so the House Democrats, they want to call a bunch of additional witnesses. The big one they're focusing on is John Bolton.

[Michael Knowles]

John Bolton was the national security adviser to President Trump. They think they're going to get some dirt on Trump out of John Bolton.

[Ted Cruz]

That is their big focus. Next week, the Senate is going to vote whether we're going to have additional witnesses or not. And it's going to make a big difference. Because, you know, one of the things you and I were talking about a little earlier is how long is this thing going to last?

[Michael Knowles]

I really want to know that because I don't Live in Washington, D.C. so I got to make some plans.

[Ted Cruz]

Well, the vote next week on witnesses will make a massive difference.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay.

[Ted Cruz]

If 51 senators vote next week, we don't need any more witnesses. We've got all the evidence we need. Then the trial will end next week. We'll move to final judgment. And if and when that happens, the president will be acquitted because the House Democrats haven't proven their case.

[Michael Knowles]

Okay.

[Ted Cruz]

On the other hand, if 51 senators vote that we do need additional witnesses, then it's Katie, bar the door. Then this thing could easily last weeks or even months. You could see six, seven, eight, nine weeks. Because if you go down additional witnesses, you're opening the door to litigation, to assertion of privileges, to all sorts of delays. We could be sitting here months from now with the impeachment trial still going on if we call additional witnesses.

[Michael Knowles]

But if you call additional witnesses, then we might finally hear from Hunter Biden. Now, my question on this, though is.

[Ted Cruz]

And by the way, if we do call additional witnesses, I'm very confident we'll call Hunter Biden.

[Michael Knowles]

But if you call Hunter Biden. Or rather, if the White House calls Hunter Biden to testify before the Senate, can't Hunter Biden just say, I don't want to answer your questions. I plead the Fifth and I'm not going to, I'm not going to say anything.

[Ted Cruz]

So he can. And if we call Hunter Biden, he will almost certainly plead the Fifth. Now here's the interesting thing. There's a federal statute that gives the Senate the authority to grant him what's called transactional immunity, which means we can force him to testify. Now, he can't be prosecuted for anything he testifies to, okay? But you can find out, you can get his testimony and that's something the Senate can do. Grant him immunity. And I got to say, that idea. You want to talk about something to terrify 47 Democrats in the Senate? It is the fact that the Senate could grant Hunter Biden immunity and hear his testimony about whether in fact there was corruption from Joe Biden. And let's be clear. This is not about. Look, Hunter Biden is a guy who's led a troubled life. This is not about him. This is the question about whether his dad abused his power.

[Michael Knowles]

So in other words, I just want to be very clear about this. Hunter Biden could be called to testify and he could say, I don't want to testify. I plead the Fifth. And if he's going to be held responsible for anything he did, then it ends there. However, the Senate can give him immunity. So he won't be held responsible for any crimes he commits.

[Ted Cruz]

And no reporter in Washington knows this or understands this, this.

[Michael Knowles]

But, but the Senate can force Hunter Biden to testify.

[Ted Cruz]

You can. And I'll give an example. Take a criminal case. This is something prosecutors do all the time. Let's say you have a criminal case and you have, say you know, some drug dealers that, that you're investigating and you've got say, a low level guy, a drug dealer, you'll see prosecutors that will give that drug dealer immunity to flip on the higher ups and to make them testify, give them immunity to flip on the higher ups. It's the same basic principle. Immunity is not always a good thing because it means you can be forced to testify or be put in jail if you don't.

[Michael Knowles]

That is a lot of leverage. I have to tell you, Senator, I have not heard that anywhere else. I had no idea that the Senate could make Hunter Biden testify.

[Ted Cruz]

Reporters don't want to talk about it. Reporters don't want to talk about Barisma at all. They don't want to talk about the evidence of corruption. I mean, they're. And in fact, you know, it's even funnier than that. So the Joe Biden campaign is sending out angry letters to media reporters saying whenever you mention the allegations of corruption, you must state on air these are false and have been disproven. In what other instance are so called reporters becoming an advocate? Look, I don't know if there was corruption or not. I do know that there's prima facie evidence of it.

[Michael Knowles]

And I know one way to find out.

[Ted Cruz]

At a minimum, the House Democrats don't even want to ask the questions. And we ought to ask the questions. Now. Are we going to have additional witnesses? I don't know.

[Michael Knowles]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

Next week when we vote on it, all 47 Democrats will vote yes. The question is, are there going to be four Republicans that vote yes? Maybe. I think.

[Michael Knowles]

I think I could name a few Republicans who might be likely to.

[Ted Cruz]

There are. There are three who have spoken publicly about being open to it. It's not clear if there's a fourth. It's not clear if those three will vote.

[Michael Knowles]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

If we have additional witnesses, we're going on for a long time. But that means we may get John Bolton in, but we're gonna get Hunter Biden. We may get other witnesses, too.

[Michael Knowles]

This is the best argument I've heard so far for dragging this thing onward. Obviously, we've got a whole lot more to get to. We will be getting into Hunter Biden and Burisma and corruption in Ukraine specifically tomorrow because I know pretty much nothing about it and you know pretty much everything about it. So I want to. I want to hear that. Obviously, people need to subscribe and leave a five star review, please, to this show. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz and we are now up on Apple Podcasts. We are on YouTube, we're on Spotify. We are everywhere you get your podcasts. One thing we want to do in these shows because there is so much to cover is take your questions from the mailbag. So we have a few of these today that came out after our first episode in just our remaining one or two minutes here. Let's try to get through a couple of them. All right, from Timmy, Senator Cruz, who fell asleep. 22 hours of testimony. Who fell asleep.

[Ted Cruz]

So there's been some reporting that accused Jim Risch of falling asleep. I didn't see that. I got to admit, at points I kind of feel like all of us fell asleep.

[Michael Knowles]

Did you fall asleep?

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, it was. I didn't formally nod off. I will say so Jim's defense and his press spokesperson said he was closing his eyes and listening contemplatively. I've tried that with Heidi at home. I'm not sure that story always works.

[Michael Knowles]

That's not a great excuse. No.

[Ted Cruz]

But I got to admit, last night. So I will say, when we were there at 2 in the morning, I was asking Chuck Grassley, yeah, you know, Iowa farmer, 86 years old. Chuck is an early bird. And I asked Chuck last night, I said, all right, what time do you get up each morning? And Chuck said, four. Now, he said he didn't get. I didn't ask him what time he got up today, but he said, I won't get up at 4am when he was there at 2, he slept for.

[Michael Knowles]

Still at the Senate at 4am But.

[Ted Cruz]

But it was, you know, look, we met, we stayed awake. I'm not sure much of America did, but. But the hundred senators, by and large.

[Michael Knowles]

That almost sounds like you're pleading the Fifth. This brings up the immunity arguments. We'll have to get into that tomorrow. Final question from Carl. Do you think, Senator, that they will try to impeach President Trump again if this one fails?

[Ted Cruz]

I think they'll certainly be Democrats that want to. They could easily. I don't think Pelosi wants to. So one of the interesting things you look, a year ago, Pelosi was saying, don't impeach Trump. A partisan impeachment doesn't work. I think Pelosi thinks impeachment. I think she thought it was gonna backfire. I think she thinks it's backfired now. Right. And basically the far left that hates Trump dragged her into doing this. So I was having a conversation with one of the other Republican senators today who was saying, why are they doing this now? Why didn't they do this in June or July? And that was my comment to him, is I think Pelosi thinks this is a political loser and she wants to get it over with. So will the extreme left want to try to impeach Trump over and over and over again? Yes, but I'd be surprised if the House goes down this road again.

[Michael Knowles]

It didn't even occur to me that they could try to impeach him again. I mean, I guess there have been a whole bunch of excuses for impeachment since the beginning. Six out of seven of the House Democrat impeachment managers actually supported impeachment before we knew anything about the current excuse to impeach Trump.

[Ted Cruz]

A lot of these Democrats called for impeaching Trump within days of his being elected before he'd been sworn in. So this has nothing to do with Ukraine. This has to do with Trump derangement syndrome.

[Michael Knowles]

Right.

[Ted Cruz]

And that's going to continue regardless.

[Michael Knowles]

And yet somewhere at the heart of all this that nobody's talking about and the press are not covering is this incident, this corruption in Ukraine. The question of Burisma, the question of Hunter Biden. We will have to get into all the.

[Ted Cruz]

And by the way, the Obama administration wouldn't investigate it. The Obama Justice Department wouldn't investigate it. There was no accountability. And I gotta say, when I'm back home in Texas, the frustration about folks in the prior administration who abused power and were never held accountable, that frustration is massive and it still needs to be dealt with.

[Michael Knowles]

Are they going to be held accountable from the past administration?

[Ted Cruz]

Look, I hope so. They haven't been so far. And they need to be. The law needs to be enforced fairly, regardless of party. Which means the whole Democratic argument that just because Joe Biden is vice president, you can't investigate when there's enormous evidence of corruption. That's a pretty bogus argument.

[Michael Knowles]

It's a pretty weak argument. I think hopefully we'll be able to just dismantle it tomorrow night. But we've got to get you ready to go back on the Hill and listen to another 10 hours of impeachment debate in this trial. Senator, thank you, as always.

[Ted Cruz]

See you manana.

[Michael Knowles]

This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. We'll see you tomorrow.

[Ted Cruz]

This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, 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.