Verdict with Ted Cruz - May It Please the Court

00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.

00:00:02.460 Guaranteed human.

00:00:04.640 17 states and the president of the United States have joined the great state of Texas

00:00:10.040 in suing the battlegrounds over election irregularities in the Supreme Court.

00:00:15.460 This after there was another lawsuit brought up to the Supreme Court

00:00:19.500 regarding the irregularities in Pennsylvania.

00:00:22.500 And the host of this show has been asked to argue both of those cases before the Supreme Court.

00:00:28.900 This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

00:00:36.340 Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz.

00:00:38.240 I'm Michael Knowles.

00:00:39.040 And I should clarify, I have not been asked to argue those cases before the Supreme Court.

00:00:44.420 I have offered my services.

00:00:46.280 Ken Paxton in Texas has not returned my calls.

00:00:49.060 Actually, it was Senator Cruz who's been asked.

00:00:51.700 Senator, there's a lot to get into right here.

00:00:53.780 The last time we spoke, we discussed in Pennsylvania this case regarding the irregularities there

00:01:00.040 and the possible violation of the Pennsylvania state constitution.

00:01:03.080 At that time, I believe you had not yet been asked to argue the case before the court.

00:01:08.040 The Supreme Court then rejected that appeal anyway.

00:01:11.100 Now we've got this other case from Texas.

00:01:13.400 What is going on?

00:01:14.800 Why have you been asked?

00:01:16.760 I suppose because of your great experience arguing before the Supreme Court.

00:01:20.900 But how did this all come to pass?

00:01:22.780 Well, sure.

00:01:23.340 Let's start with the Pennsylvania case.

00:01:25.440 When we last did the podcast, the Pennsylvania case was pending.

00:01:30.620 And the lawyers for the plaintiffs there, so the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case

00:01:34.460 were Mike Kelly, an incumbent Republican congressman in Pennsylvania who lost a very narrow re-election

00:01:41.900 in November, and Sean Parnell, who was a Republican candidate for Congress who lost a very narrow

00:01:49.140 race in Pennsylvania as well.

00:01:50.560 And so their lawyers had drafted the pleadings.

00:01:53.360 When we did the last pod, they were pending, and their lawyers reached out to me.

00:01:57.940 And they asked, they said, listen, if the court takes this case, would you be willing to argue it?

00:02:02.660 And I thought about it.

00:02:05.280 And usually, more often than not, you argue a case where you drafted the briefs and you've

00:02:12.020 been part of the legal team from the beginning.

00:02:13.340 So it's fairly unusual to come in at the tail end.

00:02:16.640 But given the importance of it, I had already written a long statement, which actually you

00:02:22.620 read on the last pod, urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

00:02:26.920 And so I'd already read the pleading and thought it needed to be heard.

00:02:31.080 And so I said, sure, I'm happy to argue it.

00:02:32.960 And we put that out publicly.

00:02:36.080 Unfortunately, then, the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

00:02:41.580 And I have to admit, although I wish the court had taken the case, for most observers, myself

00:02:48.100 included, it was not an astonishing surprise that the court didn't.

00:02:54.220 And the reason for that, that the challenge in the Pennsylvania case is that I think there's

00:03:00.540 a clear violation of state law.

00:03:03.560 In Pennsylvania, the Constitution requires in-person voting in all but very limited circumstances.

00:03:09.940 The legislature expanded the law to allow universal mail-in voting.

00:03:14.600 There was a clear violation of state law.

00:03:16.300 The problem is the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't decide questions of state law.

00:03:21.340 So questions of state law are typically left to the Supreme Courts of each state.

00:03:26.780 And what was more difficult to articulate, was more difficult, I think, for the court to

00:03:34.600 see is what the clear federal question was.

00:03:37.220 I think the lawyers in the Pennsylvania case, they worked hard to articulate a federal interest.

00:03:43.420 And look, obviously, you've got a presidential election.

00:03:45.840 So that's a huge federal interest, although finding the federal constitutional issue was

00:03:52.220 more complicated.

00:03:54.320 And so the court turned it down.

00:03:56.140 They did not write an opinion.

00:03:57.560 So we don't have any reasoning as to why they turned it down.

00:04:00.700 It was simply a one-line order.

00:04:02.720 What that means is there weren't five votes.

00:04:05.880 It takes five votes to grant an injunction.

00:04:08.140 And so there were not five votes to issue extraordinary relief to grant an injunction.

00:04:12.940 We know that.

00:04:14.480 And then subsequently, the Texas case was filed.

00:04:17.620 Now, I want to make clear for people, we're recording this Thursday night.

00:04:21.620 You've been up on the Hill all day dealing with a number of other issues unrelated to the

00:04:25.320 election that I do want to hit on in just a moment.

00:04:28.080 So we're just waiting to find out if the Supreme Court is even going to hear this other lawsuit

00:04:34.500 from Texas suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with the support of 17 other

00:04:39.660 states and President Trump.

00:04:42.340 That lawsuit is coming up.

00:04:44.080 You have been asked to give the argument in that case as well.

00:04:47.680 Well, the court, if they didn't take the Pennsylvania case, I fear it maybe won't take this case

00:04:53.740 either.

00:04:54.800 That may be right.

00:04:56.120 So the Texas case I first learned about Monday night, actually, I was doing Sean Hannity's

00:05:01.220 TV show.

00:05:01.860 And so I was on Hannity and Hannity asked me about the Texas case.

00:05:05.540 And I actually wasn't entirely sure what he was talking about.

00:05:08.280 And so, I mean, I just kind of spoke generally about suits between states, but I didn't know

00:05:14.680 the details of it.

00:05:16.000 The reason was the Texas case wasn't filed until late that night.

00:05:19.960 I actually think it was early the next morning at like 1250 in the morning or something like

00:05:24.840 that.

00:05:26.120 And so I saw the case when after it was filed.

00:05:30.100 And then Tuesday is when the Supreme Court turned down the Pennsylvania case.

00:05:35.460 And that evening, I was I was at dinner and got a call on my cell phone from the president.

00:05:43.460 And the president was unhappy that that the court had turned down the Pennsylvania case.

00:05:47.900 I understood that I was unhappy, too.

00:05:49.300 I vocally and vigorously urged them to take it.

00:05:52.780 And the president asked me at the time, said, were you surprised the court didn't take the

00:05:56.320 case?

00:05:56.620 And I said, look, I was not I was not shocked they didn't take the case because of the challenge

00:06:01.880 we just talked about a minute ago of the difference between state law and federal law.

00:06:06.520 And that was a challenging hurdle.

00:06:08.800 And so the president on that call, he asked me, he said, look, this Texas case has just

00:06:13.220 been filed.

00:06:13.880 And and and he said publicly, this is the case.

00:06:16.820 As you noted, the president has since intervened in it.

00:06:19.820 And he asked me, would you be willing to argue this case?

00:06:24.500 And I said, sure, I'd be happy to.

00:06:26.260 Um, if the court grants it, I'll argue it.

00:06:28.940 And your question was an insightful one, like the Pennsylvania case, there are hurdles to

00:06:35.500 get it granted.

00:06:36.120 And and one of the things to understand is just the overall numbers.

00:06:40.460 The Supreme Court doesn't take that many cases in a given year.

00:06:44.540 You get anywhere between eight thousand and ten thousand appeals to the Supreme Court.

00:06:50.380 They typically grant about 80.

00:06:52.400 So it's about one percent.

00:06:53.980 A suit between the states is different.

00:06:57.160 And and this is a suit between Texas and four other states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan,

00:07:03.440 Wisconsin.

00:07:04.820 Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has what's called original jurisdiction and

00:07:09.640 suits between states.

00:07:11.580 That means, you know, typically if you file a federal lawsuit, you go file it in federal

00:07:15.560 district court.

00:07:16.540 Like if that's how virtually all federal lawsuits begin a suit between two or more states, you

00:07:23.580 can file it in the U.S.

00:07:25.120 Supreme Court.

00:07:25.800 It has original jurisdiction, but it's not mandatory jurisdiction.

00:07:29.460 So they don't have to conduct a trial and actually in suits between states.

00:07:35.260 So they usually come up in the context of, say, a dispute over boundaries or a dispute over

00:07:41.060 a river.

00:07:41.620 Those are the circumstances where you get a fight where two states are saying our line is

00:07:46.220 here.

00:07:46.580 And the other state is saying, no, no, no.

00:07:47.720 Our line is here.

00:07:48.880 And the way the court normally resolves that is it will appoint a special master that is

00:07:54.760 basically a trial judge.

00:07:56.260 And they can go conduct a trial on behalf of the U.S.

00:08:00.460 Supreme Court.

00:08:01.400 And then they'll prepare a report that typically the Supreme Court will adopt or change or and

00:08:06.300 they review it then.

00:08:07.640 In this instance, the the court has a decision whether to grant leave for the state to file

00:08:15.760 a complaint that, again, takes five votes.

00:08:18.040 And so the Texas lawsuit is much broader than the Pennsylvania lawsuit.

00:08:23.520 It raises a lot of the issues about fraud and irregularities and and different players

00:08:28.980 in the different states changing the law in the middle of the process.

00:08:32.080 That breadth is good.

00:08:35.280 But on the other hand, that breadth may be a factor.

00:08:38.420 I don't know if there are five votes and if they're not five votes, the court won't take

00:08:43.280 the case.

00:08:43.680 And we could find out you and I are sitting here Thursday evening.

00:08:47.800 The court set a deadline for the defendant states to respond 3 p.m.

00:08:53.720 today.

00:08:54.040 Uh, and so after the response, the court could could resolve it at any time.

00:09:02.000 It could be tonight.

00:09:03.480 It could be tomorrow.

00:09:04.600 Now, the court could say we're going to set a oral argument date for day after tomorrow.

00:09:11.240 I mean, they could move really fast.

00:09:13.180 They could move really slow.

00:09:14.400 They could deny it altogether.

00:09:15.480 So by the time this this pod comes out, which I think will be sometime Friday when we get

00:09:20.700 get it all, uh, edited and processed and put out, we may know the answer.

00:09:26.200 But as of right now, we don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do.

00:09:29.440 And if they tell you that you've got an oral argument the following day, then you are going

00:09:33.180 to have a very busy night and day.

00:09:35.720 And I know there's other work that you have to pay attention to on Capitol Hill.

00:09:40.180 So I, I do want to touch on a few of these issues because I fear that in the craziness

00:09:44.740 of the election drama, we're missing out on some, some pretty important, uh, uh, changes

00:09:49.940 that, that have been going on.

00:09:51.240 Uh, the Senate today backed a massive arms sale to the United Arab Emirates.

00:09:57.300 There was a major peace deal between Morocco and Israel.

00:10:00.560 You've got a big debate over the National Defense Authorization Act.

00:10:05.100 Uh, can, can you just move us for a second from domestic to foreign policy?

00:10:09.220 Uh, regardless of how the election turns out, what's going on abroad?

00:10:13.020 So there's a lot of foreign policy moving forward and, and, and much of it is very,

00:10:17.320 very positive.

00:10:18.140 Uh, we saw a couple of months ago and we talked about in an earlier pod, uh, the Abraham Accords,

00:10:22.540 uh, which were the historic peace agreements between Israel and the UAE and Israel and Bahrain,

00:10:28.900 where, where both Arab nations normalized relationships with Israel that hadn't happened in decades.

00:10:36.500 Uh, and, and it was a major step forward for peace.

00:10:40.420 And, and I'll say a couple of things.

00:10:42.880 One, it is a vindication of a foreign policy approach that I've been advocating for a long

00:10:48.180 time, which is that the best way to produce peace is clarity and lack of ambiguity.

00:10:55.960 For, for eight years of Obama-Biden, they deliberately embraced an ambiguity of we're

00:11:03.200 with Israel, we're not with Israel.

00:11:05.640 Uh, they embrace the notion that you must resolve the Palestinian situation before anything else

00:11:12.120 can be done.

00:11:13.320 And we now know that view was unequivocally wrong.

00:11:16.760 It was simply baloney.

00:11:18.240 And, and, and I spent, uh, the last half of the Obama administration, the time I was

00:11:23.940 in the Senate, blasting that view and saying, this is foolish instead make unequivocal.

00:11:29.920 We stand with Israel that will facilitate peace.

00:11:33.300 Well, when president Trump came in, he agreed with me.

00:11:35.780 He moved the embassy to Jerusalem, a huge decision that I advocated for.

00:11:40.660 He pulled out of the Obama Iran nuclear deal, a huge decision I advocated for. 1.00

00:11:46.400 Both of those, the state department, defense department had argued against.

00:11:52.340 So president Trump overruled his own state secretary of state, his own secretary of defense

00:11:56.840 to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to end the Obama Iran deal.

00:12:02.400 That clarity set the stage for the Abraham accords. 0.92

00:12:06.540 I'll tell you the, the week the Abraham accords were signed, I was, I was at the white house for 0.94

00:12:11.580 the signing, uh, I spoke with the, the, the, the foreign officials in, in, in both UAE and

00:12:17.320 Bahrain, both said, we want to be friends with America.

00:12:22.000 It's really important with us to be friends with America.

00:12:25.200 And what we figured out is one of the best ways to be friends with America is be friends

00:12:29.960 with Israel.

00:12:30.360 So we're doing this because it's clear that this will make America happy.

00:12:36.080 And, and it really is the fruits of that unambiguous clarity.

00:12:41.520 Now, I worry if we have a president Biden, that that'll all get screwed up, that they'll

00:12:45.540 go back to the same strategic ambiguity.

00:12:49.100 Now you asked about the votes this week.

00:12:52.300 There, there were two big votes this week, yesterday, uh, on arms sales, American arms

00:12:59.100 sales of drones and F-35s to the UAE, the United Arab Emirates.

00:13:05.760 They were controversial.

00:13:07.400 They were closely contested.

00:13:09.560 Uh, Rand Paul wanted to disapprove of, of the arms sales.

00:13:13.200 And most of the Democrats wanted to disapprove of the arms sales.

00:13:15.960 And I got to tell you this week, I, I struggled on this question.

00:13:20.500 This was not an easy question for me.

00:13:23.020 It was a close question.

00:13:25.160 Um, and the reason is, look, if you look the history of the Middle East, the Middle East

00:13:30.500 has been a tinderbox, uh, weapons like the F-35, the most advanced airframe we have, only

00:13:37.900 Israel has it in the Middle East right now.

00:13:39.780 And, and so I viewed that as a big threshold, uh, for another Middle East country to get the 0.96

00:13:45.700 F-35, uh, and so I spent hours on the phone with the Israeli ambassador, Ron Durma, who's

00:13:53.960 a very good friend of mine.

00:13:54.940 And when we talked about it at great length with, with the UAE ambassador, uh, who I've

00:13:59.760 also gotten to know well with, with Jared Kushner, um, with, with others in the administration,

00:14:05.660 with others on my team, really trying to understand the pros and cons of it.

00:14:10.420 And, and ultimately I voted in favor of the arms sale.

00:14:14.620 And I did so because I think it, it was a component of the Abraham Accords.

00:14:20.640 It's part of how we brought UAE to the table to make peace with Israel. 0.58

00:14:24.120 That was a big deal.

00:14:26.020 Also Israel, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.

00:14:30.940 So the prime minister and the lead opposition figure, both of them supported the sale.

00:14:35.620 That is weird to unite them.

00:14:37.260 That doesn't happen very often.

00:14:38.240 They were united on the Abraham Accords.

00:14:40.100 They were united on the arms sale.

00:14:42.860 One of the important pieces of that, U.S. federal law requires that our policy ensure Israel

00:14:51.460 have what's called a QME, a qualitative military edge, basically that their military can kick

00:14:59.040 the butt of every other military in the Middle East.

00:15:01.380 Right.

00:15:01.500 That, that, that, that, that's how you avoid warfare.

00:15:03.800 What, by making it clear, nobody else can take out the Israelis. 1.00

00:15:07.200 So you don't have what we saw in the sixties and seventies, which is Middle East war after 0.97

00:15:12.500 Middle East war.

00:15:14.080 Based on extensive conversations with the Israelis and with our own Pentagon and based on classified

00:15:19.380 briefings, I became comfortable that this sale didn't undermine Israel's qualitative advantage.

00:15:27.440 And, you know, the, the UAE ambassador, he said, look, we stuck our neck out.

00:15:36.080 We made this peace deal with us.

00:15:37.820 We're standing with you.

00:15:39.120 We want to stand with you.

00:15:40.280 We've sent our soldiers into combat alongside you.

00:15:42.900 And, and, and this is an important part of defending ourselves against Iran. 0.91

00:15:48.380 That ultimately to was, to me was persuasive.

00:15:51.700 Now, here's the interesting thing, Michael.

00:15:53.900 I think it is likely that my vote was decisive on this.

00:15:58.160 Huh?

00:15:58.480 I was one of the last senators to vote and I deliberately, I wanted to wait and see where

00:16:03.720 the vote shook out.

00:16:04.640 Um, I, um, uh, when I walked up, so, uh, they were whipping pretty hard and, and John

00:16:13.860 Thune, the Republican whip, he was kind of leaning in on me.

00:16:16.580 Although I will say that they've actually learned that whipping hard, like beating me with a stick

00:16:22.480 doesn't work.

00:16:23.480 Yeah.

00:16:24.240 So, you know, he was kind of asking me where you're going to be, but wasn't, wasn't being

00:16:29.840 too aggressive.

00:16:30.420 And when I went up to vote, I was looking at the vote tally and, and John just said,

00:16:35.140 you know, I think your vote will probably decide it.

00:16:37.460 And I said, okay.

00:16:38.500 And so I voted in favor of the sale.

00:16:41.640 What's interesting is that two Democrats immediately after me, uh, Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly,

00:16:48.100 both from Arizona, both voted the same way within a minute.

00:16:51.700 Right.

00:16:52.340 Uh, now Sinema had been talking about doing it anyway, but it was just, it was, and it

00:16:56.420 ended up being approved 50 to 46.

00:16:58.920 So, so those three votes that clustered at the end, if the three of us had gone the other

00:17:05.780 way, it would have been, it would have been disapproved.

00:17:08.760 Right.

00:17:09.340 And it's, it's interesting also, Senator, to note that when you look at national politics

00:17:14.760 from an outsider's perspective, you just assume there are no gray areas.

00:17:19.260 There's no deliberation.

00:17:20.440 People know exactly where they stand.

00:17:22.100 We have a very polarized country.

00:17:23.600 And I remember during impeachment, this kind of surprised me, which is that things are happening

00:17:28.900 in real time.

00:17:29.860 People are, are taking in new information.

00:17:31.980 They're deliberating.

00:17:33.200 They're making up their minds.

00:17:34.960 The way one person votes is going to affect perhaps the way other people vote.

00:17:38.400 And that these issues have a little more complexity maybe than some of the, the more knee-jerk

00:17:42.560 issues that, that we all know exactly where we stand.

00:17:45.440 No, I think that's right.

00:17:46.480 And particularly questions of foreign policy and national security, there can be close

00:17:50.480 calls.

00:17:51.580 There are calls about standing with allies and resisting those who are enemies.

00:17:56.000 There are easy calls.

00:17:56.820 There are things like the Obama-Iran nuclear deal being a train wreck, which I actually

00:18:00.660 think is a very easy call.

00:18:02.480 And if we end up with a Joe Biden administration, I expect that they will try to gallop back into

00:18:07.980 that terrible deal.

00:18:09.220 And, and if that happens, I'm going to spend the next four years fighting hard against that.

00:18:13.740 That's an easy call.

00:18:14.740 This one was much more on the edge, but, but, and I spent, as I said, hours really trying

00:18:20.660 to listen to the relevant players, listen to the experts, understand the details to get

00:18:25.880 comfortable with the right call.

00:18:27.780 Right.

00:18:28.300 And, and I love your point about clarity with our friends and clarity with our enemies.

00:18:33.480 I would be remiss if I didn't mention that as we're talking about the threats from Iran, 1.00

00:18:37.860 the threats from China, it did come out this week that a certain democratic member of the

00:18:43.080 House of Representatives got extraordinarily close with a Chinese spy.

00:18:50.460 Well, I got to say, Michael, for a long time, uh, I've accused the Democrats of being in bed

00:18:56.180 with the Chinese communists.

00:18:59.600 I just didn't realize that that was not, that that was more than a metaphor.

00:19:04.960 Yes, yes.

00:19:06.620 Representative Eric Swalwell appears to, uh, perhaps in particular have taken that message

00:19:11.120 to heart.

00:19:12.020 This is a real issue though.

00:19:13.340 I mean, China has spies in the United States and the United States spies on other countries

00:19:17.900 too.

00:19:18.380 Uh, you know, a lot of countries do it, but the, the degree of infiltration that China 0.95

00:19:22.720 seems to have taken with the top ranks of the democratic party is troublesome.

00:19:26.400 Well, and, and let me be fair about what we know publicly, and I don't know anything beyond

00:19:30.580 what you've read in the newspapers, so I'm not divulging any, anything confidential, but,

00:19:34.760 but what's been released publicly is there was this spy for the Chinese government, a communist

00:19:40.260 spy, who's a beautiful woman who apparently was assigned to get very close to, to Democrats. 1.00

00:19:47.580 And, and it's, it appears California Democrats in particular.

00:19:51.220 And, and what's been, been made public is apparently she had sexual relations with two

00:19:57.140 different mayors.

00:19:58.440 Uh, I think one of whom's described as a small town mayor and other whom would describe as an

00:20:03.160 older mayor.

00:20:03.980 So I'm, I don't know, I don't know beyond what I've read.

00:20:07.640 Swalwell, to be clear, um, what's been released has not alleged that he went to bed with her,

00:20:15.300 but he spent three days refusing to answer that question.

00:20:19.380 And, and you and I are both married and, and I can say in your marriage and mine, if you come

00:20:26.580 home and your wife said, did you sleep with that woman? 1.00

00:20:28.600 And your answer isn't immediate and unequivocal, you got a problem.

00:20:33.280 Yes.

00:20:33.860 Yes.

00:20:34.420 Uh, very wise that it doesn't take a total political genius to, uh, to, to read that situation.

00:20:40.740 Uh, but obviously worrisome, especially, you know, if, if we do get a Biden administration,

00:20:45.080 that there will be cozying up to Iran, cozying up to China. 0.63

00:20:48.400 And then there is this other contentious issue.

00:20:50.480 Uh, we only have, uh, you know, a few more minutes before we can get to mailbag, but the

00:20:55.480 NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, this is another issue where, where, uh, fights

00:21:01.440 are breaking out within the GOP.

00:21:03.180 Uh, we don't know how the vote necessarily is going to go.

00:21:06.180 Uh, what's the controversy here?

00:21:08.060 Well, the National Defense Authorization Act passes every year.

00:21:13.040 It authorizes our military across the board.

00:21:16.220 I've been very active in drafting it for eight years now.

00:21:19.220 There are a lot of good things in the NDAA.

00:21:21.020 It includes actually additional sanctions that I authored on Nord Stream 2.

00:21:25.560 We did a pod a while back on, on the natural gas pipeline that, that Russia's trying to build

00:21:31.200 a Germany that, that so far sanctions I authored has killed.

00:21:35.180 And, and this is a second wave of sanctions that, that will really drive a, a nail in the

00:21:40.640 coffin of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

00:21:43.040 The first version of the NDA that came out of the Senate, I voted for it was a good bill.

00:21:47.960 It had a lot of good elements in it, including the Nord Stream 2 stuff.

00:21:51.400 The House bill was much worse.

00:21:53.300 And in the conference committee, this bill has gotten a whole lot worse.

00:21:56.420 So I still haven't decided a hundred percent how I'm going to vote, but I got to say, I'm,

00:22:01.660 I'm quite unhappy with the direction the bill has gone in conference committee.

00:22:06.280 It includes a, a provision, uh, a provision from, from Elizabeth Warren on renaming bases

00:22:13.100 that, that is really mandatory, uh, that, that, that I've got real concerns with.

00:22:18.460 Um, it also includes a provision that, that restricts the ability of a president to draw

00:22:26.100 down military from overseas conflicts like Afghanistan.

00:22:29.280 And, and, and one of the things I very much agree with president Trump on is, as he puts

00:22:34.040 it ending endless wars that, that, that, that I think we ought to be bringing our sons and

00:22:38.380 daughters home that we should use the military where needed, but be very reluctant to engage

00:22:44.420 in, in foreign military conflict.

00:22:46.260 And, and, and this provision, you know, some of us were talking in the, in, in the cloakroom

00:22:51.340 and, and, uh, you know, one Senator put it this way.

00:22:57.480 So, so let me get this straight.

00:22:59.000 A president unilaterally can get us into war anywhere in the world, but can't get us out

00:23:04.340 of war anywhere in the world.

00:23:05.520 That's, that's kind of a weird standard.

00:23:07.600 And, and so I'm still assessing the details of it, but I'm, I, I think there's a, a pretty

00:23:13.960 good chance I'll vote no, my guess is there'll be enough yes votes to pass it, uh, and maybe

00:23:22.400 even to override a presidential veto.

00:23:24.420 The president has suggested he might veto the bill in the house.

00:23:27.960 At least there was a big enough margin that if the president does veto the bill, uh, the

00:23:32.500 house had a big enough margin to override a veto.

00:23:34.860 It takes two thirds of the house, two thirds of the Senate.

00:23:37.600 If you were to guess, it's a pretty good guess that there, there, there will be a similar

00:23:42.300 margin in the Senate, but I think we'll lose some of the votes we had.

00:23:45.640 This actually brings us to a mailbag question from real truth cactus, uh, which if you're

00:23:51.440 not following real truth cactus on Twitter is the cactus from our show.

00:23:54.780 Uh, but, uh, whoever created that account, really great work, terrific stuff.

00:23:58.940 Uh, this gets to the Senate majority or what, what it really means to have a Senate majority,

00:24:04.300 uh, cactus rights.

00:24:05.820 I don't know the, the gender of cactus cactus rights.

00:24:08.460 I know the Georgia Senate races are important.

00:24:11.320 Is gender ever knowable, Michael, you make it, you know, it, it remains to be seen day

00:24:17.280 by day how the cactus will identify.

00:24:20.240 Uh, but the cactus wants to know, you know, the Georgia races are very important, but should

00:24:24.700 we also not be worried about rhinos such as, and then he puts in a, uh, name of a colleague

00:24:31.400 of yours.

00:24:31.920 I will not mention that to be polite to your colleague, uh, but I think we all know who we're

00:24:36.440 talking about, uh, siding with the Democrats agenda, assuming that Joe Biden does win.

00:24:42.400 Are we, you know, we, let's say we win and we have a majority in the Senate, but then

00:24:45.840 we've got all these squishes that vote with the Democrats.

00:24:48.740 What does that get us?

00:24:50.400 Look, absolutely.

00:24:51.680 We should be worried about that.

00:24:52.960 If we win in Georgia, if we are 52, 48 Republican, which is what we are right now, and Joe Biden

00:25:00.500 is sworn in as president, we're going to have a rough couple of years.

00:25:03.860 Uh, yes, there are going to be squishy Republicans wanting to make deals with the Democrats, wanting

00:25:09.680 to make deals with Joe Biden.

00:25:11.160 And that's going to be a real issue.

00:25:13.320 And, and I fully expect some terrible spending bills of a trillion dollars here, a trillion

00:25:19.020 dollars there.

00:25:20.340 Um, I think there's a real risk of a big amnesty bill.

00:25:24.440 I'm very worried about that.

00:25:25.660 I actually met yesterday with a number of leaders against illegal immigration, helping mobilize

00:25:32.180 efforts to fight a Biden amnesty.

00:25:35.420 If, if, if God forbid we have a Biden administration and, and are there Republicans who would go along

00:25:41.140 with that?

00:25:41.680 Sadly, yes, in a heartbeat.

00:25:43.960 Uh, so these fights will not be done if we have a narrow Republican majority, but having

00:25:51.440 the majority is enormously important because if there's a Schumer majority, there will be

00:25:57.920 a massive tax increase.

00:25:59.660 If there's a Republican majority, we're not going to have a massive tax increase.

00:26:03.420 If there's a Schumer majority, the district of Columbia will become a state which will elect

00:26:08.500 two new democratic senators.

00:26:09.800 If there's a Republican majority, DC is not becoming a state.

00:26:14.320 Uh, if there's a Schumer majority, I think they will pack the U S Supreme court.

00:26:18.360 They'll add four new left-wing justices to the Supreme court. 0.99

00:26:22.200 We've talked about that a lot in this podcast.

00:26:24.260 Obviously my book, one vote away talks about the consequences of that.

00:26:28.320 If there's a Republican majority, the chances of packing the Supreme court are 0.00% ain't going 0.97

00:26:34.340 to happen.

00:26:35.840 So the majority gives you ball control.

00:26:38.300 What you can do is you can control what comes to the floor.

00:26:42.220 So I'm not suggesting winning Georgia will solve all our problems, but losing Georgia,

00:26:48.980 I think what would likely create massive structural damage to the country.

00:26:56.680 Right.

00:26:57.160 This is one of my favorite parts about doing this show is we get down into the detail

00:27:00.840 into, into the granular level.

00:27:02.500 And often people just want to talk in all or nothing kind of terms.

00:27:07.060 But what you're saying is, yeah, having the majority doesn't give us everything.

00:27:11.460 You might still get a ton of terrible legislation, especially with the squishes, but there are 1.00

00:27:16.380 certain fundamental pieces of legislation that have a 0% chance of passing.

00:27:21.960 And that, that is more than enough to keep me fighting.

00:27:26.000 Last question.

00:27:27.240 This one, actually this question also from Real Truth Cactus, who writes great questions.

00:27:31.480 Can this lawsuit, all right, Michael, is that you?

00:27:34.200 I know I wish I'm not nearly clever enough at social media.

00:27:37.900 Actually, if you, I clicked on the account on Real Truth Cactus and it's just a cartoon

00:27:42.180 version of the cactus from this show in, and very often adds his name to the show title.

00:27:48.980 So this show is actually called Verdict with Ted Cruz and Cactus.

00:27:52.860 But he wants to know, can this lawsuit between the states delay the finalization of the election?

00:27:59.060 Or will we have a president no matter what in January?

00:28:03.140 You know, I know we've got these deadlines coming up.

00:28:05.240 The electors are going to vote, but January comes along.

00:28:08.320 Do we have a certainty on the president or not?

00:28:11.100 So in the ordinary course of things, we will have a president, either a new president or the

00:28:18.060 same president sworn in on January 20th.

00:28:20.480 That is the date set by law.

00:28:24.280 You know, you can go through all sorts of hypotheticals if the Supreme Court takes the

00:28:28.780 case and issues an extraordinary order.

00:28:30.820 But I think in 999 out of a thousand universes, we're going to know by January 20th.

00:28:40.100 To paraphrase Jim Carrey from Dumb and Dumber, what I'm hearing you say is we have a chance.

00:28:45.800 That's what I'm hearing.

00:28:47.760 We will find out.

00:28:48.600 Obviously, these things are happening in real time.

00:28:50.460 You are in many ways at the center of this because the president has asked you to argue

00:28:54.560 this most recent case if it goes to the court.

00:28:57.320 There's a lot happening.

00:28:58.740 So I suppose we'll have to just come right back again and do another pod when we know more.

00:29:03.280 In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.

00:29:05.220 This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.

00:29:06.540 This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs Freedom and Security

00:29:20.960 PAC, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations

00:29:26.100 and candidates across the country.

00:29:28.500 In 2022, Jobs Freedom and Security PAC plans to donate to conservative candidates running for

00:29:34.060 Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.

00:29:38.020 This is an iHeart Podcast.

00:29:40.460 Guaranteed human.

Verdict with Ted Cruz - December 11, 2020

May It Please the Court

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript