Verdict with Ted Cruz - Four Crucial Questions

00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.

00:00:02.700 Guaranteed human.

00:00:04.480 Ted Cruz.

00:00:05.600 Boy, has he been.

00:00:06.580 Where is Ted?

00:00:07.680 Boy, oh boy.

00:00:08.520 And he's dying to get back there and ask those questions.

00:00:11.200 I know.

00:00:11.980 He said, let me out of here, President.

00:00:14.000 I want to ask those questions.

00:00:15.460 He's got some beauties. 1.00

00:00:16.600 I'll bet.

00:00:17.040 Thank you, Ted, for everything.

00:00:18.360 You've been incredible.

00:00:26.500 Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.

00:00:28.580 I'm Michael Knowles.

00:00:30.000 Senator, my first question, what was that?

00:00:34.120 Well, that was this morning at the White House.

00:00:36.840 And this morning, the president signed the USMCA, the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement.

00:00:43.680 This is what's replacing NAFTA.

00:00:45.480 And there were a whole bunch of senators, a whole bunch of House members, a whole bunch

00:00:48.780 of folks from all over the country that were there.

00:00:50.660 It was outside the South Lawn of the White House.

00:00:52.600 We're all bundled up in jackets and scarves and gloves.

00:00:55.080 And this was before, obviously, the impeachment trial.

00:00:57.860 It was.

00:00:58.480 It was this morning.

00:00:59.440 The impeachment trial starts at one.

00:01:01.760 So it was there.

00:01:02.920 And the president was making reference that we're getting ready to head into questions.

00:01:06.600 I wonder if maybe the president has heard an episode or two of this show and knew you

00:01:11.260 had a lot of good questions lined up.

00:01:12.540 I am confident the president is downloading each and every episode.

00:01:17.000 So before we get into the questions, because that was that's the big story of of the day.

00:01:22.160 And you had some of the most prominent questions and the questions that went viral.

00:01:25.580 I have to point out it is after one o'clock in the morning, but the impeachment trial wrapped

00:01:30.840 up around 1115.

00:01:32.620 Yeah.

00:01:33.200 The cameras get turned off.

00:01:35.060 I suspect you were spending a little more time in the Capitol.

00:01:38.800 Maybe there was some wheeling and dealing going on.

00:01:40.640 Is there anything you can tell us?

00:01:41.640 Well, there were a number of us that stayed afterwards, stayed in the cloakroom, which

00:01:45.520 is which is a little room off.

00:01:47.580 Both sides have a cloakroom.

00:01:48.900 There's a Republican cloakroom, a Democratic cloakroom.

00:01:51.280 And several of us probably spent a half hour, 40 minutes back in the cloakroom talking about

00:01:57.160 is is there any way to resolve this witness issue?

00:02:00.100 Is there any way to get to 51?

00:02:02.060 We're going to find out on Friday.

00:02:03.180 So getting to 51 would end the the impeachment trial.

00:02:08.100 It would go there would be no more witnesses.

00:02:09.740 You go right to a vote.

00:02:10.980 Most likely the president gets acquitted.

00:02:12.520 It's all over.

00:02:13.180 If we get to 51, it's saying enough is enough.

00:02:16.420 We've heard enough evidence that the House heard 17, actually 18 witnesses.

00:02:21.680 We've heard the testimony.

00:02:22.940 And let's end this.

00:02:24.180 Let's not drag it on forever and ever.

00:02:26.020 And we're close.

00:02:27.380 We've got a shot at that.

00:02:28.660 Uh, all 47 Democrats will vote to hear additional witnesses.

00:02:34.200 They want to drag it on forever.

00:02:35.620 Right.

00:02:36.240 The question is, are there going to be four Republicans to join them?

00:02:39.220 And the answer is maybe.

00:02:41.320 Uh, it looks like two Republicans are pretty solidly going to vote with the Democrats on

00:02:46.660 this.

00:02:47.140 Mitt Romney and Susan Collins from their public comments, they they they seem to have made up

00:02:52.040 their minds.

00:02:52.680 They've more or less said they're going to vote for witnesses.

00:02:54.820 They have.

00:02:55.740 And and beyond that, I think the the next two votes that are most in play are Lisa Murkowski 0.98

00:03:03.420 and Lamar Alexander.

00:03:04.800 Lisa Murkowski is in Alaska, Lamar Alexander, Tennessee.

00:03:07.480 Correct.

00:03:08.240 And I don't know how they're going to vote.

00:03:11.560 I can tell you there were several of us trying to say, is there a way we can reach an agreement

00:03:16.220 to get this over and done with?

00:03:18.200 I don't know that it'll work, but I can tell you it was actually it was several of us that

00:03:23.340 we're trying to see, all right, where is common ground?

00:03:26.580 And I don't want to we'll see if we get it done.

00:03:30.860 Great.

00:03:31.140 And we'll we'll know by Friday.

00:03:32.540 But but until that happens, we'll just have to see.

00:03:34.980 They got to make up their minds.

00:03:36.140 I've got to talk to my bookie after this.

00:03:37.820 I want to put money on this whole thing.

00:03:39.760 We'll just have to wait and see.

00:03:41.260 You're not going to make a prediction one way or the other.

00:03:42.900 I think it comes down to to those senators and they're making a decision which direction

00:03:49.600 they want to go.

00:03:50.380 And, you know, at the end of the day, you try to make the case on the merits.

00:03:53.520 You try to just, you know, talk through what are you worried about, what what would help

00:03:57.780 ease your concerns, what would get you to a place that you were comfortable.

00:04:02.260 But, you know, look, I'll say one thing about whipping votes in the Senate is is senators,

00:04:09.220 you know, browbeating is not very effective.

00:04:11.760 So you say so you're trying to listen as much as anything to say, OK, what where do

00:04:16.740 you want to get to that?

00:04:18.120 That actually determines it quite a bit.

00:04:20.180 Do you want to end up at a yes or do you want to end up at a no?

00:04:23.940 And and and that's that's not unique to the Senate.

00:04:26.580 That's that's true.

00:04:27.360 And a lot of negotiations is, you know, getting a sense of where someone really wants to end

00:04:32.540 up if they're looking for an exit ramp, then it's easier to try to figure out, all

00:04:38.320 right, how do you get there?

00:04:39.400 Right.

00:04:39.540 And if they're not looking for an exit ramp, that that becomes becomes a lot harder.

00:04:43.900 Then there's really nothing you could say that could bring them there anyway.

00:04:46.640 OK, well, then switching gears into questions that do have answers.

00:04:52.060 We got obviously the House Democrats.

00:04:54.640 They had their arguments.

00:04:56.140 The Trump team had their arguments.

00:04:57.580 Now we move into questions from senators.

00:05:00.080 But the senators are not the ones actually voicing the questions.

00:05:03.760 It's the chief justice who is presiding over impeachment.

00:05:07.120 He's the one who asks the questions.

00:05:09.360 Can you just take us through this process a little bit before we get into the specific

00:05:12.540 questions you asked?

00:05:13.360 Well, sure.

00:05:13.860 And the reason the senators don't ask the questions is actually the Senate impeachment

00:05:17.680 rules.

00:05:18.120 There are separate set of rules that govern impeachment.

00:05:20.160 And those rules provide senators cannot speak in open session.

00:05:26.360 In other words, when the TV cameras are on, when the reporters are there, senators can't

00:05:29.780 speak.

00:05:31.000 And so the rules for questions are you write down your questions and then the chief justice

00:05:35.420 reads them.

00:05:35.900 And part of the reason for that, if you think about the Senate is designed to ensure some

00:05:42.200 civility, some decorum.

00:05:43.900 Those rules are designed so you don't have senators screaming at each other and engaging 0.95

00:05:48.400 in mortal combat.

00:05:50.200 Right.

00:05:51.660 The House has a lot of that.

00:05:53.380 I mean, the House is a different chamber.

00:05:54.600 That's the purpose of the House, I think.

00:05:56.340 And so having the chief justice read the questions sort of calms the temperature.

00:06:04.140 OK.

00:06:04.540 So there were some hot moments today.

00:06:06.520 I don't know that it completely calmed to the temperature.

00:06:09.480 And you had some of the biggest questions of the day.

00:06:12.440 Can you just take us through them and maybe some of the answers?

00:06:15.080 Well, sure.

00:06:15.460 And if you look at today, there were 93 questions that were asked today.

00:06:19.160 There were 47 by Republicans, 46 by Democrats.

00:06:23.100 And the process.

00:06:24.480 So yesterday and this morning, I wrote a bunch of questions and submitted them.

00:06:30.980 So the leadership office was compiling questions.

00:06:33.160 So I submitted a dozen questions and a bunch of other senators submitted questions.

00:06:37.700 And I think I think altogether there were a couple hundred questions that had been submitted

00:06:41.080 by Republicans.

00:06:42.500 And so the leadership office is trying to organize them and and sort of group them together

00:06:47.000 and and fairly set the order.

00:06:50.320 Everyone has a right to ask their question if they really want to force it.

00:06:53.900 But leadership was trying to have a fair and equitable order and give everyone a shot

00:06:58.380 who wanted a shot.

00:06:59.500 So I submitted a dozen questions.

00:07:01.680 But then you've also got you're sitting there at your desk and everyone has little note cards

00:07:06.240 and they're kind of oh, they're bigger than three by five.

00:07:08.760 They're probably four by six note cards.

00:07:11.680 And it ended up so there were altogether four questions that I wrote that were asked.

00:07:18.200 Three of the four I wrote right there on the spot.

00:07:20.520 So you didn't come in.

00:07:22.620 You were didn't written them at home and you were workshopping them.

00:07:25.460 So I had submitted a dozen questions.

00:07:27.380 Yeah.

00:07:28.120 It ended up that three of the four were right there.

00:07:30.920 So today was busy.

00:07:31.720 Today I was listening.

00:07:32.560 So the first question I asked was one I hand wrote.

00:07:35.000 And as just as I was listening to the first couple of answers that the house managers gave

00:07:39.240 and they're focusing on quid pro quo.

00:07:41.760 The first question was just as a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?

00:07:47.580 And is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?

00:07:53.300 Quid pro quo.

00:07:54.060 We've talked about this on the show a number of times.

00:07:55.920 It's just you give me this.

00:07:57.300 I give you that.

00:07:58.120 And that's been the phrase at the really at the center of this impeachment.

00:08:00.920 Well, and they were bickering back and forth.

00:08:03.240 Is there a quid pro quo or not?

00:08:05.000 And that's the whole argument for Bolton and additional witnesses is, well, wait a second.

00:08:10.260 You know, according to the New York Times, he says there was a quid pro quo.

00:08:13.080 That's why we need Bolton.

00:08:14.020 And my point is, look, it doesn't matter.

00:08:16.760 Yeah.

00:08:16.920 It makes no impact on the legal issue.

00:08:19.520 And so that was the question I wanted to emphasize at the outset to make clear the legal question is, does the president have the authority to do what he did?

00:08:31.600 And in this instance, look, a point I've been making from the beginning.

00:08:34.220 A president always has the authority to investigate corruption if there's credible evidence of corruption.

00:08:39.880 So were you satisfied by the answer that you got?

00:08:42.640 So I was.

00:08:43.980 Alan Dershowitz got up and answered it, and he explained, no, that it doesn't matter if there's a quid pro quo.

00:08:50.640 They happen all the time.

00:08:52.820 He was Alan Dershowitz being a lawyer for the president.

00:08:54.920 He was.

00:08:55.960 In fact, Dershowitz pointed out yesterday, both he and I were at the announcement at the White House of the president's Middle East Peace Initiative.

00:09:05.100 Look, that on its face is a quid pro quo.

00:09:08.440 You look at what the president is promising.

00:09:10.500 The president is promising, among other things, to the Palestinians that collectively the United States and other countries will invest $50 billion if the Palestinians stop terrorism.

00:09:21.680 That's a quid pro quo.

00:09:22.860 That's an exchange.

00:09:23.680 That happens in foreign policy all the time.

00:09:26.480 And so I think that was important to make clear that an awful lot of what people are fighting about doesn't affect the question, the legal question before the Senate of whether the president committed impeachable crimes, whether the president committed high crimes or misuse.

00:09:41.240 And the House Democrats are not satisfied with that answer.

00:09:45.320 Shockingly.

00:09:47.540 Look, this is a political impeachment.

00:09:50.820 It is a party line impeachment.

00:09:52.100 And it became clear.

00:09:54.180 So the second question that I asked, it stems from an answer that Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, gave, where he proposed a hypothetical.

00:10:04.760 And he said, imagine it was 2012.

00:10:08.900 Would Barack Obama have been justified investigating Mitt Romney?

00:10:13.440 And I think he was pretty happy with his hypo.

00:10:15.140 He was pretty proud of it.

00:10:16.400 So I'm back in the cloakroom a few minutes later.

00:10:19.180 And in the cloakroom throughout questions today, there were there were Republican senators coming in and out and we're talking about questions.

00:10:24.440 We're writing questions.

00:10:25.900 So actually, so Lindsey Graham came up to me and Lindsey's a trial lawyer. 0.99

00:10:29.100 And Lindsey and I are good friends.

00:10:31.180 We talk a lot, especially during impeachment.

00:10:33.400 And so he's thinking like a trial lawyer.

00:10:35.500 And he said, well, what if what if Obama had evidence that Romney was corrupt?

00:10:40.000 And he like kind of throws that hypo out.

00:10:42.620 And I'm like, look, that's good.

00:10:44.600 And so I went back to my desk and got out the little note card and just sat there with my blue felt tip pen and wrote out the question.

00:10:52.560 So the question I wrote out is.

00:10:56.020 Using Mr. Schiff's hypothetical.

00:10:59.760 If President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney's son was being paid a million dollars a year by a corrupt Russian company.

00:11:08.760 Yeah, that Schiff's hypo was Russia instead of Ukraine.

00:11:12.460 And Romney had acted in his official capacity to benefit that that company.

00:11:19.760 Would Obama have had the authority to ask that the potential corruption be investigated?

00:11:25.260 So, in other words, it's not just, hey, randomly investigate this guy.

00:11:29.460 It's if you got evidence, if you got evidence that on the face of it looks pretty damn crooked.

00:11:34.340 Right.

00:11:34.620 And it's and this is a direct parallel.

00:11:36.660 This is a much more precise analogy.

00:11:38.600 It is a much more precise analogy.

00:11:40.580 So I hand wrote that card out, but I left the name blank.

00:11:44.040 And so I called Lindsey back and said, hey, you know, the hypo you suggested to me, I wrote it out for you.

00:11:47.640 What do you think?

00:11:48.400 He said, great.

00:11:49.460 I said, all right, you ask it.

00:11:50.700 I'll co-sponsor it.

00:11:51.700 Yeah.

00:11:52.040 So he got up and he asked it.

00:11:57.960 And, you know, Schiff, look, for a lot of these questions, most of the Republicans and actually the strategy on both sides.

00:12:05.060 Most of the Republicans ask the questions of their own side because the principle is, look, if you ask the other side, they're going to get up and filibuster.

00:12:15.200 They're going to present their argument.

00:12:16.340 They don't want to answer the questions.

00:12:18.140 And so the large majority of questions on both sides are directed at friendlies.

00:12:22.020 Because the impeachment trial goes on so long.

00:12:25.820 So few people are watching the whole thing that unless you're looking at the highlights, unless you make a highlight, it just doesn't matter at all.

00:12:32.580 But that being said, there are a handful of us who tried to cross-examine the other side.

00:12:37.860 Now, do we know they're going to filibuster to avoid the question?

00:12:41.220 Of course.

00:12:42.580 But there's value, I think, to teeing up that hypothetical, making clear that their position is doesn't matter what evidence of corruption you have.

00:12:51.600 You can't have an investigation if it's your political rival.

00:12:55.680 Well, that's just nutty.

00:12:56.680 I mean, that's not the law, and that doesn't make any sense.

00:12:59.900 And so, yeah, so Schiff wanted to avoid that pretty significantly, but I don't think that that answer was effective.

00:13:07.900 Right.

00:13:08.080 And at the very least, you see him filibustering the question and simply not answering it.

00:13:13.420 Well, and that was even more powerful with the next two questions.

00:13:17.300 So the third question I asked is the only one today that I had written beforehand.

00:13:22.280 And it actually was a question that was derived to a number of the listeners on this show.

00:13:26.140 We've asked folks, tweet out questions if you have questions you want me to ask.

00:13:30.100 And a bunch of folks wanted questions about the so-called whistleblower and about political bias of the so-called whistleblower.

00:13:36.680 So this is a question I had written out before that points out that the inspector general for the intelligence community wrote that the whistleblower had some indicia of arguable political bias in favor of a rival political candidate.

00:13:53.700 And just to set the stage for people, the whistleblower, so-called, is the one who made a complaint about the Trump phone call to Ukraine.

00:14:02.300 Who started this whole thing.

00:14:02.580 Started the whole thing.

00:14:04.060 And the inspector general found that there was an indication that he had a political bias against the president.

00:14:11.000 That, well, the inspector general said there were some indications of that.

00:14:15.620 So I don't want to overstate what the inspector general said, but said there were some indications.

00:14:19.980 So I asked, I said, look, did the whistleblower ever work for Joe Biden?

00:14:26.000 If so, did he work for Joe Biden on issues involving Ukraine?

00:14:29.080 If so, did he assist in any material way with the quid pro quo that Joe Biden executed when he demanded that Ukraine fire the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son a million bucks a year?

00:14:44.900 So Schiff completely refuses to answer.

00:14:48.460 Just utterly dodges, won't answer it.

00:14:51.600 Just, just, I mean, nothing, nothing.

00:14:56.000 Instead, he gives, and look, we knew he was going to do this, but he gives a prepared speech on we must preserve the sanctity of whistleblowers and protect their identity no matter what.

00:15:05.760 That wasn't the question at all.

00:15:07.600 So I got kind of, and I got ticked off because he so dodged the question, but it was a tell.

00:15:14.020 The fact that he was terrified by that question revealed a lot.

00:15:16.660 So I got up the instant he finished asking, dodging the question.

00:15:20.660 Not answering the question.

00:15:21.680 Not answering the question.

00:15:22.480 So I walked back into the cloakroom and instead of handwriting this, I asked the guys there, I said, all right, someone have a computer I can use?

00:15:28.860 Yes.

00:15:29.100 So I sat down on a computer because this was going to be long enough.

00:15:31.040 I needed to type it.

00:15:32.540 And so I typed out this question.

00:15:34.160 I said, you refuse to answer the question on political bias.

00:15:39.620 Are the house managers refusing to tell the Senate whether or not the so-called whistleblower had an actual conflict of interest?

00:15:48.260 And the question went on to say, because he said he wants to keep the whistleblower confidential.

00:15:52.680 I said, there are 7 billion people on planet Earth.

00:15:58.360 Almost all had no involvement, zero involvement in Biden's quid pro quo.

00:16:03.280 Right.

00:16:03.400 Are the house managers unwilling to say whether the so-called whistleblower was a fact witness who directly participated in and could himself face criminal or civil liability?

00:16:16.320 For Joe Biden's demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

00:16:23.960 Now, amazingly enough, the second time.

00:16:26.360 So when I wrote this question out, actually, the leadership team said, look, you've asked a couple of questions.

00:16:30.960 We don't want to ruffle feathers.

00:16:32.040 Can you get anyone else to ask this question?

00:16:33.940 I said, sure.

00:16:34.780 So I sit next to on the floor, David Perdue from Georgia.

00:16:38.960 I said, hey, David, what do you think of this?

00:16:41.040 He read it, said, great, let's go.

00:16:42.540 So he asked it and we co-sponsored.

00:16:43.840 Great.

00:16:45.320 But there was that Ronald Reagan line.

00:16:47.280 It's amazing what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.

00:16:49.760 Oh, this is this is very much a collective trying to drive the point forward.

00:16:54.460 But it was amazing when this question was asked for the second time.

00:16:59.880 Adam Schiff completely dodged the question.

00:17:02.780 Would not.

00:17:03.800 So Adam Schiff, the position of the house managers, they refuse to tell you whether this so-called whistleblower has actual bias, has a conflict of interest.

00:17:13.300 And if he if he actively participated, if he was working for Joe Biden and if he was the guy Joe Biden used to say, hey, go to the Ukrainians and cut off their military aid until they fire this prosecutor.

00:17:29.400 For all we know, and there are reasons to suspect, based on what the inspector general said, that that this so-called whistleblower is not some disinterested third party.

00:17:40.620 He's right in the middle of a player.

00:17:42.640 He's an active player.

00:17:43.460 If Biden were if an investigation shows Biden is, in fact, corrupt.

00:17:49.820 It is entirely possible, or at least the house managers wouldn't tell us if this so-called whistleblower was worried about his own rear end, was worried about, wait a second, if they go after Biden, they're going to prosecute me because I was involved in this corruption.

00:18:04.380 House managers, not only wouldn't they answer that, but one thing that was also very revealing on most topics, Adam Schiff would get up and he just kind of riff.

00:18:11.860 He'd talk and he's good.

00:18:13.820 Look, he is a talented driver.

00:18:15.820 He's smooth.

00:18:17.880 On these two questions, you could see him.

00:18:20.040 He'd pull out a piece of paper and he would read word for word the prepared answer.

00:18:24.960 And he's speaking very precisely.

00:18:26.840 Look, he's under oath.

00:18:28.060 Yep.

00:18:28.980 And he's speaking very precisely.

00:18:31.480 And it was really clear that he didn't want to say something on this about the the what the inspector general said were significant indications of political bias on the part of the whistleblower.

00:18:44.640 And that that suggests this whole thing was cooked up.

00:18:48.340 In the beginning, it was a crock from day, right?

00:18:52.020 You know, it reminds me of when you were talking to the press yesterday and you got a little too close to the target and then the press started to lose their minds.

00:18:58.880 Reminds me of that a lot.

00:18:59.860 Before we get to mailbag, we just have a few moments left.

00:19:02.060 I want to ask you about a strange political stunt today that I don't understand and I think most people don't understand.

00:19:08.700 I read reports that the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, invited to the impeachment trial a Ukrainian criminal who was actually wearing an ankle bracelet at the time.

00:19:22.880 What was that about?

00:19:23.600 Well, you remember, this is this guy, Lev Parnas, who had his kind of 15 minutes of fame because in the middle of the trial, he ran on Rachel Maddow and said, oh, I've got all sorts of information.

00:19:33.540 And this guy is is under criminal indictment right now.

00:19:37.120 So he is facing criminal prosecution by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for for serious felony offenses.

00:19:45.000 And.

00:19:48.540 Chuck Schumer decided to invite him as his personal guest to come to the trial, because, look, Schumer's trying to make the point we need witnesses.

00:19:56.780 So I guess inviting some guy under criminal indictment is my way of showing we need witnesses.

00:20:01.360 So here's the funny thing up in the Senate gallery to get in the Senate gallery, you have to go through metal detectors.

00:20:06.000 They have a rule of no electronics.

00:20:08.360 Well, this guy, Lev Parnas, has an ankle bracelet.

00:20:11.440 You can't put it through the machine that is mandated because he's under criminal.

00:20:15.000 He's under criminal indictment right now.

00:20:16.420 So so what happened?

00:20:18.420 He was told.

00:20:20.540 We're not going to let you.

00:20:22.040 You won't get into the gallery because you've got an ankle bracelet on and we're not letting electronics in.

00:20:26.360 And so he ended up never going.

00:20:27.620 So so Schumer's guest ended up never going to the gallery because because he was wearing an ankle bracelet.

00:20:33.420 That was tells tells you a lot about the desperation, I think, of the Democrats.

00:20:37.760 It tells a lot about everything going on with with this trial.

00:20:41.200 OK, so in the remaining minute or two that we have, we've got to get to the mailbag.

00:20:45.920 A few questions real quick from Ronald.

00:20:49.200 Is it the House team's position that Joe Biden should not be investigated because or Hunter Biden should not be investigated because Joe Biden is running for president or just because he's Joe Biden?

00:21:00.980 Would it be OK with the House Democrats to investigate Biden after the election?

00:21:05.980 In other words, does running for president give Joe Biden prosecutorial immunity?

00:21:12.960 It's a great question.

00:21:14.540 They haven't answered it.

00:21:15.980 And the short answer is the House Democrats don't care.

00:21:19.500 You know, it's like saying an ostrich with it with its head in the sand.

00:21:23.260 Does it have a view on on on which way's up?

00:21:27.280 They don't.

00:21:28.540 They hate Trump.

00:21:29.520 So on the question, their position is that any investigation into Joe Biden and Burisma and Hunter Biden is baseless, is frivolous, is phony, is a sham.

00:21:40.720 All of those are words they've used.

00:21:42.780 That's just nuts.

00:21:44.980 It may be that Joe Biden was not, in fact, corrupt, but there's plenty of basis to open open an investigation.

00:21:54.340 You know, there's a legal term that when you when you talk about a tiny bit of evidence, that the legal term you use is even a scintilla of evidence.

00:22:03.400 Although I keep a bunch of other Republicans want to write scintilla in their questions.

00:22:07.940 I keep saying nobody knows what a scintilla is.

00:22:10.500 Don't write that.

00:22:11.760 And then everyone in the cloakroom starts calling it a chinchilla instead.

00:22:14.680 So that's very.

00:22:16.140 Yeah.

00:22:16.340 It evokes images.

00:22:17.220 It's very confusing.

00:22:17.900 So I don't think we've had a scintilla question.

00:22:19.920 We keep suggesting, OK, replace it with shred, like let's talk English rather than the fancy stuff.

00:22:27.240 But.

00:22:29.000 The House Democrats aren't addressing any of the merits of that.

00:22:31.900 They aren't addressing what Hunter Biden did for his million bucks.

00:22:36.600 They're addressing Joe Biden's quid pro quo.

00:22:40.020 They're just saying, I don't want to hear it.

00:22:43.080 Right.

00:22:43.200 You know, I obviously seems crazy that if you run for president, all of a sudden you could get away with a crime.

00:22:50.060 That would mean if I commit a crime, I could just start running for the Democrat nomination.

00:22:54.040 And frankly, I'd probably pull higher than a number of the candidates.

00:22:56.540 Hey, listen, it's in flux right now.

00:22:58.100 It is.

00:22:58.660 I could grab it before Iowa.

00:23:00.500 I want to get into some of those 2020 politics, especially because I was a few days away.

00:23:05.720 But we're out of time.

00:23:06.560 So we're going to have to do that tomorrow.

00:23:08.320 In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.

00:23:09.920 This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

00:23:13.200 This is an iHeart Podcast.

00:23:43.200 Guaranteed Human.

Verdict with Ted Cruz - January 30, 2020

Four Crucial Questions

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript