#FreeBritney

Verdict with Ted Cruz. Welcome back to Verdict. I'm Michael Knowles. Oops, I did it again. I did not lead with the most important story and one that I really want to get into. Senator, so good to be with you to touch on all the important legal issues of the day. Well, if there's anything this podcast is known for, it is focusing on the issue shoes that will determine the fate of the Republic. And so I'm glad we can continue in that tradition today. In that case, Senator, hit me

baby one more time. I want to know what the real details are of this case. I actually I'm only being half facetious here. Because we've seen this pop up in the culture. Every now and again, you'll see the hashtag free Brittany movement. She's under a conservatorship. You know, a lot of us grew up with her as a very important figure, especially the young men out there. She occupied a lot of space in our minds, and she's been under this conservatorship for some time, so she doesn't

appear to have any real legal rights. I read somewhere that she has a birth control device that her doctors will not remove, and that her family will not allow her to remove. I mean, this seems like in some cases the stuff you hear about in communist China, and yet that's permitted to go on here. So do you know anything about this or you know conservatorships more generally and how people can be deprived of their civil rights. So I will say this, this may be an illustration

of something of a generational divide. Where whereas you grew up with Britney spears on your wall, I was more of a fair faucet guy. But but you know, they're the decades have a way of passing on. So I will readily confess I am no expert in in Britney Spears music that was not particularly my cup of tea. But I got to say on the question of the conservative ship, I am squarely and unequivocally in the camp of free Brittany. I think this is frigging ridiculous. What

is happening to Britney Spears and a needstand? Can you tell me any? I don't even really understand the idea of the conservatorship. More broadly, I understand, if it's someone has personal troubles, then someone else can be designated to make legal decisions for them. But how broad is it? Because just knowing what I read in the newspapers, it seems deeply Unamerican, it seems deeply wrong. What is what

is happening? So it is it is incredibly broad. And look that there are various steps in the law that that an individual can forfeit their their freedom, their liberty. If you're seriously mentally ill, you can be involuntarily committed. But for you to be involuntarily committed, you've got to be typically a danger to yourself or a danger to others, and that's got to be demonstrated. It varies state by state,

but usually with a pretty high evidentury standard. For your freedom to be taken away from you and you to be incapacitated. A conservatorship is similar to that the demonstration under California law. For a conservatorship to be entered into for someone else to have the ability to make life decisions for you, either about you, your person, your health like what you can do with your life, or your finances.

The threshold is quite high, and they're typically used for people who are very, very elderly, for people's whose faculty have lost them. If you have, say Alzheimer's, and you're no longer able to care for yourself, then there's a role for a conservatorship if you have someone whose mental capacity is not there. What is bizarre about what happened to Britney Spears is she's a thirty nine year old woman. She's a mother of two. She h you know. Has she had issues in life? Sure? Has she had issues

with mental illness? Perhaps? I don't know. I'm not her doctor. I haven't seen that demonstrated. Has she had issues with substance abuse? So we know she's been to rehab. But but I gotta say, if if you're gonna lock up everyone in Hollywood who has had substance abuse issues. You're gonna have a long, long line. And and and in fact, Sunset Boulevard might be empty. H that's the real estate prices would blumme, it would be great. So so the

threshold it is bizarre. And and this conservatorship. It happened in two thousand and eight. It happened while she was in the midst of and coming out of a nasty custody dispute with her ex husband over her kids. Look, custody disputes get ugly, and she had had an incident. You know, she went and took a took an umbrella

to a paparazzi. Now listen, you know, I don't know any of us that would react well to people hounding you every moment you go outside, when you go to the seven to eleven, when you go to the grocery store, when you do anything, people taking pictures, constantly being in your face. You know, I'm reminded of the scene in The Untouchables to use a movie example, where where al Capone, played beautifully by de Niro, gets mad at a photographer and grabs the cameron and and breaks it like that.

That reaction, while perhaps not the best reaction is an incredibly human and understandable reaction, and the idea that and so all right, she shaved her head. Okay, last I checked, shaving your head is not a capital offense. She had pretty hair, But who the hell's business is if she wants to shave her head or not. The threshold for taking away someone's liberty and capacity to make decisions properly under the law is very high, and it should be high.

And at this point we're looking at what thirteen years

of a grown woman having every decision made by her father. Now, it might even be a different story if her father had been a carrying, nurturing figure throughout her life, had helped her through a career, was someone who had demonstrated enormous love for As best I can tell from her history, her father was out of her life for much of the period of her life, had his own drinking problems, his own issues as she was rising up as a pop star, and then when she got super rich, just

kind of parachuted in there and said, hey, I like me some hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, I get that he might, but that seems absurd. And then let me put really the finishing touch on it. If for the last twelve thirteen years she had been severely mentally ill, if she was sitting in the corner, you know, playing with blocks and counting on her toes, Okay, maybe you could say, all right, this is someone not able to function. There is an important place in the law for protecting

someone who's not able to function. But during the last thirteen years, she's done hundreds of shows, She's made hundreds of millions of dollars. She's able to stand up on stage and sing and perform and dance over and over and over again. Look, I gotta admit you and I couldn't do that to save our lives. Well, maybe you could, but I couldn't do that the same by life, and everything I have seen about this case, it seems like an enormous abuse of the judicial process, going right down

to when the conservatorship was first put in place. She tried to hire a lawyer to fight it, and the California District judge threw her lawyer out, says, no, she's not capable of hiring a lawyer. I've got a medical report that proves it, and I'm not going to show it to you. So I've got a secret report. By the way, I have a secret report right here on Michael Knowles. It says that you're not capable of handling yourself, and so, by the way, you're vast one hundred dollars fortune.

I'm taking you over right now. Like Senator, no one would dispute that every I think in that particular case it's public knowledge. Different for Brittany, But what an assinine situation for a judge to throw out a lawyer that she tried to retain and a point instead another lawyer. The entire process throughout it seems design to just trample on her rights. And I don't have any any dog in the fight of saying that she's the wisest and

most capable person on earth. I don't know. I don't know her, but there are no outside in Disha of the level of lack of competence that should be required to justify a conservatorship for one week, much less for thirteen years. And I think part of the reason why people care about this story is not just because Britney Spears actually wasn't a very important pop culture figure for a lot of people, But I think it's also because all around our country. We're seeing people's civil rights being

taken away, We're seeing abuses of the judicial process. It seems that this is sort of one particular sensational story that is a representative of corrosion around the justice system. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but there there are other examples of these major abuses. Now I think that's right, and there are a couple of other points. One, in ordinary circumstances, she's not someone who would be considered powerless.

This is someone who has made hundreds of millions of dollars, has vast resources, which may explain why vultures are circling around and want access to her money. Two that the entire affair there seems enormous misogyny connected with this. It's difficult to imagine a similar situation with a man. I mean, I mean, you want to talk about people who are irresponsible with their money. You don't have to stretch to find some pro athletes who hemorrhage cash like crazy and

spend money on everybody on earth. You don't have to stretch to find rock stars and people who look all of us have watched the sort of you know, late night eon television series of they started off young and bright, and then to the descent to drugs and alcohol, and it always ends and then and then sometimes there's a redemption and then they cleaned up and are living their life. In this instance, it seems that Britney Spears encountered the kind of challenges with fame and success that many, if

not most people who have experienced that encounter. But for her, that was used as an excuse to strip away or liberty. And you mentioned one of the more stunning allegations. She gave a recent interview where she said that they put an IUD, a birth control device in her involuntarily because they didn't want her to have kids. I mean, good God, that that sort of forced prevention of childbirth, forced sterilization. It has an ugly, ugly legacy. It goes on in

China communists China all the time. But we have an ugly legacy in the United States of people with mental reach ardation being forced to be sterilized. And that is grotesque. And the idea that that that the court would step in and say she doesn't have a right to make a decision to have a child, that that is stunning. I'm not I don't know that that fact is confirmed, but it's an allegation she's made, and the judicial system ought to be protecting her rights, not treating her like

a child because she's not a child. That was the fact that really pushed me over the edge. It's just intrinsically evil. It is just the kind of thing that you read about in communist China. This, for all intents and purposes, forced sterilization. It's it's just, you know, if the allegation is true, it is just such a stunning overreach. And so I agree. I am entirely with you on

the hashtag free Brittany train. I was wondering if we could also if you can enlighten me on some of these broader overreaches, because I just from the legal I have my own political views, of my own philosophical views, but from the legal perspective, it would be good to get an expert here. What is going on between the DOJ and Georgia. Georgia passed a voting rights law. We've now heard that Merrick Garland, the AG is going to sue Georgia. The people of Georgia don't have the right

to pass their own election laws. Apparently not look If you look at the Department of Justice under Joe Biden, Merrick Garland had been a judge for a couple of decades. It actually earned a reputation of being relatively fired and partial. So when he was first nominated, I was cautiously optimistic that this was not a wild eyed partisan. That optimism was substantially shaken during his confirmation hearing, where where Merrick

Garland refused to answer just about any question. Look, no matter what you asked, he wouldn't make even the barest commitments. He just basically dodged everything, and that was disconcerting. I voted against Garland's confirmation, But then it got much worse because I saw Biden's subsequent nominations, and in particular two in particular Benita Gupta, who's the number three lawyer at the Department of Justice now, and Kristin Clark, who is

the head lawyer at the Civil Rights Division. The two of them are both radicals, and and in fact I've dubbed them the radical twins. They're both they're two of the leading proponents of abolishing the police in this country. And by the way, we're not talking about a long time ago. We're talking about last year, both of them either gave testimony or in writing advocated for defunding or

abolishing the police. These are now two I'm just asking a very practical level senator, how is it that two of the top cops in the country would end up be advocating for abolishing the Doesn't that seem a little self undermining? It should, because Biden has handed control of the agenda over to the radicals. And by the way, at their testimony for both their confirmations, they said, well,

okay ay, they denied that they'd written it. Even when you read them the words back at them, I mean, and it was almost like a you know, obi wan kenobi, these aren't the droid you're looking for. There's like, nope, I didn't say that, and you'd read the words Nope, that's not what that says. And then more importantly, they just say, I do not advocate abolishing the police. Today, by the way, the politicized fact checkers, so today the Washington Post fact check a sort of joking tweet I

made about Joe Biden's anti crime agenda. I laid out five points, one of which was abolished the police, and they came out four pinocchios. Why because they say, well, no, no no, no, Joe Biden himself has not advocated abolishing the police. Well, you know what, when you nominate not one, but two senior officials at your Department of Justice who were among the leading advocates for abolishing the police in the country, you don't get to pretend you're on the

other side. So one of them, Kristin Clark, is leading the Civil Rights Division, and she has been a radical partisan her entire life. By the way, in law school she put on a conference celebrating cop killers as heroes. This is the kind of radical that she is, that that that that people who murder police officers are heroes to be lionized. So what did the depointment. I seem to recall that that Kristen Clark also wrote. I believe it was in the Harvard Crimson. It may have been

in some other publication at Harvard. She wrote a peace about the biological racial superiority of black people over whites, and I didn't believe it when I saw the allegations, so I actually had to go look it up in the newspaper, and there it is with her her name in the byline. She did now she claims that was satirical. Whether it was or not, I don't know, but that's her explanation today. Regardless both she had been made a goop to have had an entire career decades of being

hard partisan radicals. So what happens George je passes a voter integrity law. Democrats and the press demonize that voter integrity law. And now we see the Department of Justice is the enforcement arm for the radical left. Because the Department of Justice sued Georgia under what's called Section two of the Voting Rights Act. And here's what the Department of Justice is arguing that it violates the Voting Rights Act for Georgia to do things like, for example, not

send absentee ballots to people who didn't request them. I gotta tell you, there are a whole bunch of states all across the country, including Texas, that don't send absentee ballots to people who don't request them. Now in twenty yet Biden jets way. In twenty twenty with COVID, a lot of states, including Georgia, relaxed or failed to enforce their voting laws to make voting to lessen the protections against voter fraud and it was just a fi because

of the pandemic. Set aside for a second, which of those justifications were in worn't right? Look, providing absentee ballots to people who requests them is the way an awful lot of states across the country do it, and have done it for a long long time. The idea that that violates the federal voting rights law is absurd. Another element of George's bill is a requirement of voter ID.

Eighty percent of Americans support voter ID, over sixty percent of Democrats support voter ID, over sixty percent of African Americans support voter ID. The Department of Justice is suing, saying the fact that Georgia passed a law with ID requirements violates the federal civil rights laws. That this is, I believe, an abuse of the justice system, and it really is the fruits of what happens when you put partisan radicals in senior positions of the Department of Justice.

They turn around and use the Department of Justice as a partisan But I could I push back on their behalf because what they're going to say is they're going to say, look, when you have widespread mail ends more people vote right, We had something like seven zillion people vote in the last election. When you don't have voter ID, you're going to get more people to vote. Some of those people might be dead, and some of those people

might be foreign nationals. But as we actually talked about on this show, in the federal attempted takeover of many of these elections, there was actually a provision to give legal immunity to foreign nationals who would vote in the elections.

But I guess that's a point for another episode. My point is, if these Democrat policies expand the number of people who vote, and if the Georgia law will, whether for right or wrong, make it more difficult to vote, whether it's because you have to show an ID, and it could be a perfectly legitimate policy, but still will make it more difficult to vote, then do they have an argument that, by the Voting Rights Act and by these other provisions of the law, we need to expand

the vote. No, that they don't. Nothing in the Voting Rights Act requires you to allow people to vote for whom it is illegal for them to vote. The Voting Rights Act does not require you to turn the other way to voter fraud. For you to allow people to vote illegally, and the argument that it does is pretty crazy. You know, there's right now litigation at the Supreme Court

concerning laws restricting ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is the practice where you send a paid political operative to collect collect the ballots of other people, of other voters, and it is it is an instance that is particularly ripe for voter fraud. That case, as we sit here to today, has not been decided by the Supreme Court, is expected

to come out any day now. I led an amicus brief of a number of Senators in that case, arguing that protecting the integrity of elections is entirely consistent with the Voting Rights Acted. In fact, it furthers the Voting Rights Act. You know, Spring Court has said for a long time that when you allow voter fraud, it steals the right to vote from legal voters. Number of years ago, when I was Slicer General of Texas, Indiana passed one of the first photo ID laws for voting, and Indiana

was promptly sued. A bunch of Democratic plaintiffs came in and they sued, and they argued that this discriminated against minorities. Now, by the way, the argument that minorities can't figure out how to get an ID is asinine. The last time I checked, African Americans are perfectly capable of getting IDs. Hispanics. Look, I'm Hispanic. You know what. I got a driver's license in my pocket. You know I'm not under a conservatorship

in California. I am actually capable of going to the DMV and sitting there for nineteen hours in an endless line. And the sort of paternalistic, condescending argument that minorities can't get IDs is absurd. And by the way, you need a photo ID to get on an airplane, to drive a car, to get a beer, to go into an R rated movie if you look like you're under seventeen.

There's a reason why over sixty percent of African Americans support voter ID laws, because they recognize that getting an ID is not a difficult thing, and protecting the integrity of elections is well. I led a coalition of states in front of the US Supreme Court in that Indiana

photo ID law, and we ended up winning sixty three. Actually, the decision was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the most prominent liberals on the Court who explained that protecting the integrity of elections actually protects the right to vote, and looking the other way on voter fraud undermines the right to vote. That sadly, the Department of

Justice under Joe Biden has turned that upside down. Well, I will not like a white liberal presumed to tell my Hispanic senator friend that he can't go get an ID. I think you've you've disavowed people of that crazy notion Muscarras, Yes, Benata, Okay, Well, I mean you get the blade and that's about I think we go, we get to the BiblioTech. That's about it. But we have established in English and perhaps in Spanish as well, that the Voting Rights Act does not currently

prohibit these sorts of things. But right now on Capitol Hill, many people that you go to work with every day are discussing an expansion of the Voting Rights Act. So under this proposed expansion, what does that mean for voter fraud and election integrity measures? Yeah, Well, as you know, last week the Senate took up S one, which many of us are calling the Corrupt Politicians Act. And we've

talked about all the different ways. The Corrupt Politicians Act was going to federalize elections, strike down protections against a voter fraud, strike down voter id laws, mandate ballot harvesting, register millions of illegal aliens, allow criminals and felons to vote, provide welfare for politicians, and billions of dollars in federal funding for politicians. Turned the Federal Election Commission into a partisan enforcement arm. All of that's in the Corrupt Politicians Act.

We voted on it last week. It was a fifty fifty vote, so it failed because under the filibuster, it takes sixty votes to move to legislation, and at least right now, only forty eight Democrats would end the filibuster. There two who would not, Joe Mansion, Democrat of West Virginia and Kirsten Cinema, Democrat of Arizona. We've covered all of that before. So the next iteration on this front that Democrats are expected to push is a different change

to the voting laws. And it's a law called the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and it's named after legendary civil rights pioneer John Lewis, who was a member of Congress. Let me say a couple of things on that. Number One, let me just talk about John Lewis for a minute. I actually I knew John Lewis. I got to know him.

I didn't know him well, but I got to spend significant time with him back in December twenty thirteen, because we went together to Nelson Mandela's funeral, and it was it was my first year in the Senate and Mandela passed away, and every member of Congress was invited. If you want to go to the funeral, you can. And I remember I was in Texas. I was in Austin meeting with my team at the time we got the invitation. I'm like, are you freaking kidding me? Of course I'm

gonna go. Like to go to Mandela's funeral. What an incredible honor and privilege. And so I went. And here's the astonishing thing, Michael, out of one hundred senators, do you know how many senators went to Mandela's funeral, I can't. I couldn't even guess one. No, really, no other senator went. I was I was astonished. I didn't know how ninety nine senators could say no to that. Um. There were

a number of House members who went. It was essentially me and about half of the Congressional Black Caucus, so they were almost all Democrats. And so I flew over with John Lewis, I flew over with Maxine Waters, who you know, my mom said, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. So I've said everything I'm going to say about Maxine, right, But John Lewis, I mean talk about someone who was who was legendary.

And I spent much of that trip, you know, long trip to South Africa, we went to the funeral together, long trip home. I spent a lot of it just just listening to him and saying, you know, can you tell me stories about being on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, about standing up for civil rights as a young man, about stand with doctor Martin Luther King on the on the steps of the Lincoln Memorials as he

gave the the I Have a Dream speech. I mean, you know, as a young young teenager, John Lewis was was a leading figure in the civil rights movement, and he was he was charming, he was he was courageous um and his leadership in the civil rights movement made a big difference and he's passed, and so Democrats doing what they do are taking his name and trying to use it to pass a bill that would be a terrible bill. Yeah, yeah, I was wondering if they have a bill to erect a statue of John Lewis, sign

me up. If they have a bill to tell John Lewis's life story, sign me up. If they have a bill to vindicate the legacy of John Lewis by defending people's civil rights, sign me up. But what this bill does is it reinstates Section five of the Voting Rights Act and extends it to everyone. All right, what does that mean? That's lawyer gobbledegook. There are two main sections of the Voting Rights Act that have had significant teeth

over the years. Section two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits deluding the votes, reducing the right to vote of minorities. That's the provision under which the Department of

Justice is suing Georgia. Section two still applies. Where it typically applies is where you have, say, a redistricting effort that is designed to dilute the votes of minority So, for example, white Democrats for decades had a path to elect more white Democrats, and we actually had back in the early two thousands, I was the lead lawyer for Texas on redistrict and argued the Texas Redistrict in case in front of the US Supreme Court. Won that case five four, and in that case we went through the

history of white Democrats in Texas. What they discovered is that if you design a district that has just enough African American voters and just enough Hispanic voters, that neither one can win a primary. In Democratic primaries, they found traditionally the African American voters and the Hispanic voters would vote differently than each other. That you made sure you didn't put from their perspective, too many African Americans are

too many Hispanics. What would happened is if you had, say an African American Democrat against a white Democrat, the Hispanics and white Democrats would vote for the white Democrat. Likewise, if you had a Hispanic Democrat versus a white Democrat, the white Democrats and the Black Democrats would vote for

the white Democrat over the Hispanic Democrat. And Southern Democrats had this down to a science in terms of how to have just enough minorities to be sure to win the general because they would all come together and vote for the Democrat the general, but not too many that you could actually have an Hispanic or African American win a Democratic primary. Was all about stopping minorities from winning Democratic primaries, and that was the cynical strategy Democrats pursued

in Texas and in states across the South. In Texas in the two thousand and three redistricting, essentially, when the Republicans took control of the legislature, Essentially what they did is they created a new African American Democrat district, They created a new Hispanic Democrat district, and they obliterated all the white Democrats who had jerrymandered their seats so they could stay in power. And Democrats were furious about it.

They didn't want new Hispanic Democrats and new African American Democrats elected, and so we had testimony at the trial about how this had been the long strategy of white

Democrats to disenfranchise minorities. Anyway, all of that is analyzed under Section two of the Voting Rights Act, and so part of the reason why we one virtually every claim in the Texas redistricting case because we laid out that the effect of this redistricting actually increased minority representation, and so that the results satisfied the legal test that Section two of the Voting Rights Act. So what section five?

Section five is a provision the Voting Rights Act had that for certain jurisdictions that were almost exclusively jurisdictions in the South where there had been a history of significant prior discrimination, that those jurisdictions required what's called preclearance. What that means is if the legislature changed any voting law, made any change in voting laws at all, that change had to be submitted to the Department of Justice for

preclearance by the Department of Justice. And so what you would have was unelected bureaucrats, career lawyers who work of the Civil Rights Division, who were almost one hundred percent hard left liberal Democrats. Yeah, they were required to determine whether a change in voting rights law could go into effect. And it was only a limited number of jurisdictions that

were subject to preclearance. And essentially in the South, Texas was a preclearance jurisdiction not based on actually discrimination concerning African Americans, but based on a determination of discrimination concerning Mexican Americans is what made the state of Texas subject to it. But you know the entire Northeast where there's rampant history of discrimination, sadly as there is across a planet Earth, that bigotry is something we've wrestled with as

long as man has been on the planet. Much of the country was exempt from this. Well. A few years ago the Supreme Court struck down Section five of the Voting Rights Act, struck down preclearance. The Supreme Court thirty forty years ago, it upheld it and said, look, this really stretches our constitutional system to have an unelected federal bureaucrat having veto power over laws passed by elected state legislatures.

But the Supreme Court concluded that the history of the Civil War and segregation was so profound and pervasive that it justified a massive departure from the ordinary constitutional structures. Now, whether or not that decision is right or wrong, that decision was made forty plus years ago. Supreme Court a few years ago said, however, the formula to determine which jurisdictions are subject to Section five was fifty years old. The Supreme Courts said, look, this formula is out of date.

The entire country has changed. Most of the people who were alive at the time of this formula are dead. Now there's a whole new population. People who moved in move out. And for this kind of extraordinary remedy, you've got to have a current evidentiary basis of a pattern of pervasive discrimination that justifies such a remarkable step. Democrats in the media screamed and hollered and said, oh, the Supreme Court has struck down the Voting Rights Act, which

is not true. It was one provision of the Voting Rights Act, which was a fairly extraordinary provision. So what does the John Lewis Bill do? Reinstates Section five preclearance, but instead of defining a formula based on a history of discrimination, it subjects the entire country to it. So it says, every change in voting rights laws anywhere in the country, ye cannot go into effect until the Department

of Justice authorizes it. Now, what I'd like to what I'd like to know about this is, you know, look look at me. I don't have a law school education. So it seemed pretty simple. If they struck it down before, if they struck down the more modest version of this, and now there's an even more ambitious version of this. Surely the court would strike it down. Now, the Court

has given us a lot of disappointing decisions. Actually, just in recent days, they've now discovered some right of men to use the women's bathroom, and multiple ostensibly original ast judges voted for that as well. So it would seem very obvious that the Court should should strike this down. That would just seem logical. And the court isn't has given us a lot of terrible decisions. So something tells me that that is not necessarily what's going to happen.

So it's not at all clear the court would strike it. Dad, I agree that it should. More fundamentally, we talk about Christin Clark a minute ago. Kristin Clark is the head

of the Civil Rights Division. So what Democrats are proposing is that Kristin Clark, this hard leftist radical who about advocated abolishing the police, who organized a conference celebrating and lionizing cop killers, that she should be in charge of deciding what voting rights laws are allowed and what voting rights laws are not, and she should have veto power over every state legislature in the country if she disagrees

with what they're doing. The reason the Democrats want this is they know the civil rights Division even under a Republican president, the career lawyers are a hard leftist activist. Here's the consequence if this so called John Lewis Bill were to pass, no state in the country could ever again pass a voter id law because the Department of Justice career bureaucrats would strike it down. No state in the country could pass a prohibition on ballot harvesting lawyers

that Department of Justice would strike it down. No state could pass any provisions designed to prevent dead people from voting, to prevent any legal aliens from voting, to prevent felons and criminals from voting, because the hard political activists of the Department of Justice would veto the decision of democratically elected legislatures. And what this all comes down to, Democrats today don't believe in democracy, just like the corrupt politicians act.

They want to rig the system so that they win. Heads, they win, tails, you lose, and it's all about disempowering the voters. Ironically enough, in the name of voting rights, right right. It's an interesting point that we seem to be okay right now on the Grupt Politicians Act that seems to be on the back burner for the moment. So now the Democrats are trying to achieve perhaps an even more ambitious paragraph from another angle. All of this is enough to depress one unless you knew that we're

going to be taking Verdict on the road. We are partnering with the Young America's Foundation. We're going to multiple school I think we're going to six schools and universities with YAF. You can go to YAF dot org slash Verdict right now to request that we come to your school.

The deadline is August eighteenth, Senator. Should we go to the really nice, wonderful conservative schools with the Young America's Foundation or should we go to the crazy leftist, insane schools that are going to run us out of town on the rail. Well it sames to me that should be up to the listeners of Verdict to decide. And so so you tell us if you're a student right now, you might be at one of the few havens of sanity, and you say, hey, come come cheer us on and

and and reach out to us. On the other hand, you might be behind enemy lines, surrounded by Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and and and and looking for a Berlin airlift. You know, my guess is we're We're open to do it a little of both. But it's really the incredible listeners a Verdict who are going to make that decision. We want to free Brittany, we want to free the students on campus. We want to free all of us here in this country. So make sure you get those names in yaft dot

org slash Verdict. August eighteenth is the deadline, but we'll be speaking much more before until then. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across

the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.