Loading summary
Transcript99 lines
- [00:01]
A
Check engine light on. Take the guesswork out of your Check engine light with O'Reilly Barrascan. It's free. Ask for O'Reilly Barrascan today. Oh, oh, oh.
- [00:11]
B
O'Reilly Auto Parts arguments are over. Question time is about to begin. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he doesn't have the votes to end impeachment. Away we go. This is VERDICT with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. Senator, before we get started, I am seeing reports on Twitter, I want to hear it straight from you, that Mitch McConnell called the senators into a room and said he does not have the votes to stop witnesses. He does not have the votes to end impeachment.
- [00:55]
A
Well, I think those reports overstated a little bit. The votes are up in the air. It's not clear where the votes are, but it is absolutely true. We finished opening arguments today, finished it relatively early, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. And afterwards, all the Republicans went back to a conference room to talk about, okay, what next and the next two days are questions. But then on Friday is the vote, and it's the vote on whether to hear additional witnesses. And by the way, that word additional is important. The media, when they report it, keep describing it as the vote whether or not to hear witnesses.
- [01:32]
B
Right.
- [01:32]
A
But it's worth noting, the House heard testimony from 17 witnesses and they played that testimony for us. They relied on those documents. They laid it forward. So the question is, is any additional evidence or any additional witnesses necessary? That is a close question. I don't know where the votes are. All 47 Democrats are going to vote yes. So the question is, are there going to be four Republicans to join them? You've had there could be. It is close. And so this was a meeting and we have these periodically where leadership kind of brings the conference together and is trying to whip everyone and get everyone in line. You know, I have to admit afterwards, Mike Lee and I were laughing because we've been to a bunch of those meetings and usually it's leadership unloading on the conservatives. Mike and I are used to being the bad guys and being like just they're pounding on us going, why are you guys causing trouble? In this instance, it was actually leadership trying to the folks that are threatening to vote with the Democrats are the more moderate Republicans. And so it was very much an effort designed to bring them along.
- [02:46]
B
That must have felt nice to be the good guy in one of these conference meetings.
- [02:50]
A
Yeah, nice, although a little terrifying. But look, I think there were a lot of good Arguments that were made, the folks who are wobbly, the folks who haven't made up their mind where they're gonna be, they were essentially quiet.
- [03:05]
B
So these are the people that you call the rhinos, the squishes.
- [03:09]
A
Those are the mean terms. I'm not gonna throw any epithets.
- [03:13]
B
Right.
- [03:14]
A
But listen, I think as a constitutional matter, as a legal matter, this is a very easy decision. The House managers haven't proven their case. They have the burden of proof. They have a burden of proof to prove the president committed high crimes or misdemeanors. They haven't done that.
- [03:28]
B
And in terms of the structure here, I mean, the reason that this meeting is crucial now is you had the House Democrats make their arguments for impeachment. They got their time to do that. Then the Trump team got its time to defend the president against impeachment. Now, over the next couple days, we're heading into question time. The that is when the senators get to ask questions of the two legal teams. So this is the moment now where everybody's got to sort of circle the wagons and get the strategy going.
- [03:56]
A
Well, and in this huddle, I mean, a bunch of us stood up and had different things to say. So I stood up and I tried to present three arguments to the conference as to why we should say we've heard enough, we don't need additional witnesses. The first I said is, look, as we've seen from the New York Times with this John Bolton stuff, there's going to be a bombshell a day. This is the game they're going to play. There's going to be a bombshell tomorrow. I don't know what it is, but it's going to be something, and they're going to do it again the next day. And I really. Look, this is what the game they played during the Kavanaugh hearings, where they held all the accusations till the end, and then they rolled out one after the other after the other. And I said, the media wants to browbeat Republicans into extending this. So that was my first point. My second point is, listen, the Democrats, they haven't proven their case. They're losing right now. So their game is just delay. They just want to delay this, keep it going as long as possible and engage in a fishing expedition. So bring in another witness. Maybe they'll get something from a witness, but just extend it out. And in particular, Chuck Schumer has not been subtle about trying to put Senate Republicans in purple states who are up for reelection in a hard position where whatever they vote. It's interesting Schumer actually doesn't care. I think how the purple state Republicans vote, because if they vote against the President on any witness question, that'll demoralize their base and make it easier to beat them. On the other hand, if they vote with the President in all the questions, then that'll let in a purple state that may not be solidly Republican. That then gives an opening for the Democrats who are running against them to attack them. And interestingly enough, a number of the folks there described how they're Democratic opponents were staying silent on impeachment, that it's clear Schumer sent out the word, just stay out of impeachment and we'll drag it on. But the third point I made, and this is an important point, that on the question of do we need additional witnesses? Most of that's focused on John Bolton. There's a point that there's been so much talking and yabbering, it gets lost. And it's really important, which is in the House. John Bolton went to a district court and he said he was willing to testify. And he asked a district judge, what should I do? Because the White House has told me not to, the House wants me to. And the House of Representatives affirmatively went to the district court in writing, right, and said, we don't need John Bolton.
- [06:18]
B
They withdrew their request. It wasn't a big. They already got 17 other people to.
- [06:22]
A
They never subpoenaed him and they withdrew their request. They said, we're not asking for him. And so I pointed out, I said, look, I understand for senators, they're agonizing and the media will beat up on you and said, don't you really want to be fair and call him? If they wanted to call John Bolton, they could have tried and they decided they didn't need his testimony. This is not about John Bolton or any one witness. This is about delay it and engage in a fishing expedition.
- [06:47]
B
Now, you said that right now the Democrats are losing. Do you mean they're losing in terms of the arguments they're making? Do you mean they're losing politically because they do not have the votes to remove the president? What's the relationship between the two?
- [07:00]
A
All of the above.
- [07:01]
B
All of the above.
- [07:02]
A
Look, on substance, they haven't, they haven't proven their case in interest. I think a lot of the American people have checked out. Yes. You know, I got to admit, like, like today, the number of. If it weren't the middle of the afternoon, I'm not sure half the Senate wouldn't have been napping at Their desks. This has gone on already a long time. Yeah. And there's no there there. You know, it was interesting, Michael, I was thinking. So we've heard both sides opening. We've heard 20, 24 hours was allocated to each. And after hearing it, I was thinking, all right, well, what are the. What are the main arguments the Democrats had of what did the president do wrong?
- [07:43]
B
Right. So 24 hours into, you know, a few bullet points.
- [07:46]
A
Yeah. And as I can see it, there are five things, five big things that the Democrats say the president did wrong. Here's the crazy irony. Every single one of them, it is objectively true. The Democrats have done worse. So let's go through them one at a time. So one thing they say the president did wrong was delay aid to Ukraine. So they've talked a lot about that. And so they had, you know, all these moments of, you know, people are dying in Ukraine and it's terrible. What is undisputed, yes, the president paused aid to Ukraine. But what is undisputed is that Barack Obama never gave lethal military aid, defensive weapons to Ukraine.
- [08:29]
B
But we're all told in the news, I've seen in the news that Obama gave aid to Ukraine.
- [08:33]
A
Obama gave blankets and MREs, meals. And in fact, look, I was sitting on the House floor when President Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, came and addressed us. And he said, explicitly, he said, blankets are fine, but you can't stop a Russian tank with a blanket.
- [08:50]
B
So what you're saying, though, is that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid, meaning aid they could use in the aggression against Russia. But the Trump administration did give.
- [08:59]
A
The Trump administration gave Javelin missiles which can take out a Russian tank. So you want to talk about, like, all right, bad thing number one, delaying military aid to Ukraine on any measure. Obama much, not even a little bit. Much, much worse than Trump. Trump has been much stronger on Ukraine. How about number two, quid pro quo. Lots of discussion about quid pro quo on the president. There's conflicting witness testimony. There's. There's testimony on both sides. But you know what? There isn't conflicting testimony on Joe Biden. Joe Biden admitted a quid pro quo and a much more serious quid pro quo. You know what? I've been calling the son of a bitch clip where he said it the.
- [09:38]
B
Other night on the show we did.
- [09:39]
A
Where he said, you know, he threatened Ukraine, he'd cut off $1 billion in aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the natural gas company paying his son at least a million bucks. A year.
- [09:52]
B
So what? What President Trump might have considered doing but didn't actually do in the end.
- [09:57]
A
Did or didn't do. And it doesn't matter. Whether there was a quid pro quo for Trump, doesn't matter legally. But if they think quid pro quos are bad, they have Joe Biden admitting it.
- [10:07]
B
Right.
- [10:08]
A
And being proud of the quid pro quo unequivocally. And a much more serious quid pro quo. All right, how about number three, the COVID up. That's a word the Democrats have said over and over again. Cover up, cover up, cover up. Because the White House asserted executive privilege. Well, you know what? There has been a cover up of all of the evidence on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Burisma.
- [10:28]
B
Right.
- [10:29]
A
The House blocked all those witnesses. They didn't want to hear any of it. They didn't talk about it at all. You didn't they. And they keep saying Trump couldn't even investigate. They want to cover this up because, look, Joe Biden is their front runner. They don't want the evidence. That, that. And it's important to note, this is not about Hunter Biden corruption. This is about whether Joe Biden, the vice president, was involved in corruption. But number four, investigate the rival. That's another thing. Okay, so he was trying to investigate his political rival. All right, so let me get this straight. You're saying it's inappropriate, it's wrong to want to investigate your political rival. Well, you know who did? That guy named Barack Obama in 2016 who launched a major investigation of Donald Trump, sent in spies, put wiretaps on the Trump campaign, had the FBI and DOJ lying and fabricating evidence as the inspector general laid out. So if you're saying. Just like for a Democrat. Okay, so you're saying it's wrong to investigate your political rival like Barack Obama did.
- [11:37]
B
Because, by the way, regardless of how Democrats would justify the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign, we know that it happened. We know that that occurred. So regardless of how you could justify or attack, President Trump's asking for an investigation in Ukraine. The same principle holds on any measure.
- [11:56]
A
Obama did it more than Trump on any measure. Like, if you put them side by side, who did more to investigate their rival? It's not. It's not. Gosh, it's kind of close. It's kind of a little bit. It's. Trump said, how come no one's investigating this thing? Look, Joe's bragging about firing the prosecutor. I mean, that was it. And by all appearances, Ukraine didn't do anything with Obama, they got wiretaps and did an investigation. I mean, they went all in. And then number five, cheating on an election. So that's the big. You know, it's interesting. I bet you the Democrats have focus group this. Yeah. Because cheat's a very simple word. It's a word people can understand.
- [12:35]
B
You know it since the first grade.
- [12:37]
A
You know it's the first. And they talk about that's what Trump was trying to do is cheat. Well, the irony is, what is this impeachment all about? It's about wanting to cheat on the 2020 election because the Democrats have been real candid if they think if the American people have the chance to vote for President Trump, they will. So this is all about get them off the ballot. So if you're just assessing who's trying to cheat to win an election, abusing the Constitution to try to impeach a president because you're afraid the voters will elect him, reelect him, that is election fraud. Cheating at the highest level. And so all five of the things they say the president did wrong, I don't think the president did wrong. But if those things are wrong, I don't know how you can coherently argue anything other than the Democrats are much, much worse on all five.
- [13:30]
B
And on that fifth point, on the cheating point, the Democrats have actually been consistent on this. You heard Adam Schiff, the House impeachment manager, the other day. He said, we can't let this go to the ballot box in November because we're probably going to lose. And you had Democratic Representative al Green in 2017 say, we need to impeach this president because if we don't, I fear he may be reelected.
- [13:51]
A
Look, you remember freshman Representative Tlaib coming in to be sworn in, was caught on video screaming, we're gonna impeach the MFer. She didn't abbreviate it. That's literally like coming in what she promised to do.
- [14:10]
B
So then, as you say, it's pretty clear. I think for any of the 10Americans who have been watching all of these endless impeachment hearings, and for the many, many Americans who are listening to this show, it seems pretty clear how the argument stands.
- [14:23]
A
So there is actually one guy locked in a grain silo with clips on his windows, on his eyelids, and it's like a clockwork orange. Somewhere, someone is playing every moment of this impeachment trial. And it's just probably scientist experiment, and.
- [14:38]
B
It is cruel and unusual punishment, without question. Is there a chance, though? Because it is clear that you will see any Democrats break from their party and vote to acquit the president in this trial.
- [14:51]
A
So I think there is a chance. I think the most likely would be a Joe Manchin. Okay. Democrat from West Virginia. Remember, he voted for Brett Kavanaugh. That probably got him reelected.
- [15:01]
B
What about Dianne Feinstein from California who just reports were coming out that she may acquit?
- [15:07]
A
Look, who knows? LA Times reported that today, but then she issued a hasty retraction. Right. Look, I think I'd be pretty surprised if she voted to acquit. I think so far the Democrats have been party line on everything. So you haven't seen any cracks in their facade. I think you could see Kyrsten Sinema, the new senator from Arizona. I could see a universe where she votes to acquit. It's not impossible that Doug Jones votes to acquit the Democrat from Alabama, although I don't think he will, but it's not impossible.
- [15:42]
B
Why don't you think he will? Because he's a Democrat in a very red state.
- [15:46]
A
I think he. He realizes he's going to lose in November, and so he's. He's wanting to do what Heidi Heitkamp, remember Heidi Heitkamp, who was a Democrat elected North Dakota?
- [15:56]
B
Yep.
- [15:57]
A
So last cycle she just voted liberal on everything and went down and lost bad.
- [16:02]
B
Go down swinging.
- [16:03]
A
And I think Jones has basically made that same call that he's going to lose. And so he wants to go back and be lionized in liberal circles.
- [16:12]
B
Speaking of efforts that seem futile, but are probably worth a shot, you did not spend your whole day in the Capitol. You, I noticed, headed over to the White House where a new plan for peace in the Middle east was being announced. Can you. I mean, obviously you can, if physically, but is it appropriate now for you to tell a little bit about what happened?
- [16:34]
A
Sure. And actually, as it so happens, today I went to the White House not once, but twice. So I started the day with a meeting in the White House with Jared Kushner, who's been the president's point person on the Middle east peace process, and a number of other senators. And he was talking to us about the substance of their proposal and walking through it. And so it was essentially a pre brief of, here's what's going to be announced. And I got to say, the White House did a remarkable job of keeping the details quite quiet, which pretty much nothing in this town is quiet. So for them to do that was well done. And then I left and went to a couple of meetings, and then I came back at noon for the big announcement and President Trump was there, but also Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was there and they had a big announcement at the White House. And you know, it was interesting. I think there were several points that were powerful. Number one was just the contrast that President Trump is standing up and announcing major efforts trying to achieve peace in the Middle East. Now that's hard. You want to talk about. Really, really hard. That's hard. But you actually have a president who's working and trying to advance American interests and trying to support our friend and ally Israel. And the contrast, the Democrats are just in this impeachment circle. And by the way, at the announcement today with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know, how many Democrats were there at the announcement?
- [18:01]
B
How many?
- [18:01]
A
Zero.
- [18:03]
B
Well, they were so busy having fun.
- [18:04]
A
At the impeachment trial, they, their focus just on partisan politics. And listen, the deal, the terms of it are still not, I don't know all the details of the term.
- [18:15]
B
Yeah. Is there any sense of what this deal includes?
- [18:18]
A
So what Jared walked through and some of what the President Netanyahu walk through also is, it is a deal that gives Israel a great deal. So it recognizes the legitimacy of settlements that Israel has had settlements in what's called Judea and Samaria, which are beyond the lines, what are called the 1967 lines. And so that for Israel is a big deal. Israel was attacked and in 1967 expanded the map of Israel in a defensive war where they were defending their borders. And this map recognizes Israel's sovereignty over land that they've been in for a long, long time, half a century. But that's a major acknowledgement of Israel's rights of sovereignty. It also, with regard to Jerusalem, keeps the core city of Jerusalem undivided. That is a big deal.
- [19:11]
B
So there are some proposals that would divide Jerusalem between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis.
- [19:17]
A
Now this proposal keeps portion of East Jerusalem, but it's outside of what has technically been the city. So the Palestinians could call what they had Jerusalem, but it preserves what is actually Jerusalem to be an Israeli city. Okay, but, but it, but it also ensures that, that, that Muslims have access to the mosque in Jerusalem and, and to the holy site. So it, it is it, it. But at the same time it sets up conditions for creating a Palestinian state, a two state solution.
- [19:50]
B
Okay.
- [19:52]
A
And it also promises $50 billion in investment capital from Arab countries primarily. But it's a lot of capital into the new Palestinian state.
- [20:02]
B
Oh, well, that's a pretty, pretty nice carrot stick. There to try to bring people to the table for peace.
- [20:08]
A
And look, the devil is in the details. Palestinian Authority refused to show up. So you didn't have the leader of.
- [20:15]
B
The Palestinians there, but he was invited.
- [20:17]
A
He wouldn't take the phone call.
- [20:19]
B
So this deal, while it may be a step forward, probably is not going to go anywhere.
- [20:25]
A
Well, maybe, maybe not. I'll say The Trump administration did a couple of things that are pretty impressive. Number one, they got the support not only of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime minister, but also Benny Gantz, who is his principal rival. And the two of them, they keep having election after election to determine who's going to be the next prime minister. And they're from different parties, they're different, very different politically. And both Netanyahu and Gantz supported this proposal.
- [20:48]
B
So the two big sides in Israel are behind this deal.
- [20:52]
A
That's a big deal that the Trump administration was able to unify the kind of range of Israeli politics. That was not easy. And secondly, we've seen some early signs of support from the Arab world for, for this proposal. There were three different Arab ambassadors, Muslim ambassadors who were there at the announcement, which is a big deal as well. And part of the White House's strategy is to try to get broad support so that the Palestinians feel more pressure to come to the table. Now, the White House has been very open that the details are negotiable, but you gotta sit down and start negotiating. And you know my view on a two state solution. There are a lot of Republicans who insist there's gotta be a two state solution.
- [21:38]
B
A two state solution would be state of Israel and then a new state for Palestine.
- [21:41]
A
Yeah, and that used to be kind of Republicans were adamant, Democrats were adamant about it, but a lot of Republicans were adamant about it. I had been pretty vocal in saying, who the hell are we to tell them how they should resolve their security issues? That's a decision. Israel is a sovereign nation.
- [21:57]
B
Right.
- [21:58]
A
They should decide if Israel thinks a two state solution is a good idea. That's, that's fine by me, but we shouldn't force it down their throat. I was encouraged today because you had Netanyahu and Gantz supporting it. You had Israel pretty enthusiastic about it. If they make that determination, I think we should be supportive of that. And I will say, listen, I have long been pessimistic that Middle east peace is going to burst out anytime soon. I don't think the Palestinian Authority wants peace.
- [22:30]
B
It would seem that way.
- [22:31]
A
I think they, they still refuse to recognize even that Israel has a Right. To exist as a Jewish state.
- [22:37]
B
Right.
- [22:37]
A
And they continue to embrace terrorism. I mean, they are in a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization. But even though I'm pessimistic that because I don't think the Palestinians want peace, what I have urged the Trump administration for three years is because they've been very focused on trying to produce Middle east peace. You're more likely to get it if you're unequivocal in saying, we stand with Israel. We're not going to waffle, we're not going to blow in the wind. We're not going to be, oh, I don't know. Because if that's the case, the Palestinians have demonstrated for decades they'll play world opinion. They'll attack us in the New York Times and let the US Flap back and forth. And I will say the president has agreed with what I've said. So, for example, the Trump administration moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Republican and Democratic presidents had promised to do that. Nobody did it. Trump did it. That was a big deal. President Trump recognized the Golan Heights in the north of Israel as part of Israel. I had urged the president to do that. The president did it. And the president pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.
- [23:42]
B
Right.
- [23:42]
A
Big, big deal. The Defense Department and State Department both opposed that. I made the case vigorously. The president, he did it. And I do think the dynamic. We are now negotiating from a position of strength where the president can say, we stand with Israel, but we'll facilitate a discussion for peace. And you know what? Palestinian Authority didn't show up, but the Democrats didn't either.
- [24:06]
B
Quite a comparison. And it would seem, you know, obviously the White House has some credibility on this issue. So while we may not, unfortunately, resolve Middle east peace tonight, we can, in our last moment or two here, get to a couple questions in the mailbag from Jay. Who breaks the tie if the impeachment vote on witnesses comes in? 50. 50.
- [24:32]
A
So that's a complicated question. It's not entirely clear from the rules.
- [24:37]
B
So it's not. I would think there'd be a simple answer in the Constitution or something.
- [24:41]
A
Well, so there's normally a simple answer. So for most Senate votes, the vice president breaks the tie. The problem is the vice president isn't presiding.
- [24:49]
B
Right.
- [24:50]
A
So you don't have. And by the way, you wouldn't want the vice president presiding in the impeachment of the president. It's got quite an interest. If he gets impeached, he literally gets the job of president. So that would be. The framers knew what they were doing when they didn't put the Vice President in the chair. That'd be an interesting discussion if the Vice President cast the tie breaking vote. Well, sorry, Bud.
- [25:11]
B
Sorry, pal, you're out.
- [25:12]
A
You know, my office is square. It's not nearly as interesting as yours. Look, it is somewhat ambiguous if you go back to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the Chief justice who was presiding there tried to cast a couple of tie breaking votes, then the Senate pressed back on him and so it's unclear. It is possible the Chief justice could try to cast a tie breaking vote, but there is ambiguity and uncertainty. We also adopted a scheduling rule, the language of which I think permits both sides to argue they win in the case of a tie. If we get to a tie, it's bad news. The best thing to do is don't have any ties, get win by 51 votes.
- [25:55]
B
Right? Right. As with so many aspects of this, though, it does seem we may be in uncharted territory. Question from Matt. Senator, where did you get your boots and where can I get a pair?
- [26:09]
A
So these are Lucchese boots. They're made in El Paso, Texas. And I'm a huge fan of Lucchese. I have a bunch of pairs of.
- [26:15]
B
Lucchese and it's got the Senate emblem on it.
- [26:19]
A
It has the Senate seal on the front, but then on the back. I don't know if the camera can get it or not, but there's what's called the come and take it flag, which in Texas, it was pivotal for Texas independence when Texas was part, part of Mexico, part of the nation of Mexico. Santa Ana was the dictator in Mexico and he issued an order to the town of Gonzalez, a little town in South Texas. He said, hand over your guns and hand over the cannon that guards the city. And the Texians, that's what they called Texans back then, was Texians. The Texians in Gonzalez, they made a flag and they hoisted above the city and it had a picture of the cannon and underneath it the legend come and take it. And that was the beginning of the Texas Revolution where we fought a revolution, had the Alamo, but ultimately won at San Jacinto and Texas became our own nation. For nine years we were the Republic of Texas, an independent nation. And then we joined the United States. That's why I wear that flag.
- [27:21]
B
I love Texans and I love Texians too, but I love Texans. Last question is for me from, by.
- [27:26]
A
The way, a quick aside. Heidi and I go to church at First Baptist Church in Houston. Something our pastor said a few years ago. Do you know, our church was founded by American missionaries abroad because it was founded when they were the Republic of Texas and they were literally American missionaries who had gone to the foreign country of Texas as missionaries. And they started a church, the First Baptist Church of Houston. And so in our charter, it was American missionaries visiting us. That.
- [27:57]
B
And look, their activities clearly worked and they're also part of the country. Last question before we go from Steve. For me, Michael, what's it like talking to the Zodiac Killer? It is great talking to the Zodiac Killer because true crime podcasts tend to do very well on the charts. And I think that may explain some of our success remaining even today the number one podcast in the country.
- [28:21]
A
Look, I will say so. I remember campaigning and this one young guy held up a sign that said, are you the Zodiac Killer? And I just, I stopped and asked him, I said, son, if I was, would you really want to bring that.
- [28:35]
B
Sign here today that I'm sufficiently terrified that I have to end the show. Make sure to get your mailbag questions in. The Senate will now be asking questions of the legal teams and we want to pass your questions along. So tweet it, Ted Cruz, hashtag verdict. And you can also email it in mailbagrdictpodcast.com I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [29:06]
A
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 don to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.