From ‘Roe’ To Impeachment

been more specific. What I meant to say was, this is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the third biggest podcast on the charts right now. Congratulations, senator, Well back at you we are. We are number three on the charts of all podcasts and number one in news. We are beating the New York Times. I'm sorry, could you say that again? Oh? Did you? Maybe? Perhaps you couldn't couldn't hear me? I just wanted to say, we're beating the New York Times. Well that that is a wonderful thing in a testament

to all the good people are listening. Man, It sounds like birds chirping sort of in the studio. But we have a lot to get to today. We have the Democrats wrapping up their arguments. We've got the Trump team is going to begin tomorrow, and in the fifteen minutes that you got free today you ended up marching for life out on the national mall. All true. And it's ten forty five, so we're getting started tonight earlier than we have any day this week. This is a very

early night, so let's not squander the time. How do you think the Democrats did in their closing arguments? Well, I think all hundred senators are grateful that the twenty four hour marathon is over. I think it's an interesting decision of the house managers to consume practically every minute of those twenty four hours. Listen, Adam Schiff gave the clothes, and there were moments of it that were powerful. I mean, he is an effective trial lawyer, is a talented trial lawyer.

He can be an effective orator. I think we saw throughout the opening arguments the house managers used multimedia quite effectively. So there were moments that they drove in with different video clips that that worked and it broke up the kind of long arguments and it did it did manage to pull people's attention well. And that's something you're seeing, by the way, in trial courts much more often now. Videos. I mean, it's it's effective. Trial lawyers know how to

do that, and we saw that on display. I also think shifted a good job. He had a big chunk of his closing that was trying to preempt the president's arguments. And it's because of the structure of it. House managers have twenty four hours and the president has twenty four hours, and there's not a rebuttal. So he knew they're getting ready to start, and so he went through dozens of potential arguments that they will almost surely make, and he

tried to give responses to it. What was he preempting, I mean, what were the big arguments that he expects from I mean he went through whether their process, arguments, whether I mean, he went through a whole host But you actually put your finger on a major failing I think he had, which is he didn't shine a lantern on his biggest problem. So he briefly noted, well, the house managers might suggest Joe Biden's corrupt, but there's no evidence of that. And that's all he said. He's setting

himself up. It's it's the biggest weakness of their entire case is that they have built their case on the proposition there is zero evidence, none, whatsoever, of any corruption concerning Joe Biden, concerning his son Hunter Biden, concerning barism, the Ukrainian Natural Gas Company was paying Hunter Biden a

million bucks a year. That's a straw map, because yesterday that the House Democrats in making their case, they kept saying, there's nothing wrong with Barize mother, there's nothing wrong with the Bidens. There's nothing to see here, folks. And because they kept talking about it, it actually brings that to the forefront, right, And then today in their closing arguments

they failed to address him. They just dismissed it. And it's it's it's like leading with your jaw um that that they're setting up to just get get get it knocked knocked crazy. Look, I'll say Schiff had some very good moments, but he also tends to get self righteous and and and so he'll be he'll be making an argument that's effective, that's real, and then he suddenly starts

lecturing you. And I think the moment where that was most acute is when he cited this CBS story and said Trump was threatening if any Republican voted against him, to have their head on a Pike, and I got to tell you that pissed Republican senators off. I heard probably a half dozen senators surround me like openly, like gasp and and and like express anger. And that's a great argument if you're talking to a you know, a bunch of you know, left wing activists at a California

rally and Shift's base. But it ain't a good argument if you're trying to get some Republican votes, right, if you're actually trying to persuade the few Republicans who maybe you could persuade, not a good way to do it. You bring up the reaction among the Republican senators today. Have you wandering around the holes of the Senate heard any gossip from the Democratic side. I mean, what is the reaction, if anything, at all to how they're doing well?

It was interesting one of the Democratic senators was talking to a reporter walking out, and the reporter asked, what do you think of the closing and the head on the pikeline and the comment from the Democratic senators? Look, every argument has a discordant note or too. I mean it may not have come across on TV, but he was almost booed for saying that right. I mean, Republican senators were offended by it. But in many ways, his audience for that was not the hundred people in the room.

It was TV that have to render a verdict. It was TV. And I'll tell you a very interesting observation. So why did they fill twenty four hours? Why did they repeat the same arguments over and over and over again, Because for most of the argument they weren't talking to the hundred senators that will vote on impeachment. They were

talking to three hundred and thirty million Americans. And you know, one of the fascinating things that several senators noticed, if you look at their order of speaking, it followed prime time depending on where the house manager was from. In other words, they started off with the East coast house managers. They then moved to the central So you looked at,

you know, the congressman from Colorado. They'd put them on in primetime in Colorado, and it would always close with the West coast, and they were they were very deliberately. More than a couple of people observed that this was at least more than a little bit about about Adam Schiff launching either his governor candidacy or his Senate candidacy. And look, this stuff I'm sure plays very well in

a California Democratic prime. So that to me raises the question have the House Democrats give up on actually persuading the senators? I mean, are they are they now tuning out the senators and just playing this to TV to launch their own political careers. So yes, and no, ninety percent plus was launching their political careers, was energizing their base, was speaking to the angry mob. There was a ten percent in the closing where Schiff was trying to throw

a hail Mary. Look, he knows that they don't have the votes, he knows that they haven't proven their case. But their hope now as they want more witnesses because they want to go in a fishing expedition, right, and so you know, for example, he had some actually pretty moving oratory about moral courage and standing up and how it's harder to stand against your party, and he said, you risk being called. You risk people saying he's a Democrat in name only or she's a Republican in name only.

I don't think the choice of pronoun was accidental. No, he might be referring specifically to some senators well, and it was now I will confess. As I was walking out, there was a group of reporters and I said to him, I said, wow, shifts call for moral courage to stand up against your party was powerful, and I really wonder how many Democrats are going to do that and vote to a quit the president. And of course the reporters look at you like no, no, no no, no. Moral courage

is always Republicans abandoning of course their party. Of course, never Democrats doing it. Now, before we move on from their arguments, I do want to be clear. They spent most of the time talking about the first article of impeachment, which was abuse of power, and we've talked about that

now in the last couple of episodes. The argument that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo and he withheld the military aid from Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine investigating his political rival Joe Biden, even though he didn't end up with withholding the aid and they didn't end up investigating Joe Biden. We talked about that on previous episode. The second article of impeachment is called obstruction of Congress. Half the reason I voted for the president is so

that he would obstruct Congress. What does that even mean? How do you obstruct Congress? Look, they're basing it on a refusal to allow witnesses to testify, defying subpoenas, and refusing to produce documents. And you know, look, I will say where the Democrats were effective in making this case is the Trump administration didn't hand over documents from any

of the cabinet agencies in response to subpoenas. I got to say, most of the Republican senators, I think that was pretty dumb that the administration would have been better off complying, producing some documents in response, and preserving the fights for the things that really matter. And part of the obstruction charge that the Democrats waged against the President is that he wouldn't allow certain people who worked for him, such as John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, to testify.

Are you saying should should they have testified? Well, and that's where this argument collapses, and it's why the Democrats are not going to prevail on it, because, look, front and center, John Bolton is the most notable example. They're like, we need John Bolton's testimony. Well, we talked about earlier this week in one of these podcasts how John Bolton

did something something very clever. He went to a federal district court in DC and he went before the court and he said, look, I've got two conflicting demands on me. The House is asking me to testify, and the President is instructing me not to citing executive privilege. And he said, which one do I comply with? And John Bolton said, Judge, I'll do whatever you tell me. Right. The House Democrat's

response was fascinating. They just said never mind. They actually informed the court we're not going to subpoena John Bolton and we don't need his testimony. So the fact that John Bolton does not end up testifying during the House impeachment investigation is on the House Democrats. And in fact, Bolton's lawyer said, if they withdraw the subpoena, the choice for John Bolton not to testify is not John Bolton's,

it's the House Democrats. Why is that? I mean, why would the House withdraw their their pull to get them to testify, because I think they were in hurry. They did this whole thing, and they just wanted them forty some odd days. They were moving rocket fast, you know. Part of it. I think there are a number of us. I mean, we were speculating the other night. Why did they not drag this out and delay it more? I think part of it is that Nancy Pelosi at least

thinks this is a political allusion. Tachment is hurting the Democrats' chances in twenty twenties, so I think she wanted to get this over with now. House managers have different interests. I think they're enjoying the national chef has his eyes on other offices. You know, I will confess I did ask in the Republican cloak room. I said, hey, what do y'all think of us having emotion? To give him another twenty four hours to keep talking? Just let everyone

else's numbers go up. So, all right, the arguments are over. I do want to move on to the March for Life. Yeah. Before we do that, though, if you had to give the Democrats a grade, They've made their arguments. You've argued many high profile cases. How did they do on presentation and style, I'd say an A minus that they actually did.

This was a talented group presenting okay on substance a D. Yeah, they sounded good and they have little snippets, but but they also were very selective in terms of what they cited. I expect to see I expect to see the president's lawyers come back hard. I expect to see the president's lawyers, in particular to make a powerful case about the evidence of corruption that justified an investigation into Barisma and weather.

Vice President Joe Biden was part of that corruption, and the House managers have now built their whole case on the proposition. There's zero evidence that proposition is going to be blown out of the water, So I guess we'll see tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be a really big day because finally the Trump team gets to make their arguments. I have to tell you, after going through all these hours and hours of the Democrat case, I'm glad you gave me this recommendation to have a nice, delicious glass

of milk, because it's really fortified. Well, there's nothing like a cool glass of milk. There is a strange rule in the Senate that goes around impeachment trials. You are not allowed as a senator to bring in a cup of coffee or a bottle of whiskey or a soft drink. You are only allowed to drink two things in the Senate during the impeachment trial, water and milk. You have availed yourself of this, I noticed I have, and you look. The Senate is a strange place. It is a plate

in many respects. It is governed by tradition. But the reason you can drink milk all stems back to January twenty fourth, nineteen sixty six, so before you and I were born. Okay. Senator Everett Dirkson is on the Senate floor and he raises a question with the presiding officer. He asks, He says, is it in violation of the Senate rules if the Senator from Illinois asks one of the page boys to go to the restaurant and bring him a glass of milk? If it is in violation

of the rules, I will forget it. And the presiding officer answered, there is nothing in the rules to prohibit the senator from requesting a glass of milk. When that exchange happened, that formed a precedent. This is actually a governing precedent. So when you're a newly elected senator, you get in your desk, in the drawer of your desk, you get something called Riddicks precedence. And it is printed that Riddick's precedent stating going back to January twenty fourth,

nineteen sixty six, Riddicks precedents. Just just to Clifford, this is like the rules of the it is, but it's just rulings from the chair become binding precedent because Everett Dirkson wanted a glass of milk, and the presiding officers said said, yes, now the two things you can drink or water and milk. And so the first night of the impeachment tribe and we went till two in the morning. At midnight, I decided, you know what, I'm gonna try this out. So I went to the cloakroom. I said, Hey,

does anyone here actually have milk? And they're like, no, no one, no one ever orders it. I'm like, can we track some down? And one of the guys in the cloak room said, I'll find you some and it ran out. So at midnight I just sat there quietly sipping milk, and and it was you can't have coffee, you can't. You can't have doctor pepper, you can't have caffeine,

but but you can enjoy glass of milk. Now, what I want to know, Senator as a taxpayer myself, who paid for that glass of milk that you had in the Senate. I'll tell you the cloak room actually called our office and said we need to charge the senator from the glass of milk. We ain't paying for it. And I laughed and said, look, I'm glad to hear some fiscally conservative policies being implemented. And now I can't

necessarily promise. So look, if milk is allowed at the end of the day, all you see is it's a white liquid. So I can't promise you that there aren't senators having white Russians, especially the longer this drags on. And you know what, that would probably drive the conspiracy

theorist crazy, particularly Postmonarch. That's true. And you know we've been coming here in the middle of the night now all week, so there's really nothing to say that we haven't had a couple of white Russians on the very same drink. Now, speaking of your health and refreshing yourself today, when you had a little bit of a break, you decided to use that by going outside and actually marching in the March for life. This was forty seven years

after Rover. This way the March for Life has gone on every single year since then, and it's it's the largest pro life gathering in the world. And you participated in it today. It's something I've done a number of years. Today it was going on right during the impeachment trial, so when the march started, I couldn't participate, but but around three o'clock we had a break that ended up being about a half hour, and so I just went outside and joined the marchers. It's a wonderful chance. I

spent a lot of the time. They're just thanking people and and and thanking them for coming out. It's usually a cold day when the march happens, and it's amazing to see people from all over the country coming together and stand up for life. I got to say it. It is always wonderful to participate, but it but it was particularly affirming in the middle of all this craziness. It was moving. I was there myself today. It was very moving, and it actually got me thinking about the

relation between ROV. Wade and this impeachment trial because Rov. Wade is decided in nineteen seventy three, and it was when the Supreme Court discovered this previously undiscovered constitutional right to abortion, as though the framers of our constitution secretly invisible Ink wrote in a right to an abortion, you know a lot more about the Constitution than I do. It's a bogus argument, right, it was. The Court created

it in versus Wade. But the effect it had in our country is it took one of the most deeply personal, emotional public policy issues and the Supreme Court said, you, idiot, voters don't get to decide this. We're deciding it for you, and you have no say. Look. Prior to that, abortion had been a question for the states to consider, and people could debate it at state state issues. You could get up and make arguments as to why. Look, you

and I both believe that life should be protected. But as voters, we ought to be able to make those decisions. And the Supreme Court said, nope, we're seizing this. And I think that decision has produced a lot of the bitterness the rank or the division. People are frustrated on both sides of that aisle that they don't have a natural outlet to debate the issues because it all becomes the battle for the courts, because it's now nine elected

judges that decide everything. Because This was in twenty sixteen, probably the top issue especially and by the way, I think I said nine elected judges, Let me be very clear, nine unelected unelected, because unelected is the whole problem, no accountability whatsoever. In twenty sixteen, the big issue was the judges. Who's going to replace Justice Scalia? Who? And you saw on the left and the right, and especially for the left, so much of that comes down to Roe v. Wait.

I mean, you see it in their campaign materials. Let me make two observations from today. One, when I went out to march in the protest, I encountered one anti Trump protester, a woman who was angry, and part of what she was screaming is why aren't you in the trial. It's like, well, we're on a break. Um, I just had my glass of milk and I've got a lot

of energy. But it was a striking contrast one anti Trump protesters and then tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of protesters, or not protesters, but marks standing for life. And the contrast was interesting and it actually made me think, so a lot of us getting ready for the impeachment trial, we're anticipating bitter, nasty, confrontations like we had during Brett Kavanaugh and Brett Cavanaugh. The left had paid protesters who yelled,

who's stalked who? You know? One of them went to Susan Collins's home, and I mean, I mean it was nobody needs to be reminded because it was such a national story. But Brett Cavanaugh was the second Trump pick for the Supreme Courts. Wasn't even the first one, is the second one. But but it underscores just how bitter and divisive it is. I gotta tell you, the Capitol police were anticipating the we may see some of the same, you know, vigorously, you know, threatening, almost violent some of

those confrontations on with Kavanaugh. I mean you had people getting in your face and screaming and bitter and angry. And it's interesting that even though Trump inspires strong emotions, the impeachment trial has seemed to be a snoozer from that totally, totally, I mean, frankly, That's why I think, I really think that's why this podcast is doing so well is people are not going to watch ten hours a day of impeachment. They want, I think they want

to come here. You've done an excellent job giving us a behind the scenes view. Look that there were times when it when it felt like like like listening to a reading of Vogon poetry, which for the handful of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy geeks who are listening to this, you'll get what I'm saying, and everyone else is right and don't worry about it. Yeah that I think you're

right now. And I just wonder if if a decision like ro versus Wade had not stolen this very important question from the legislature, from the citizens to decide for themselves and taken it into the arms of nine unelected lawyers wearing robes, if if maybe we wouldn't even see an impeachment like this, if if the presidential elections were not so incredibly tense and important. Well, and it's much the same you look at impeachment and the House Democrats argument.

Their central argument is we can't trust the voters to make this decision. That they believe the voters got it wrong in twenty sixteen, and a lot of the Democrats, when they're being candid, they're worried if Trump is on the ballot in twenty twenty, he'll win again. And so they're trying to undo a democratic election, right, and and that that is a persistent problem of politicians wanting to

force an agenda against the wishes of let the people. Well, fortunately the Trump team is going to get the chance tomorrow to make their arguments. I very much look forward to that. We're going to be covering it again. Please, thank you to everybody who has made this podcast the number three biggest podcast in the world. It's really terrific. Please, if you can subscribe, leave us a five star review before we go. Lightning round on the mail bag. All

right from Tom. Will the whistleblower testify the impeachment trial? Probably not. I think it's more likely than not that next week will vote not to have additional witnesses. So not only will we not get the so called whistleblower, the guy who started this whole Ukraine business really started the whole impeachment. But then we wouldn't get Hunter Biden, we wouldn't go any fire were to order. Likely outcomes next week will vote on whether or not additional witnesses

are needed beyond those have already testified. The House fifty one senators will decide. I think it is more likely than not fifty one senators will say we've heard enough, we're ready to decide, let's move to judgment, and the President gets acquitted. That may not happen. If all forty seven Democrats will vote for more witnesses, maybe four Republicans

join them. If that happens, the second most likely outcome I think is fifty one senators say yes, we want more witnesses, the Democrats call John Bolton, the President calls Hunter Biden, and I think, and then it's a blood best but but but I think that the second most likely outcome is those two additional witnesses come in Bolton and Biden, and only those two. I would say that's the second most likely outcome. The third most likely outcome

is you end up having several witnesses. That that that and I do think, and this is something I've been pitching to other Republicans, is the principle of reciprocity, that that we need to be fair, we need to give both sides. We can't be like the House and have

it only on one side. And so I think I feel quite confident that's where the Republican conference is, that there's consensus, and I gotta say, by the way, yesterday in the press there were a bunch of stories that said Chuck Schumer has rejected the deal of Bolton for Biden, and I actually had today spent a while like laughing

with reporters, going, well, that's all fine and good. Of course, Chuck Schumer doesn't want Hunter Biden to testify because the Democrats are trying to cover that up, right, But he doesn't have the votes if they go down the road to John Bolton. I guarantee you the other side, right, we're going to have the votes among Republicans to ensure that both sides are treated fans, So that will come

down to four Republicans. Last question before we had added here from Marty with very specific punctuation, when is it our turn? Can't watch these clowns tomorrow morning ten am. Tomorrow morning ten am, and you will be right back here in this studio to break it down for us. I will now tomorrow is likely to be relatively short. I think it'll probably go from about ten to one, so we'll get you about three hours of opening arguments

from the president's team. So we'll record this tomorrow afternoon and then will come back on Monday at one pm and we'll get another probably extended stretch of argument from the President's team. I'm looking forward to the first chance the president's cantaign has had to present his defense and to present. Look, what I've urged them to do is present the substantive evidence of innocence. Don't just just talk about process the whole time, but lay out the facts.

Because on the facts, I think the President, well, I hope they take some messaging from this podcast, because I think when you lay out the facts, the case is pretty clear. And tomorrow we will see the President strike back and it should be a lot of fun. Well, you know the Barisma timeline that that we tweeted out yesterday and talked about yesterday on the show, iserox that and put it in the box of every single Republican senator,

so every one of them has that right. I sure hope they read it, and I hope they listen to the show, and I hope you all will listen to the show. We will be back here tomorrow. 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.