The Deal of the Century

stop witnesses. He does not have the votes to end impeachment. Well, I think those reports overstated a little bit. The votes are up of the air. It's not clear where the votes are, but it is absolutely true. We finished finished opening arguments today, finished it relatively early, about three o'clock in the afternoon, and afterwards all the Republicans went back to a conference room to talk about okay, what next

and next two days or questions. But then on Friday is the vote, and it's the vote on whether to hear additional witnesses. And by the way, that we're additional is important. The media when they reported keep describing it as the vote whether or not to hear witnesses. Right, But it's worth noting the House heard testimony from seventeen witnesses and they played that testimony for us. They relied

on those documents, they laid it forward. So the question is is any additional evidence or any additional witnesses necessary. That is a close question. I don't know where the votes are. All forty seven Democrats are going to vote yes, So the question is are there going to be four Republicans to join them? You've had there could be. It is close. And so this was a meeting, and we

have these periodically. It where leadership kind of brings the conference together and is trying to whip everyone and get everyone in line. You know, I have to admit afterwards, Mike Lee and I were laughing because we've been to a bunch of those meetings, and usually it's leadership unloading on the conservatives. Mike, Mike and I are used to being being the bad guys and being like, you know, just they're pounding on us, going why why are you

guys like like causing trouble? In this instance, it was actually leadership trying to the folks that are threatening to vote with the Democrats. Are the more more moderate Republicans, and so it was very much a on effort designed to bring them along. That must have felt nice to be the good guy in one of these conference meetings. Yeah, nice, although a little terrifying. But but but look, I think there were a lot of good arguments that were made.

The folks who are wobbly, the folks who haven't made up their mind where they're gonna be, they were essentially quiet. So these are the people that you call the rhinos, the squishes, that's the those are the mean jokes. I'm not gonna throw any epithets rum but us and I think is a constitutional matter. As a legal matter, this is a very easy decision. The House managers haven't proven their case. They have the bird to proof, they have a bird approof to prove the president committed high crimes

or misdemeanors, and you haven't done that. And in terms of the structure here, I mean the reason that this meeting is crucial now is you had the House Democrats make their arguments for impeachment. They got their time to do that. Then the Trump team got its time to defend the president against impeachment. Now, over the next couple days, we're heading into question time. That is when the senators

get to ask questions of the two legal teams. So this is the moment now where everybody's got to sort of circle the wagons and get the strategy well. And in this huddel, I mean, a bunch of us stood up and had different things to say. So I stood up and I tried to present three arguments to the conference as to why we should say we've heard enough,

we don't need addition to witnesses. The first I said is, look, as we've seen from the New York Times with this John Bolden stuff, there's going to be a bombshell a day. This is the game they're gonna play. There's going to be a bombshell tomorrow. I don't know what it is, but it's going to be something, and they're going to

do it again the next day. And I relate, Look, this is this is what the game they played during the Kavanaugh hearings, where they held all the accusations to the end, and then they rolled out one after the other after the other. And I said, the media wants to browbeat Republicans into extending this. So that was my first point. My second points, listen to Democrats. They haven't proven their case. They're losing right now, so their game

is just delay. They just want to delay this, keep it going as long as possible, and engage in a fishing expedition. So bring in another witness. Maybe they'll get

something from a witness, but just extend it out. And in particular, Chuck Schumer has not been subtle about trying to put Senate Republicans in purple states who are up for reelection in a hard position where whatever they vote, It's interesting Schumer actually doesn't care, I think how the purple state Republicans vote, because if they vote against the president on any witness question, that'll do more allies their

base and make it easier to beat them. On the other hand, if if they vote with the president and all the questions, then that'll let in a purple state that may not be solidly Republican. That then gives an opening for the Democrats who are running against them to attack them. And interestingly enough, a number of the folks they're described how they're Democratic opponents were staying silent on impeachment that it's clear Schumer sent out the word just

stay out of impeachment and will drag it on. But the third point I made, and this is an important point that on the question of do we need additional witnesses, most of that's focused on John Bolton. There's a point that there's been so much talking and yabbering it gets lost and it's really important, which is in the House.

John Bolton went to a district court and he said he was willing to testify, and he asked a district judge what should I do because the White House has told me not to, the House wants me to, and the House of Representatives affirmatively went to the district court in writing right and said we don't need John. They withdrew their request. It wasn't a big already got seventeen other people do. They never subpoenaed him, and they withdrew their requests. They said we're not asking for him, and

so I put it out. I said, look, I understand for senators they're agonizing and the media will beat up at on you, and said, don't you really want to be fair and call them. If they wanted to call John Bolton, they could have tried, and they decided they didn't need his testimony. This is not about John Bolton or any one witness this is about delay it and engage in a fishing expert. Now, you said that right now the Democrats are losing. Do you mean they're losing

in terms of the arguments they're making. Do you mean they're losing politically because they do not have the votes to remove the president? What's the relationship between the two? All of the above, all of the above look on substance that they haven't they haven't proven their case in interest.

I think a lot of the American people have checked out. Yes, Um, you know, I got to admit, like, like today, the number of if it weren't the middle of the afternoon, I'm not sure half the Senate wouldn't have been napping at their desks. This has gone on already a long time. Yeah, and there's no there there. You know, it was interesting, Michael.

I was thinking, so we've heard both sides opening, We've heard twenty twenty four hours was allocated to each And after hearing it, I was thinking, all right, well, what are the what are the main arguments the Democrats had of what did the president do wrong? Right? So twenty four hours into you know, a few bullet points, Yeah, and as I can see it, they're five things, five big things that the Democrats say the President did wrong. Here's the crazy irony, every single one of them. It

is objectively true. The Democrats have done worse. So let's go through them what at a time. So one thing they say the President did wrong was delay aid to Ukraine. So they've talked a lot about that, and so they had, you know, all these moments of you know, people are dying in Ukraine and it's terrible. What is disputed, yes, the President paused aid to Ukraine. But what is undisputed is that Barack Obama never gave lethal military aid defensive weapons to ukra But we're all told in the news.

I've seen in the news that Obama gave aid to Ukraine. Obama gave blankets and mries meals. And in fact, look, I was sitting on the House floor when President Poor shank of, the President of Ukraine came and addressed us, and he said explicitly, he said, blankets are fine, but you can't stop a Russian tank with a blanket. So what you're saying, though, is that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid, meaning aid they could use in

the aggression against Russia. But the Trump administration did give The Trump administration gave Javelin missiles which can take out a Russian tank. So you want to talk about, like, all right, bad thing? Number one delaying military aid to Ukraine on any measure, Obama much not even a little bit, much, much worse than Trump. Trump has been much stronger on Ukraine. How about number two? Quid pro quo. Lots of discussion about quid pro quo on the president. There's conflicting witness testimony.

There's there's testimony on both sides. But you know what, there isn't a conflicting testimony on Joe Biden. Joe Biden admitted a quid pro quote, a much more serious quid pro quo. You know what I've been calling the son of a bitch clip where he said, played it the other night we did where he said, you know, he threatened Ukraine he'd cut off a billion dollars in aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Barismo. The natural gas company paying his son at least a million bucks a year.

So what what President Trump might have considered doing but didn't actually do in the end? Did she didn't do it? It doesn't matter whether there was a quid pro quote for Trump doesn't matter legally. But if they think quid pro quos are bad, they have Joe Biden admitting it, right and being proud of the quid pro quote unequivocally and a much more serious quid pro quo. All right. How about number three? The cover up. That's a word the Democrats have said over and over again, cover up,

cover up, cover up, because the White House asserted executive privilege. Well, you know what, there has been a cover up of all of the evidence on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and Barissma. The House blocked all those witnesses. They didn't want to hear any of it. They didn't talk about it at all. You didn't give me they and they keep saying you Trump couldn't even investigate. They want to cover this up because look, Joe Biden is their front runner.

They don't want the evidence that and it's important to note this is not about Hunter Biden corruption. This is about whether Joe Biden, right, the vice president, was involved in corruption. But number four, investigate the rival, that's another thing. Okay, So he was trying to investigate his political right all right, So let me get this straight. You're saying it's inappropriate, it's wrong to want to investigate your political rival. Well,

you know who did that. Got named Barack Obama in twenty sixteen, who launched a major investigation of Donald Trump, sent in spies, put wire taps on the Trump campaign, had the FBI and DOJ lying in fabricating evidence, as the Inspector General laid out. So if you're saying, I just feel like for a Democrat, Okay, So you're saying

it's wrong to investigate your political rival like Barack Obama did. Because, by the way, regardless of how Democrats would justify the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign, we know that it happened. We know that that occurred. So regardless of how you could justify or attack President Trump's asking for an investigation in Ukraine, the same principle, any measure, Obama did it more than Trump on any measure, Like if you put them side by side, who did more to

investigate their rivals? It's not gosh, it's kind of close. It's kind of a little bit. It's Trump said, how come no one's investigating this thing? Look, Joe's bragging about fire in the prosecutor. I mean, that was it, and all appearances, Ukraine didn't do anything with Obama. They got wire taps and did an investigation. They I mean they went all in. And then number five cheating on an election.

So that's the big you know, it's interesting. I bet you the Democrats a focus group this, yeah, because cheat's a very simple word. It's a word people can understand, you know it since the first grade. And they talk about that's what Trump was trying to do is cheat. The irony is what is this impeachment all about. It's

about wanting to cheat on the twenty twenty election. Because the Democrats have been real candid if they think if the American people have the chance to vote for President Trump, they will, so this is all about get him off the ballot. So if you're just assessing who's trying to cheat to win an election, abusing the constitution to try to impeach a president because you're afraid the voters will elect him re elect him, that is election fraud. Cheating

at the highest level. And so all five of the things they say the president did wrong, I don't think the president did wrong. But if those things are wrong. I don't know how you can coherently argue anything other than the Democrats are much much worse on all five and on that fifth point, on the cheating point, the Democrats have actually been consistent on this. You heard Adam Schiff, the House Impeachment Manager, the other day, he said, we can't let this go to the ballot box in November

because we're probably gonna lose. And you had Democratic Representative Al Green in twenty seventeen say we need to impeach this president because if we don't, I fear he may be reelected. Look, you remember Freshman Representative to Lead coming in to be sworn in, was caught on video screaming we're going to impeach the m effort Rush. She didn't abbreviate it. That's literally like coming in what she promised

to do. So then, as you say, it's pretty clear, I think for any any of the ten Americans who have been watching all of these endless impeachment hearings, and for the many many Americans who are listening to this show,

it seems pretty clear how the argument stands. So there is actually one guy locked in a grain silo with clips on his windows on his eyelids, and it's like a clockwork orange somewhere someone is playing every moment of this impeachment trial, and and it's just it's just probably scientist experience, and it is cruel and unusual punishment without

a question. Is there a chance though, because it is clear that you will see any Democrats break from their party and vote to acquit the president in this trial. So I think there is a chance. I think the most likely would be a Joe Mansion, Okay, Democrat from West Virginia. I remember he voted for Brett Kavanaugh, that probably got him reelected. What about Diane Feinstein from California, who just just reports were coming out that she may acquit Look, who knows there there was La Times reported

that today, but then she issued a hasty retraction. Look, I think a I'd be pretty surprised if she voted to a quit. I think the so far the Democrats have been party line on everything, so you haven't seen any cracks in their facade. I think you could see a Christen Cinema, the new Senator from Arizona. I could see a universe where she votes, she votes to acquit um. It's not impossible that Doug Jones votes to acquit the Democrat from Alabama, although I don't think he will, but

it's not impossible. Why don't you think he will? Because he's a Democrat in a very red state. I think he realizes he's gonna lose in November, and so he's wanting to do what Hide Hyde Camp? Remember Hide Hyde Camp, who was a Democrat elected forth Dakota, yep. So last cycle she just voted liberal on everything and went down on lost bad, go down swinging. And I think Jones has basically made that same call that he's gonna lose, and so he wants to go back and be lionized

in liberal circles. Speaking of efforts that seem futile but are probably worth the shot. You did not spend your whole day in the Capitol, you, I noticed, headed over to the White House, where a new plan for peace in the Middle East was being announced. Can you, I mean, obviously you can if physically, But is it appropriate now for you to tell a little bit about what happened? Sure? And actually, as it so happens today, I went to

the White House not once, but twice. So I started the day with a meeting in the White House with with Jared Kushner, who's been the President's point person on the Middle East peace process, and a number of other senators, and he was talking to us about the substance of their proposal and walking through it, and so it was essentially a prebrief of here's what's going to be announced. And I gotta say the White House did a remarkable job of keeping the details quite quiet, which pretty much

nothing in this town as quiet. So for them to do that was well done. And then I left and went to a couple of meetings, and then I came back at noon for the big announcement and President Trump was there, but all so Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin nat Yahoo was there and they had a big announcement at the White House, and you know, it was interesting. I

think there were several several points that were powerful. Number one was just the contrast that President Trump is standing up and announcing major efforts trying to achieve peace in the Middle East. Now that's hard, you want to talk about it, really really hard. That's hard, But you actually have a president who's working and trying to advance American interest and trying to support our friend and ally Israel and the contrast, the Democrats are just in this impeachment circle.

And by the way, at the announcement today with President Trump and Piter Yahoo, you know how many Democrats were there at the announcement zero. Well, they were so busy having fun at the impeachment trial. They they're focus just on partisan politics. And listen, the deal, the terms of it are still not I don't know all the details of the terms. Is there any sense of what this deal includes. So what Jared walked through and some of what the President Netnyah who walked through also is it

is a deal that gives Israel a great deal. So it recognizes the legitimacy of settlements that Israel has had settlements in what's called Judean Samaria, which which are beyond the lines what are called the nineteen sixty seven lines, and so that for Israel's a big deal. Israel was attacked and in nineteen sixty seven expanded the map of Israel in a defensive war where they were defending their borders. And this map recognizes israel sovereignty over land that they've

been in for a long long time. But that's a major, a major acknowledgement of Israel's rights of sovereignty. It also, with regard to Jerusalem, keeps the core city of Jerusalem undivided. That is a big deal. So there's some proposals that would divide Jerusalem between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis.

Now this proposal keeps a portion of East Jerusalem, but it's outside of what has technically been the city, so the Palestinians could call what they had Jerusalem, but it preserves what is actually Jerusalem to be an Israeli city, okay. But it also ensures that that that Muslims have access to the Mosque in Jerusalem and to the Holy Site, so it is it. But at the same time it sets up conditions for creating a Palestinian state, a two

state solution, okay. And it also promises fifty billion dollars in investment capital from Arab countries primarily. And but it's a lot of capital into the new Palestinian state. Oh well, that's a pretty pretty nice carrot stick there to try to bring people to the table for peace. And look that the devil is in the details. Palestinian authority refused to show up, so you didn't have the leader of the Palestinians there, but he was invited, he was he

wouldn't take the phone call. So so this deal, while it may be a step forward, probably is not going to go anywhere. Well maybe maybe not. I'll say the Trump administration did a couple of things that are pretty impressive.

Number One, they got the support not only of Benjamin net and Yahoo, the Prime minister, but also Benny Gantz, who is his principal rival, and the two of them, they keep having election after election to determine who's going to be the next prime ministrate, and they're from different parties, they're different, very different politically, and both Neat and Yahoo and Gantz supported this proposal. So the two big sides

in Israel are are behind this deal. That's a big deal that the Trump administration was able to unify the kind of range of Israeli politics that that was not easy. And secondly, we've seen some early signs of support from the Arab world for this proposal. There were three different Arab ambassadors, a Muslim ambassadors who were there at the announcement, which which is a big deal as well, and part

of the White House's strategy. It is to try to get broad support so that the Palestinians feel more pressure to come to the table. Now, the White House has been very open that the details are negotiable, but you got to sit down and start negotiating, and you know my view and a two state solution, there are a lot of Republicans who insist there's got to be a two state solutions. A two state solution would be a

state of Israel and then a new state for Palestine. Yeah, and that used to be kind of Republicans were adamant. Democrats were adamant about it, but a lot of Republicans were adamant about it. I had been pretty vocal in saying, who the hell are we to tell them how they should resolve their security issues. That's a decision. Israel's a sovereign nation. They should decide. If Israel thinks a two state solution is a good idea, that that's fine by me,

but we shouldn't force it down their throat. I was encouraged today because you had net and Yahu and Ghants supporting it. You had Israel pretty enthusiastic about it. If they make that determination, I think we should be supportive of that. And I will say, listen, I'm I have long been pessimistic that Middle East piece is going to burst out anytime soon. I don't think the Palestinian authority

wants peace, it would seem that way. I think they still refuse to recognize even that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, and they continue to embrace terrorism. I mean, they are in a unity government with hamas a terrorist organization. But even though I'm pessimistic that because I don't think the Palestinians want peace, what I have urged the Trump administration for three years is because they've been very focused on trying to produce Middle

East piece. You're more likely to get it if you're unequivocal in saying we stand with Israel. We're not going to waffle, We're not going to blow in the wind, We're not going to be Oh. I don't know, because if that's the case, the Palestinians have demonstrated for decades, they'll play world opinion, They'll attack us in the New York Times and let the US flat back and forth, and I will say the President has agreed with what I've said. So, for example, the Trump administration moved our

embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Republican and Democratic presidents had promised to do that. Nobody did it. Trump did it. That was a big deal. The President Trump recognized the Golon Heights in the north of Israel as part of Israel. I had urged the President to do that. The President did it. And the President pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, right, big big deal. The Defense Department and State Department both opposed that. I made the case vigorously

the president. He did it, and I do think the dynamic we are now negotiating from a position of strength where the President can say we stand with Israel, but will facilitate a discussion for peace. And you know what, Palising and authority didn't show up, but the Democrats didn't either. Quite a comparison, and it would seem, you know, obviously the White House has some credibility on this issue. So well,

we may not, unfortunately, resolve Middle East peace tonight. We can and in our last moment or two here get to a couple of questions in the mailbag right from Jay, who breaks the tie if the impeachment vote on witnesses comes in fifty fifty, so that's a complicated question. It's it's not entirely clear from the rules, So it's not I would think there'd be a simple answer in the Constitution or something. Well, so there's normally a simple answer.

So for most Senate votes, the vice president breaks the tie. The problem is the vice president isn't presiding, right, so you don't have and by the way, you wouldn't want the vice president presiding in the impeachment of the president

gets impeached, he literally gets the job of president. So so that would be the framers knew what they were doing when they didn't put the vice president in the chair, right, Um, that'd be an interesting discussion if the vice president cast the tie breaking Well, sorry but sorry, tell you're out here. You know my office is square. It's not nearly as

interesting as yours. U. Look, it is somewhat ambiguous. If you go back to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the Chief Justice who was presiding there, tried to cast a couple of tie breaking votes. Then the Senate pressed back on him, and so it's it's unclear. Well, it is possible the Chief Justice could try to cast a tie breaking vote, but there is ambiguity and uncertainty. We also adopted a scheduling rule, the language of which I think permits both sides to argue they win in the case

of a tie. If we get to a tie, it's bad news. The best the best thing to do is don't have any ties, get win by fifty one vote, right right. As with so many aspects of this though, it does seem we may be in uncharted territory. Question from Matt Senator, where did you get your boots? And where can I get a pair? So these are are Lukeze boots. They're made nel Paso, Texas, and I'm a huge fan of Lukez. I have a bunch of pairs of Lucas and it's got the Senate the Senate seal

on the front, but then on the back. I don't know if the camera can get it or not. But there's what's called the come and Take It flag, which in Texas it was. It was pivotal for Texas independence. When Texas was part of Mexico, part of the Nation of Mexico. Santa Ana was the dictator in Mexico, and he issued an order to the town of Gonzales, a little town in South Texas. He said, hand over your guns and hand over the cannon that guards the city.

And the Texians, that's what they called Texans back then, was Texians, the Texians and Gonzales. They made a flag and they hoisted above the city and it had a picture of the cannon and underneath it the legend come and take it. And that was the beginning of the Texas Revolution where it we fought a revolution, had the Alamo, but ultimately won at San Jacento, and Texas became our

own nation. For nine years we were the Republic of Texas and independent nation, and then we joined the United States. So that's why I wear that flag. I love Texans and I love Texians too, but I love Texans. Last question is for me from by the way, A quick aside. Heidi and I go to church at First Baptist Church

in Houston. Something our pastor said a few years ago, do you know our church was founded by American missionaries abroad m because it was founded when they were the Republic of Texas, and they were literally American missionaries who had gone to the foreign country of Texas as missionaries and they started a church, the First Baptist Church of Houston, and so in our charter it was it was American missionaries visiting us that and look, their activities clearly worked,

and you know they're also part of the country. Last question before we go from Steve for me, Michael, what's it like talking to the Zodiac Killer. It is great talking to the Zodiac Killer because true crime podcasts tend to do very well on the charts, and I think that may explain some of our success, remaining even today the number one podcast in the country. Look, I will say so, I remember campaigning and I want this. One young guy held up a sign that said, are you

the Zodiac Care? And I just I stopped and asked him. I said, sign if I was, would you really want to bring that sign here today? That I'm sufficiently terrified that I have to end the show. Make sure to get your mailbag questions in the Senate will now be asking questions of the legal teams, and we want to pass your questions along. So tweet it at Ted Cruise hashtag Verdict and you can also email it in mailbag at verdicts podcast dot com. 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, Job's Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.