Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:01]
Ted Cruz
Hello, my name is Jorge Gaviria and I'm the founder of Masienda. We partner with farmers in Mexico to bring heirloom corn products to every kitchen. With my Spark Cash plus card from Capital One, I earn unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase. And it has no preset spending limit, which means my purchasing power adapts to my business needs.
- [00:19]
Michael Knowles
My Spark Card helps me fulfill my.
- [00:21]
Ted Cruz
Mission of bringing Masa to the masses. Capital One what's in your wallet?
- [00:26]
Michael Knowles
Terms and conditions apply. Find out more@capital1.com sparkcashplus who is Ray Epps? This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
- [00:42]
Liz Wheeler
Verdict with Ted Cruz is sponsored by American Hartford Gold. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed everything is getting expensive. We are in the biggest economic crisis since 2008 with a government that's printing trillions and trillions of dollars. Consumer prices are the highest we've seen in 30 years. Inflation is certainly here to stay. And if the government continues its out of control printing and spending, the dollar could continue its freefall and lose its coveted role as the world reserve currency. So how do you protect your money? Your retirement? Your savings? Well, American Heart for Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by helping you diversify a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. They'll even help move your existing IRA or 401k out of the volatile stock market into a precious metals ira. And they make it easy. They are the highest rated firm in the country with an A rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. And if you call them right now, they will give you up to $1,500 of free silver on your first qualifying order. So don't wait. Call them now. Call 855-768-1883, that's 855-676-81883 or text Cactus to 65532. Again, that's 855-768-1883 or text Cactus To 65532. Verdict with Ted Cruz is also sponsored by stamps.com if you've got a small business, you know there's nothing more valuable than your time, so stop wasting it on trips to the post office. Stamps.com makes it easy to mail and ship right from your computer, so save time and money. With stamps.com, send letters and packages for less with discounted rates from USPS, UPS and more. Since 1998, Stamps.com has been an indispensable tool for nearly 1 million businesses. Stamps.com brings the services of the US Postal Service and UPS shipping right to your computer. Whether you're an office sending invoices, a side hustle Etsy shop or a full blown warehouse shipping out orders, stamps, stamps.com will make your life easier. All you need is a computer and a standard printer. No special supplies or equipment. Within minutes you're up and running printing official postage for any letter, any package, anywhere you want to send. And you'll get exclusive discounts on postage and shipping from USPS and ups. Once your mail is ready, you just schedule a pickup or drop it off. No traffic, no lines. Cut the confusion out of shipping. With stamps.com's new Rate Advisor tool, you can compare shipping rates and timelines to easily find the best option. So save time and money. With stamps.com there's no risk. And with our promo code verdict you can get a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a digital scale. No long term commitments or contracts, just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in verdict.
- [03:27]
Michael Knowles
Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. And Senator, it's just a very simple question with which you set the Internet and the Senate on fire today. Who is Ray Epson specifically What was the FBI's involvement in January 6th?
- [03:49]
Ted Cruz
Well, look, I think it is a very good question and it's a question right now we don't have an answer to. We have seen for the past year the Biden Department of Justice, the Biden FBI stonewall refused to answer questions, refused to take any accountability. And we've also seen, sadly, the Biden Department of Justice be deeply politicized. We've seen this Attorney general use DOJ as a weapon to go after President Biden's political enemies. And Ray Epps was a fellow who was there on January 5, January 6. There are numerous videos of him on the Capitol, on the Capitol grounds and leading up to the Capitol urging people to enter into the Capitol. And in particular there's one video that is very curious where he's, you know, he's wearing a MAGA hat. He certainly appears to be a Trump supporter. And he's screaming to the crowd, this is the day before January 6th. This is January 5th. He's saying we must go into the Capitol. Not just up to the Capitol, we must go into the Capitol. Let's take a look at it because the crowd's reaction is, is remarkable. I'm going to put it out there. I'M probably going to go to jail tomorrow. We need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peaceful. So, Michael, it's. It's very curious behavior. The crowd, as you see, begins chanting, Channing. Fed. Fed. Fed. Fed. Fed. And the next day, on January 6th, there are also photographs of this fellow, Mr. Epps, talking to someone else, wearing a Trump hat, whispering in his ear. And then five seconds later, and you can actually, on the video, see that it's a total of 5 seconds. The person he was talking to is suddenly trying to tear down the barricades to the Capitol. And the obvious inference is that Mr. Epps urged him to try to tear down the barricades. That's certainly what the fellow does. Five seconds after listening to whatever it is that Mr. Epps says. Now, the FBI posted a public posting with a picture of Mr. Epps asking for help identifying this person. Who is this person? They identified him as someone that they wanted to question, that presumably they potentially wanted to charge. Hmm. And then magically, he disappeared from the FBI posting. And when they put out the next list of pictures, Mr. Epps was gone. And I think a lot of folks are wanting to know what I asked today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I asked the FBI senior official at the FBI if Mr. Epps was a Fed. Was he a federal agent? Was he a confidential informant? Was he actively. We saw that he was actively urging people to commit criminal conduct. But was he doing so at the behest of the FBI and the Department of Justice and the FBI? And DOJ refused to answer that. Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th?
- [07:06]
Liz Wheeler
Sorry, I can't answer that.
- [07:08]
Ted Cruz
Ms. Sadburn, who is Ray Epps?
- [07:15]
Liz Wheeler
I'm aware of the individual, sir. I don't have the specific background to him.
- [07:21]
Ted Cruz
Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. Epps.
- [07:28]
Liz Wheeler
I mean, these four words, these are a completely valid question. It doesn't matter which end of the political spectrum you're on. This is a question that we all want to know the answer. Because here's the thing. This should be a very easy question for the FBI to answer. If the FBI knows that Ray Epps is not a Fed, then they should just deny it to put an end to these questions. I mean, those on the left try to paint this as a conspiracy theory. It's not. It's a valid question because the FBI is engaged in this type of entrapment behavior before, with the Gretchen Whitmer plot, for example. And so all the FBI has to say is, no, he's not a Fed. No, feds do not engage in any kind of entrapment behavior.
- [08:02]
Ted Cruz
Any.
- [08:02]
Liz Wheeler
And yet the FBI is refusing to do so. And listen to this. This is the statement from the January 6th committee. They say, quote, the committee has interviewed Epps. Epps informed us that he was not working, that he was not employed by working with or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency. This. This is the statement from the January 6th committee. And honestly, I laughed when I saw this because Ray Epps, them using Ray Epps words, his denial that he was a Fed, and as, I guess, their insinuation that he is not a Fed, I thought to myself, well, Ray Epps denying he's a Fed is exactly what he would say if he were a Fed.
- [08:44]
Michael Knowles
It does raise more questions than I think it answers. And we will have a lot of questions from our wonderful subscribers. Our Verdict plus subscribers coming up in the mailbag not too long from now. Is that right?
- [08:56]
Liz Wheeler
That is correct. And there are questions related to. I mean, as you know, this clip of yours, Senator, went wildly viral on social media. Millions of views. And a lot of people have questions about how this can be investigated and what kind of accountability there would be if these questions are not answered correctly or if they're answered in the way that we think they might be answered. I'm gonna go over there and collect all of those. We'll answer them at the end of the show. Anybody who wants to ask a question can join us on Verdict plus at verdictwithtedcruise.com/ and I'll see you in a few minutes.
- [09:25]
Michael Knowles
Wonderful. We'll see in a second. Liz. Senator, I wanna get to what Liz just brought up, which is that the January 6th committee, partisan though it may be, is saying that Ray Epps says he's not a Fed. He's never been an informant. So what do we make of that?
- [09:41]
Ted Cruz
Well, it could be true, it could be false. The January 6th committee is wildly partisan. It is a kangaroo committee. It is set up by Democrats with an explicit purpose to elect Democrats. And it's going to be a partisan show committee from day one. So I don't give a lot of credence to their statements. I don't know if Mr. Epps is a Fed or not. His behavior is odd. It's weird when you watch how he behaved, how the crowd reacted to him. When they start chanting fed, that's fairly suspicious. And look, it's important to distinguish. The FBI has federal agents and they have federal agents who go undercover. That is a legitimate law enforcement investigative technique to go undercover in groups, particularly if you anticipate that criminal conduct may occur. What the FBI can't do and shouldn't do, and it's improper for them to do, is for them to instigate criminal conduct. So the FBI can't join the Michael Knowles Book Club. And while you're sitting there reading some incredibly dry, you know, Latin book about the medieval times, say, hey, let's go knock off a bank tomorrow. Come on, Michael, are you man enough to knock over a bank? If the FBI agent instigates the criminal activity, if the FBI agents incite you to commit criminal activity, that's where they cross a line. And the reason so many people are concerned about Mr. Epps is what we saw in the video. He is urging people to commit criminal activity that ultimately a lot of people have been. Are being prosecuted for. And so it was really stunning. I asked the FBI over and over and over again, did FBI agents commit acts of violence? On January 6, the FBI refused to answer that question. Whether or not FBI agents committed acts of violence. I asked, did they incentivize? Did they incite? Did they urge others to commit acts of violence? Again, the FBI refused to answer. And look, I get most law enforcement agencies, if you ask them, do you have an undercover officer, do you have an informant somewhere, they're going to say, I'm not going to tell you. And that's fairly typical law enforcement behavior. This is unusual, the level of public scrutiny. There is a public accountability that needs to occur. If the federal government was actively encouraging illegal conduct, was actively encouraging violence, that is incredibly concerning because it is an abuse of power. And look, everyone views this in the context that we remember the four years of the Trump presidency. We remember the FBI and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice and the Deep State actively conspiring against the President. We remember the FBI fraudulently altering a document, submitting it to a federal court, creating counterfeit. And by the way, this is not me saying this. This is the Department of Justice Inspector General that outlined how these Deep State operatives were so passionately anti Trump that they broke the law. And so it does raise the question, did that happen on January 6th? And the fact that the Biden Department of Justice refuses to answer is deeply, deeply concerning. And I gotta say, even for Democrats, it ought to be concerning. And I'm not gonna out anybody. But I will tell you, I had a conversation with a Democratic senator today who saw the questioning in Judiciary, and he said, you know, I gotta tell you, I'd never heard of this guy Ray Epps before that hearing. That's really troubling. And he said, I'd like to know that answer. Now, I'm not going to out this senator because it frankly, he or she would come under a lot of heat for saying that publicly because the Democrats don't let you buck their party. But if anyone genuinely cares about the integrity of law enforcement, you ought to be troubled by law enforcement in trapping people, incentivizing criminal conduct. That's not what law enforcement is supposed to be doing. And I think the Biden DOJ needs to have some real transparency answering these questions.
- [14:10]
Michael Knowles
But how are we gonna get an answer? Because you, I think, brought this issue and this man, Ray Epps, to national attention today in a way that he had not been before. But the FBI just stonewalled you and said, well, we're not gonna tell you. Well, we're not gonna tell you. Well, I can't answer that. And, you know, apologies, but I don't exactly take the FBI at their word, especially these days. So are we ever gonna. If a United States Senator in an open hearing can't get an answer out of the FBI, is that it? We just have to believe them because they say so?
- [14:40]
Ted Cruz
Well, it doesn't have to be. Look, Republicans are in the minority right now in the Senate, so I lack the ability to subpoena anything. It takes a majority of a committee to subpoena something. If you had even one Democrat willing to break from the herd and say, let's get an answer to that, that would be a step in the right direction. What needs to happen at this point? The first step we can do is shine a light. What needs to happen is we need reporters actually to do their job. We need reporters to ask the Attorney General, who is Ray Epps, did you have confidential informants? Did they incite violence? What are the details you need reporters to ask Democratic senators, why don't you care? Why aren't you asking this question? Why are you allowing the Department of Justice to stonewall? We need sufficient public uproar that the Department of Justice is forced to have some accountability. It may take until a year from now. A year from now, I believe we will have, at a minimum, a Republican House of Representatives. We may, and I hope we'll have a Republican Senate a year from now as well. If that happens. I very much hope that we see a House and or a House and Senate willing to use the subpoena power to get answers to this. But absent that, we've gotta have enough public attention that the Democrats are guilted or shamed or feel enough heat that they have to answer questions and get to the truth.
- [16:12]
Michael Knowles
I don't think that it makes a lot of sense right now to expect bipartisanship, because last I checked, the Democrats are trying to whip all the votes they can to get rid of the filibuster to ram through the federalization of elections. You actually have come to be the public enemy number one, at least for the White House. They're whipping votes against you on this issue of Nord Stream 2 and Russia trying to build a pipeline. So it does seem like the stakes are very, very high right now, and any Democrat who bucks the party line is going to be thrown into the outer darkness.
- [16:47]
Ted Cruz
Well, Michael, that's exactly right. The Biden White House is fighting me tooth and nail on multiple fronts. They're fighting me on January 6th. They're fighting me trying to cover up what happened. They're fighting me on the filibuster and their attempt to federalize elections. And they're fighting me, ironically, in defense of Russia and Nord Stream 2. You know, if you look at January 6th, the other half of the hearing this morning is I asked the Department of Justice, I said, all right, how many people have been charged with crimes of violence? If you assault a police officer, if you physically assault a police officer, you should be prosecuted, you should go to jail. Nobody should be able to violently assault a cop. But I asked, especially if it's a.
- [17:28]
Michael Knowles
Fed who's doing it.
- [17:29]
Ted Cruz
Yeah. How many people have been charged with crimes of violence? Department of justice refused to answer. How many people have been charged with nonviolent crimes? They refused to answer. I asked, how many people are currently incarcerated? They refused to answer. I asked, of those people, how many have been placed in solitary confinement, both violent and nonviolent? They refused to answer. And then I asked, I said, all right, let's look at a different instance where we had violence across the country, which were Black Lives Matter, Antifa riots all over the country. So on January 6th, there were roughly 140 police officers who reported assaults on January 6th. That is, those cases involving violence need to be investigated and prosecuted. In 20, 20, Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots injured roughly 750 police officers nationwide. 750 cops. I asked the Department of Justice, those 750 cops that were injured, how many Crimes of violence have been charged? I don't know the answer to that. How many nonviolent crimes have been charged? I don't know the answer to that. How do you explain the differential, the political partisan prosecution that anybody, you know, a little old lady who came to the mall on January 6th waving an American flag and, and singing God Bless America. The Biden DOJ is going to come down on like a ton of bricks. But some antifa rioter who's firebombing police cars, they can't be bothered to prosecute. And, and, and the Biden DOJ just, just stiff armed did the Heisman said we're not answering anything. We don't know. There needs to be accountability there. On the filibuster, Chuck Schumer is trying to ram through an exception to the filibuster to federalize elections. And in particular what he wants is a bill that would subject any change in election laws to what's called pre clearance. Preclearance means the Department of Justice, this same politicized Department of Justice that has no transparency, that is behaving in nakedly partisan ways. He wants unelected bureaucrats of the Biden Department of Justice in charge of, of every election in America. And he wants them to have the ability to strike down laws adopted by democratically elected legislators. So I represent the state of Texas. There are 29 million Texans. The people of the state of Texas support voter ID support requiring an identification to go vote. 80% of Americans support voter ID. The vast majority of African Americans support voter ID. Well, the head of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice is a left wing activist, is one of the leading advocates of abolishing the police in the country. She is a hard liberal partisan and the Schumer Democrats are saying she should have the power to Trump to set aside to repeal laws that 29 million Texans through the democratic process want adopted. It is a brazen power grab and I'm help leading the effort to stop their destroying the filibuster, to stop their destroying the integrity of elections, to fight against voter fraud because Biden and Schumer and Pelosi have decided voter fraud is good for Democrats.
- [20:56]
Michael Knowles
But the issue here of course is if we getting back actually to the issue of Ray Epps and the investigation of the FBI, we can't do anything until we win more elections and get a majority in the Senate. If the Democrats grab this power, it's going to be much, much, much, much harder. I think in a lot of Democrats minds they think it will Give them a permanent majority because they're going to be taking all the power for running the election. So how urgent is this issue? Am I just clutching my pearls and waking up in a cold sweat for no reason? Or is there a genuine threat here that we're looking at a generational kind of power grab?
- [21:33]
Ted Cruz
So listen, there is a real threat here on the filibuster. It all comes down to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. So far, they have resisted ending the filibuster. What Schumer is trying is to say, well, let's just make a limited, narrow exception for voting rights because voting rights are so important. Now, mind you, the bill he's pushing actually undermines voting rights. It puts an unelected bureaucrat with the ability to throw out laws adopted through voting rights through the democratic process. So it's an anti voting rights bill. But their rhetoric, they claim it's voting rights. And listen, I don't know if the Democrats are going to do it or not. They're putting massive pressure on Manchin and Sinema. If they give into will have a massive negative effect on the integrity of elections. It will be used to undermine voter ID laws. It will be used to undermine laws prohibiting ballot harvesting. It will be used to undermine every reasonable common sense law that states have adopted to try to protect the integrity of elections. So it is dangerous. Democrats are doing it nakedly as a power grab. But the irony is it's a power grab on like multiple levels. It's like an Escher painting that it folds in itself over and over again. What they want to do to elections is a power grab. The way they want to do it is a power grab because to eliminate the filibuster, they have to break the Senate rules in order to change the Senate rules. And you know, today I was part of a press conference with about a dozen other Republican senators where I and others had great fun reading from a Chuck Schumer speech. By the way, those are words that have never before been uttered in the English language. Great fun, fun reading from a Chuck Schumer speech. But it was in 2005 where he was railing against some Republicans that were talking about ending the filibuster then. And he said that if you break the rules to change the rules, that it would turn America into a, quote, banana republic and that it would be, quote, doomsday for democracy. That is Charles Schumer on what nuking the filibuster would mean. And yet now he's trying banana Republican doomsday for democracy to Use the Schumer words. Why? Look, frankly, the real reason is Schumer's terrified AOC is gonna primary him from the left. And so he wants to give the crazy left everything they can in order to show just how tough he is.
- [24:16]
Michael Knowles
This theory, I've heard it whispered before, but this would explain it, because Chuck Schumer is an institutionally very savvy guy. He's certainly not the most radical of the Democrats. I can't believe you said for the first time that you enjoyed reading a Chuck Schumer speech. I'm saying for the first time I agree with Chuck Schumer on what would happen if we repealed the filibuster. But there is a legitimate threat from the most talked about politician in New York, and that would be aoc.
- [24:46]
Ted Cruz
Listen, I think he is looking over his left shoulder like crazy. And whatever she says, if she says jump, he says, how high? He's in the air and doing back flips. And by the way, I gotta say, the image of Chuck Schumer exerting himself athletically is really a frightening thought. But it is almost complete and total that. You know, when AOC went down to party over the holidays in Miami, I expected Schumer to show up in a Borat Monokini, just, you know, partying alongside her.
- [25:25]
Michael Knowles
Thank you for putting that image in my head. Senator. On that note, should we bring our friend Liz back to hear from some of our listeners in the mailbox?
- [25:32]
Ted Cruz
We should. And Michael, you will wake up to tonight in Nightmares with the image of Chuck and the Borat.
- [25:40]
Michael Knowles
Yep, it's already there.
- [25:41]
Liz Wheeler
Liz, I just want to say it's very mean to bring me back right at that reference, to put that in my mind as you bring me back. You both. You both owe me for that. You both owe me for that. We have a lot of good questions. Fortunately, none on that particular topic, but we have a lot of good questions. Senator, I want to combine this question. It's actually two questions, one from Bill Smith and one from Linda Brown. Bill Smith says Senator Cruz also asked the question, where is Ray Epps? Why doesn't Congress subpoena him to appear? And Linda Brown says, what can be done to find out who Ray Epps is? And if the FBI are in collusion with the Democrats to instigate these riots?
- [26:16]
Ted Cruz
Well, Congress certainly could subpoena him. An individual committee could subpoena him. But it takes a majority on any committee, and right now the Democrats have the majority. So it would take Democrats being willing to go along with it. And right now, they're not willing to. If the January 6th committee were anything other than a Democratic kangaroo court, they would subpoena him and bring him in for public testimony. But I'm not going to hold my breath there because that conflicts with their narrative. In the meantime, there's information about where he's from. There's information on the Internet. People are speculating, and I don't know this fellow. It may be that he's not. These are questions. His behavior is very curious. And the fact that the FBI was unwilling to deny it raises serious questions. But it would take either coercive legal force through a subpoena, which right now the Democrats have a monopoly on, or it would take sufficient public scrutiny that the FBI and Department of justice feels compelled to. To actually answer the questions. Right now, I think they believe they are totally unaccountable, that there is no. There are no consequences for their conduct. And that's really a dangerous dynamic. Look, it's frankly, what we saw earlier this year when Merrick Garland directed the FBI to go after and target parents at school boards as domestic terrorists. It's the same thing. It's abusing the political process for partisan ends. And that's really dangerous.
- [27:58]
Liz Wheeler
Yeah, I mean, I think that's correct. Obviously, the Democrats are partisan, and they're certainly gonna be unwilling to vote in favor of subpoenaing Ray Epps. The question is, if the Republicans gain control of the House of Representatives at the end of the year, which I think most people are expecting that Republicans will. I don't want to jinx it, but history shows that that's very likely and so does the condition of the country. Do you think Republicans could possibly subpoena him at that point? If the question has not been answered.
- [28:23]
Ted Cruz
By then, yeah, I think the House of Representatives. We take the House, the House could absolutely do it. If we take the Senate, the Senate could do it also. Now, I think there's a very real chance that potentially Mr. Epps might fight the subpoena. He might plead the fifth. I don't know what he would do. If Republicans in the House or Senate tried to subpoena the Department of Justice or the FBI. They would almost certainly fight it in stonewall. And I think the pattern we can expect is similar to the pattern we saw in the Obama Justice Department. The Obama Justice Department was heavily politicized. We ended up ultimately seeing Eric Holder, the Attorney General, held in contempt of Congress because he defied congressional subpoenas. So just winning a majority wouldn't necessarily cause the FBI or the Department of Justice to answer the question. But I think if we had a majority today, I would be prepared to issue a subpoena today if it were up to me. And I would certainly vote for that. We'd need to get a majority willing to do so.
- [29:24]
Liz Wheeler
Yeah, and I think the American people certainly call for it. And his behavior, if he were to face that hypothetically, it would be very telling, depending on what his behavior is. Okay, the next question I think is for Michael. This is directed to just the senator's co host with the question why aren't you willing? And like I said, I assume this is Michael, why aren't you willing to have Madison Cawthorn on your show on msnbc? Michael, I think this person thinks you're Rachel Maddow.
- [29:51]
Michael Knowles
You know, I was waiting for the punchline on that. And it's a good question actually, because Rachel Maddow has said, or her producers said in an email that they didn't want to ask Madison Cawthorn, the Republican congressman, for comment cuz he might come on the show. I would criticize Rachel, but we doppelgangers have to stick together. And so I'm not gonna be throwing any stones at my MSNBC counterpart.
- [30:16]
Liz Wheeler
Okay, That's a very political answer to that, Michael. Well, that's all right. I made that question up anyway cause I thought it was funny. Senator, here's a, here's a real question for you. This is from Real Truth Cactus who has some of the best questions. She says, why have we seen the left suddenly switch the COVID messaging from inflated statistics and fear mongering to. To accurate Covid information that would have gotten you banned from Twitter a year ago?
- [30:39]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, because they're brazen hypocrites and they realize that their policies are very unpopular. People don't want small businesses shut down again. People don't want their schools shut down again. Children, literally millions of children are being hurt by these ridiculous policies. And people are tired of the brazen mask mandates. You know, today we had a press conference in the Senate and there were about a dozen Republican senators there and all the reporters were there and a reporter from PBS asked me a question. She said all of we reporters are wearing masks. None of you senators are wearing masks. What's wrong with you? Why aren't you wearing masks? And I laughed at her and I said cuz people are tired of the ridiculous double standards. We've seen. We've seen Biden say no vaccine mandates and then suddenly vaccine mandates for everyone. We've Biden say if you're vaccinated. You don't gotta wear a mask. And then suddenly everyone's gotta wear a mask. We've seen Foushee say, masks don't work. And then suddenly you need two, three, four masks. And then, well, I'm gonna lie to the American people about masks because I don't think they can handle it. We've seen the flip flops back and forth. And I told her, I said, look, you're a reporter. If you want to wear a mask, you can wear a mask for the rest of your life. I don't care. Uh, but. But some of us actually believe in freedom and are not gonna wear a mask for the rest of our lives. But then I turned to her, Liz, and I said, you know what? How come you reporters never ask Joe Biden when he's standing at the damn podium in the White House, he's not wearing a mask. How come you never asked Joe Biden, where's your mask? How come Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, when she's standing at the podium, no mask, we don't see reporters say, Ms. Psaki, why aren't you wearing a mask? Because you guys are a bunch of partisan hypocrites. She didn't like that answer.
- [32:33]
Liz Wheeler
No, I bet she didn't. I personally would like if the press would question Biden about not just why he doesn't wear a mask at the podium, but why he does wear a mask on the beach, by himself, outdoors, when he's walking his dog. Because that one, that one will blow your mind. I tell you, that one's the craziest. Okay, the next question is from a new. A new verdict plus community member, Padre Boston. I happen to know that this is a Catholic priest in Boston. Padre Boston says, Senator, can Dr. Fauci be forced out by a Republican dominated Congress?
- [33:05]
Ted Cruz
That's actually a good question. By a. Congress is tough because the executive power has the power of hiring and firing. So Fauci, as far as I know, is not currently in a Senate confirmed position. So he doesn't require. Require Senate confirmation, I assume. I haven't studied this, but I assume the secretary of HHS could fire Fauci or the president could direct that he be fired. Congress could put a lot of heat on the administration. Congress could, I suppose theoretically try to attach something like an appropriation rider to legislation. I've never seen that targeting a particular individual. That would almost surely be challenged in litigation if you tried. So the principal thing Congress could do is shine a light on Fauci's repeated contradictions on his abuse of power, on his hypocrisy, and on what appears on the face of it to be his committing of a federal crime. Lying to Congress about whether the federal government funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that's a. Lying to Congress is a federal crime, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. I've asked about that. I've shined the light on that. I pressed on that. But the problem is, look, under our Constitution, we got three branches of government. Legislative, executive, judicial. Only the executive can prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress. And at least right now, the Biden doj, they ain't going to do it. Forget about the law. Politics trumps everything, sadly, with this administration.
- [34:46]
Liz Wheeler
And that's part of the problem with the administrative state is Congress should have more power than they have. But they legislated away. They legislated away using vague, vague wording in pieces of legislation that just defers this rulemaking to these agencies. And these bureaucrats are unaccountable to the American people. They are in positions that it's difficult to fire them. This is one of the problems, one of the many problems with the administrative state. Senator, this is, this is a. More. This is a fun question. This is a question that reminds me of what one of the audience members at Texas A and M asked you about your home state of Texas. This person's username is ssnyh. He asks, would Ted be willing to moderate a Texas governor's debate before the primary?
- [35:29]
Ted Cruz
That's an awfully good question. It's a lively question. You know, I probably shouldn't do that. I'm friends with all the people running for governor. Greg Abbott has been a good friend. He was my boss five and a half years. There's enough contentious dispute. I'm supporting Abbott because he has been a close friend and supporter for decades. So you probably shouldn't have a moderator who's taken a position in a race.
- [35:57]
Michael Knowles
Senator. Senator. That has never stopped a moderator before. Obvious and overt bias in personal relationship. I think that's just the par for the course at this point.
- [36:06]
Ted Cruz
So actually, Michael, remind me, when Chris Wallace moderated the debate between Trump and Biden, was Wallace actually wearing a Biden T shirt with a giant foam finger that said number one? I'm pretty sure he was like wearing the same shirt we see on illegal aliens crossing the border now and with a giant foam cowboy hat. You know, Biden's cheerleader.
- [36:30]
Liz Wheeler
Yeah. I mean, you're thinking of Candy Crowley, surely, or someone from CNN who's giving questions to Hillary Clinton. Let's not get conf. I personally don't believe that there is someone who isn't biased. Anybody who follows politics has an opinion, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think, in fact, sometimes owning up to bias makes it more fair because then your audience can control for your bias. But I thought that was a fun question.
- [36:51]
Ted Cruz
So, Liz, I was gonna jump in on the question of debate bias real briefly. One change I've actually suggested in how presidential debates happen is two Stage number one, Republican primary debates in the presidency should only be moderated by people who intend to vote in a Republican primary. So if you're a lefty journalist, if you want every Republican to lose, you shouldn't be a moderator every primary. A condition for it to be a moderator is you have to say, I'm going to vote in the Republican primary. I'm making this choice as well. Secondly, in the general election, obviously that's not an option when you have a Democrat and a Republican. You know, Liz, what you just said about everyone's biased rather than pretend they're not. I would open it and I would have one left wing moderator and one right wing moderator. So I would have Chris Hayes and Mark Levin. I'd have Rachel Maddow and Michael Knowles. They could be separated at birth and just have them own it completely.
- [37:59]
Liz Wheeler
They'd have to wear name tags to differentiate.
- [38:02]
Ted Cruz
Michael, do you have the glasses like her? You got the haircut, but do you have the like big dark black glasses?
- [38:08]
Michael Knowles
I'm not joking. Ben Shapiro told me I couldn't wear my glasses anymore because I looked too much like a certain MSNBC host. That is not a joke. And so everything is just blurry.
- [38:20]
Liz Wheeler
Lest I be confused, that's okay. If you get this hosting role, we'll give you name tags to differentiate yourself from her. On that note, anybody who wants to spark one of these lively discussions and ask questions to Senator Cruz, Michael Knowles, or to me can do so@verdictwithtedcruise.com join us over on the Verdict community. It's a lively bunch over there and you get access to ask questions. Also, don't forget if you want a cactus hat, if you want a Verdict T shirt, if you want a sticker for the back of your laptop, visit our merch shop at verdict with TedCruz.com shop. We have some sweet merch over there that I like. I think you'll like. Michael likes the Senator likes. We all like it. Michael, on that note, I'm going to hand it back to you.
- [39:00]
Michael Knowles
Wonderful, Liz. Thank you very much. I am not Ray Epps. I am not a fed. I am Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. We will see you next time.
- [39:19]
Liz Wheeler
By the way, don't forget our tremendous giveaway in honor of the two year anniversary of Verdict. If we reach 15,000 members on Verdict plus by January 21st. January 21st being of course the anniversary, the inaugural episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz. And we will bring one Verdict plus member to a live taping of Verdict. Now, you don't have to pay anything. This is an unpaid. All you have to do is join the Verdict plus community at verdict with Ted Cruz.com+ if we reach 15,000 members by January 21st, maybe you will be invited to a live taping of verdict. Also on YouTube, we will be selecting 15 random people who leave comments on episode 100. That's episode 100 on YouTube. 15 random people. We will be selecting to get a box of Verdict merch from the Verdict merch store. We're talking about sweet cactus hats, we're talking about T shirts, we're talking about stickers. Really cool stuff. You could be one of the 15 lucky people. Head on over to our YouTube channel and leave comments. Comments. 15 of you are going to get a box of Verdict merch. And perhaps the most fun. This isn't exactly a giveaway, but it's even better. If we get to 50,000 reviews on Apple Podcasts. That means that you go over, you subscribe to the show Verdict with Ted Cruz, you leave us a five star rating. You give us a glowing, obviously great review over there. If we get to 50,000 reviews, then we're going to do a poll to see exactly what Michael and Senator Cruz are going to do in 2022. These are the options. And by the way, shout out to Real Truth Cactus for this idea. These are the options. Either the senator wears a Braves jersey for a whole episode. That's option number one. Option number two, Michael and the Senator arm wrestle. I'm very biased, but this one's my favorite. Option number three, the cactus makes a guest appearance on our show. Or option number four, Michael roasts Princeton and the senator roasts Yale in a Throwdown episode. 50,000 reviews on Apple podcasts. And this. You will be in control of one of the episodes in 2022. Head on over to Apple subscribe, give us a great review. And those are our giveaways for the two year anniversary of Verdict with Ted.
- [41:22]
Ted Cruz
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 it.