The Nature of Evil

or to fly a plane into a building. It requires a sick soul to open fire in a movie theater, or in a church or in a school. A speeding automobile in the hands of a madman is deadly, as

is a jet airplane. Tragedies like the events of this week are a mirror forcing us to ask hard questions, demanding that we see where our culture is failing, looking at broken families, absent fathers, declining church attendant social media bullying, violent online content, desensitizing the act of murder in video games, chronic isolation, prescription drug and opioid abuse, and their collective

effects on the psyche of young Americans. Today's episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by ip Vanish. Did you know that browsing online using incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy Without added security, you might as well give all your private data way to hackers, advertisers, your Internet service provider, and who knows who else. Ip vanish helps you securely and privately browse the Internet by

encrypting one hundred percent of your data. This means that your private messages, passwords, emails, browsing history, and other information will be completely protected from falling into the wrong hands. Ip vanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple. Just for Verdict listeners, ip vanish is offering an insane seventy percent off their annual plan. That's like getting nine

months for free. You have to go directly to ip vanished dot com slash cactus to get this seventy percent off discount. Ip vanish is super easy to use. Just tap one button and you're instantly protected. You won't even know it's on. You can use ip vanish on your computers, tablets, and phones, whether you're at home or in public. Don't go online without using ip vanish. Don't forget Verdict listeners

get seventy percent off the ip Vanish annual plan. Just go to ip vanished dot com slash cactus to claim your discount and secure your online life. That's iv a nish dot com slash Cactus. This episode, A Verdict with Ted Cruze is brought to you by Matt Walsh's new film, the New Daily Wire documentary What Is a Woman. I've been waiting for this film since the day Matt announced it, and it does not disappoint. Radical gender ideology is corrupting

our nation right now. It's seeping into our children's classrooms as young as kindergarten and preschool. It's even poisoned corporate culture. We see Disney and their queerness agenda that they're inserting into their children's programming. This has become a cultural phenomenon that is assaulting women, that is trying to erase biological women. And so Matt Walsh is fighting this fight. He goes on a global on a world tour asking a very

simple question, what is a woman? And fortunately he took a film crew with him, so we all get to come on this journey with him, and you will be shocked to hear how many people can't answer what you would think is a very simple question, or they have a very warped, twisted idea of what a woman is. The leftist in this film actually admit to Matt Walsh what their ulterior motive is, what their underlying agenda is. You will laugh, you will cry, you will scream, probably

all at once. I highly recommend this film. It's available for Daily Wire subscribers only. Go to what is a woman dot com? What is a woman dot com? And join Matt on this cultural battle what is a woman dot Com? This episode, A Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now, the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of gas is way up, the price of housing is up, the US

national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately, given the way that our current administration prints money and spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money, your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence, Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of your

portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy to get started. All it takes is a short phone call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your four oh one K or your IRA, they make it easy. If you call them right now, then they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on your first order. So don't wait, call them right now. Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.

Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word cactus to six five five three two. Again, the phone number is eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three, or text the word cactus to six five five three two. Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles. We've just had the NRA convention. This was obviously very controversial, major calls from the left to regulate guns and ban all sorts of guns. This after the shooting in Uvaldi. I have to point out a lot

of people dropped out of the NRA convention. Governor Abbott, dropped out Senator Corn and dropped out Congressman Dan Crenshaw dropped out, Dan Patrick, I think dropped out the Lieutenant governor of Texas. A lot of people dropped out. Senator, you did not. You showed up. You gave a robust defense of the Second Amendment. I'm not saying it to flatter you, and you know that I hate to compliment you. You gave what I thought was a really, really powerful

and important speech. I thought it was important to be there. I was disappointed to see so many others make the decision not to be there, in part because the media narrative that comes out of horrific crimes, horrific mass murders within seconds, the media immediately wants to politicize them and use them to advance their long standing political agenda that

they had moments before the murder occurred. And in this instance, the media and the Democrats, they want to label anyone who believes in the Second Amendment, anyone who defends the Second Amendment as responsible for this horrific crime, and the NRA in particular is probably their favorite boogeyman. Donald Trump

spoke as well. He and I spoke back to back, and I chatted with Trump right before he went on stage and thanked him for coming, and you know, I said, look, it was important that you came, It was important that you didn't back out. Thank you for being here, and he of course agreed, and he had Let me just say some choice words for some of the folks who chose not to be there. Um, you know that they were with classic Trump understatement, he expressed his views on

that topic. Well, there's an irony here, which is why I really appreciated your speech. I've got to cut it out with the compliments for you. You know, this is the last episode that we'll get back to criticism next time. But I really appreciated it because when whenever anyone brings up cultural factors, something other than guns in any of these tragedies, what the left says is, well, you're just evading the question. You're just trying to distract from the

real issue, which is guns. We've gone through all of these statistics. I don't see any reason to rehash them now. So all right, we've addressed the gun part. Why are you not allowing us to address the fatherlessness part? Why are you not allowing us to address the social isolation? Why are you not allowing us to address the decline in religion and faith in going to church are Why is that the part that we're not allowed to address. It seems to me that that's far more the common

thread here even than the guns. You know. I will say the speech that I gave was very different from the speech I'd planned to give. I've spoken a lot of n A conventions. I know how to give a you know, barn burner of a speech, and so I decided instead to give what I hope was was a thoughtful, serious speech on the nature of evil. That that was the entire topic of my speech, both the nature of evil.

Why it is that we have mass murderers, We have people who commit horrific crimes, whether it's shooting a school, or shooting a church, or shooting a movie theater, or or you have people that you know commit crimes driving a truck into a Christmas parade, murdering six people, or or setting off a bomb at the Boston Marathon. I mean, we are seeing sick, homicidal people. Many of the times they are young, disaffected men who are alienated, who are isolated,

who who are angry. The per capita rate of gun ownership in nineteen seventy two was forty three percent in America, the per capita rate of gun ownership in twenty twenty one, forty nine years later is forty two percent. It's identical. The same percentage of Americans owned firearms today as did fifty years ago. So that hasn't changed. It's not like in nineteen seventy people didn't have firearms. You had the

exact same percentage of Americans owning firearms. What's changed is the culture, the loss of faith, a loss of family. And by the way, the left, you know, when I talked about, you know, homes without fathers in them, and so many of these mass murders are raised with absent fathers, often criminal fathers or abusive fathers, but absent fathers virtually all of them. Virtually every single one of these shootings

involves a father outside the home. You know, it was interesting seeing some of the reactions to the left because it's almost pathological where they come back and attack me and said, well, Cruz is attacking single moms. No I'm not. I'm saying that kids do better with dads. Look, I've got a family that has a lot of single moms in them. Single moms are heroic and extraordinary people. I just wish there didn't have to be so many single moms.

I wish moms had the help of a father who was a husband and a loving helpmate in raising children that are loved and appreciated and valued and not psychopathic monsters. I always thought the gun control arguments were incoherent from the same people who tell us that the cops are racist and they go around plucking off people, innocent people because of their skin color. The cops are racist, the cops are terrible, that's why they should have all the guns.

That never made a lot of sense. But now, in the wake of the shooting in Texas, you're hearing many people say that the police response was incompetent, that the police response was cowardly. Again, I'm sure there will be an investigation to go through what actually happened there. But if that is the case, you're telling me that we can't rely on the cops to protect ourselves. So isn't that an even more robust defense of self defense of the Second Amendment of our right to keep and bear

arms in America? The whole I'm just really glad that you stood up and you didn't let them bully you, and you didn't. You didn't cancel the speech because I think it's it's a message that people really needed to hear. Michael.

The point you're making there also is an important one, which is if you look in the last couple of years, we've seen gone ownership going up, and one of the major causes of that was in twenty twenty the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots all across the country, where you had democratic politicians that refused to enforce the law, that ordered the police to stand down, that wouldn't protect people's homes, that wouldn't protect people's businesses, that wouldn't stop looters,

that wouldn't stop fire bombs from being thrown, that allowed lawless rioters to declare so called autonomous zones, the Chads and the chad for weeks on end. When you have Democrat politicians who say we won't let the police protect you, it's not surprising that people will make the decision, well, heck, I'm going to protect myself if there's gonna be a mob in the street with violence as they're objective, especially if the cops aren't there to protect me, That's that's

when I definitely need to keep my family safe. And all the more irony that these same politicians who were singing the praises of violent rioters and people committing assaults and fire bombings and even murders. You know, these Democrat politicians Kamala Harris raised money to bail these violent rioters out of jail, and now they're suddenly saying how morally righteous they are because they're opposed to crime. Well, you

don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to celebrate violent criminals and then say, oh, by the way, you guys can't defend yourself when those violent criminals commit horrific acts that unfortunately they're relentless anti police rhetoric helped fuel and cause. Speaking of corruption in the criminal justice system, I do have to get your take on something on a completely separate topic that just came out today though,

which is the case of Michael Sussman. Yeah, this Clinton lawyer who lied to the FBI, who planted the whole Russia hoax, apparently at the direction of Hillary Clinton. We saw the evidence, we saw the correspondence, and yet today the judge let the guy off the hook. I should clarify too, it wasn't just the judge that led him off the hook. It was it was the jury apparently down. So that's not all the judge's fault. Well, and it's

you know the facts of it. This lawyer worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign's law firm, and he reached out to the FBI and said, hey, I've got information that that Trump is involved with the Alpha Bank in Russia and the Trump campaign is colluding with Russia. And he goes out his way to say, I'm not doing this on behalf of any client. I'm not working for anyone. I'm just being a good citizen. I'm just a good Samaritan.

I love America. Rah rah rah. So he reaches out to the top brass at the FBI under Obama and meets with them and affirmatively represents him. Now, what he told them was nonsense, and it was the beginning of the whole Russia hoax and all of that nonsense. But his statement, I'm not doing it on behalf of any client was a flat outlie. He was doing it on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the DNC, and

of course, being a lawyer, he built for it. So he literally sent the Hillary Clinton campaign a bill charging his time for the time meeting with the FBI to tell them about the Russia hoax. When he told the FBI, he wasn't doing it on behalf of a client. Somehow, the client he was certainly was going to get paid for it, because he is a lawyer. After all, If you're going to be implicated in a crime, don't you think it's worth taking that, You know, eighteen minutes on

the arm. Do you really need to charge in the six minute increments for when you're committing a crime? So I will confess, Michael. When I was practicing law, and one of the things I do not miss about private practice is having to think of my day in six minute increments. I would literally take a legal brief or a case with me when I went to the restroom, because I'd stand at the urinal and be reading because I wanted a bill for the time and it is

I understand that sentiment. And by the way, there'd be three other lawyers standing they're holding a brief reading at the urinal too, because none of us wanted to miss billing the time. Two things on the suspend case. Number one, the judge severely limited what the prosecutors could introduce into evidence, So they severely limited the broader context of what the Clinton campaign was doing, pushing the Russia hoax and everything they were doing in the press, that this was part

of a long concerted scheme. The judge kept almost all of that out, and it was a very circumscribed, narrow factual You said X was X true. Is how the prosecutor had to present it to the jury. I think there are real questions that should be asked why the judge was keeping all that context out. What it did is it protected Hillary Clinton like crazy, Like all of the judge's orders basically kept the Hillary campaign directly from being implicated and just had one rogue lawyer, well you're

going to be in trouble. But then the jury, Look, the jury is from the District of Columbia. District of Columbia votes you know, ninety plus Democrat. I have not studied all of the factual evidence introduced in trial, but it certainly raises an eyebrow that this is a jury that in all likelihood voted for Hillary Clinton and hates Donald Trump. And we have seen in cases that are brought in DC, we've seen them be political the other way that they're quite happy to throw the book at

someone if they disagree with the politics of it. It certainly raises a real question in this case whether at least some members of the jury didn't happen to just like the politics of the guy who was violating the law. It just makes people think that there are two separate justice systems. You know that we hear ad nauseum about a guy who cracks a corpse light in the Capitol rotunda. He's the worst terrorist insurrectionist in the history of our country.

Throw him in isolated, an isolated sell and throw away the key. Meanwhile, you've got a guy who, at the direction of the Democrat presidential nominee, is lying to the FBI about a matter of what could potentially be national security and then undermining trying to rig a presidential election, undermining the actual presidency. And the guy gets off the hook, and the campaign gets off the hook, and you think,

where's the justice. Well, and I'll tell you what is really worrisome is I'm concerned that that Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, is going to use this verdict as an excuse to fire John Durham, like they want to end this investigation it's the one sort of lingering that they

want to sweep under the rug. What is coming, you know, My next book that's coming out in Septeptember is called Justice Corrupted, How the Left politicized our Legal System, and it talks at great length about how Barack Obama now Joe Biden are using the legal system to target their political enemies. It talks about what you just said, the differential treatment used to January sixth defendants compared to the

violent rioters and Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots. And I've been pressing this Justice Department for over a year on that and they just stonewall. They refuse to answer questions, They refuse even the barest oversight. And you're right, it does suggest that there is a disparate, partisan, uneven enforcement of justice. Number one, But number two, I'm very concerned that Garland will use this as an excuse to say, Okay, Durham's done. And that would be terrible if that happens.

But I think that is a very real possibility, because there is no doubt the Biden White House wants the Durham investigation over yesterday. I suppose my fear then, though, is, let's say Durham gets to keep pursuing the investigation, do we have any hope for justice? I mean, we thought Durham had this guy. We thought Durham had the Clinton campaign, and so if he couldn't get suessman, is there is there any hope that we're ever going to see any

justice even if Durham does get to keep his job. Well, I don't know. I think there is power to sunlight and transparency and exposing the crimes. You know, if you think about Crossfire, Hurricane and the absolutely legal abuses of power carried out by the Obama Justice Department. They never thought they'd get caught. They thought Hillary would win, in which case it would all be buried, nothing would come

come to light. It's only the accident from their perspective that their candidate, who they were trying to do everything they could to ensure she won, lost that you suddenly had the mechanism in place to provide at least some modicum of sunlight. Well, there, shockingly is a little bit of justice coming out of a liberal institution in America. I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Have you seen top Gun yet? I have? I saw it yesterday. It is awesome, It is spectacular. Did you see the

back of the jacket. They put Taiwan back, They put Taiwan back, they put Japan back, and then this is fantastic astic, all right. So, folks who don't know the backstory of this, the Top Gun sequel was being made, they edited the back of mavericks jacket and the back of Maverick's jacket had the Taiwanese flag in the Japanese flag, and they erased it. They took them out, and so in the trailer that came out or I don't know,

a year ago, the two flags were gone. And it was obvious why they did so, which is that they were worried about the Chinese censors, and the Chinese censors don't refuse to acknowledge that Taiwan exists, and so Hollywood was trying to sell the movie in China. It's a big movie market. I actually introduced legislation to address Chinese censorship of American movies, and it's legislation that's called the

Script Act. And what the Script Act says is that so a lot of movies and Top Guns a great example, a lot of movies use US government assets. So Top Gun, used FA teens, it used aircraft carriers, It used you know, billions of dollars of federal government assets to make the movie. And that happens a lot anytime you're using military equipment, anytime you're at the border patrol. There are lots of times where you're using government assets to make a movie.

And what the Script Act says is that no MovieMaker could use federal government assets if they allow the Chinese Communist government to censor their movie. So it doesn't try to prevent If you want to let the Chinese censor you, you can, but the federal government is not going to subsidize your efforts to produce Chinese censored movies by allowing

you access to federal government assets. I stood on the Senate floor and I lit into Hollywood over exactly this issue, top Gun censoring, the jacket on the back of Mavericks jacket. I said, look, you know, now, Maverick is afraid of the Chinese Communists. What the hell have we come to? And I gotta say, it was beautiful yesterday watching the movie. He pulls on the jacket and there they were the Taiwanese flag and the Japanese flag. I don't ever say this,

but but Paramount Pictures did the right thing. I don't ever praise Hollywood, but they grew a backbone and they stood up to the Chinese Communist and Amen, hallelujah. Top Gun Kill the Bad Guys. Awesome movie. Well, it might have been a little little bit of stick as well as a little bit of carrot. You know, if you're proposing legislation that says we're gonna make it much harder for you to make these movies, if you throw us in our allies under the bus. I don't want to

sound cynical here or jaded. Maybe that had something to do with the decision. By the way, do you know how they do the aerial scenes and Top Gun? So I watched a couple of days ago a thing on YouTube where they were describing it. So they're in actual f eighteens, and essentially when they're in the aerial seats, the actors are in the second seat, so the front you know, they're two seats in an eighteen. The front

seat is the pilot. It is the actual presumably navy pilot who's flying the jet and doing all the maneuvers, and in the second seat is the actor who's meant to be the pilot. But all of the like face being smushed back, those are real g forces. I mean they're like they're going through all of that. And what's fake is when they're moving the stick up and down and the controls, they don't actually have the controls. It's

the real pilot doing it. But it is real that they're in the F eighteen and the footage is actual fighter jets flying through the air, and it's really cool. I don't doubt anything that Tom Cruise does in movies. I'm expecting him to walk on Mars in the next Top Gun, so that'll be something to look forward to. Senator. Before I let you go, I do have to get to speaking of Hollywood, some criticism that has come out from you. Verdict has been in the news everywhere I

get alerts for this show. The alerts have been blowing up. You got in big, big trouble, sir, because you made the audacious claim that you like hot women. You made the claims some women are beautiful. You didn't understand how the guy from SNL could pick up the hot chicks. So amid all of the barrage of criticism from the liberal media here. Do you still stand by that outrageous statement beautiful women are awesome? I will say I was amused to see verdict became uh the subject of the view.

They sat there and and and and you know, we're blasting us for the for that segment, and in particular so I, you know, I talked about, how did Pete Davidson get get uh, Kate Beckasdale? I get. I guess it's Beca's sale. There's no d in it, So I mispronounced her name. Um. And they went on and and and uh. You know, the women on the view were attacking me. I think they said I was creepy and gross or I don't know. It was some sort of

some sort of insults, which which I couldn't help but respond. Well, you know, from from such noted experts on sex appeal as as as who Whoopee Goldberg and Anna Navarro, I'm really glad to get their views. Um. All right, So this weekend, UM, we had my family in town because we were celebrating Caroline, my eighth grader, graduated eighth grade, going into ninth grade, and so we were celebrating that. But my dad was very unhappy about that segment, so

he wasn't. My dad was in town this weekend. He was very unhappy and he was like, you really shouldn't be talking about those things. You were talking about hot vampire women. I don't think my dad's seen Underworld and and and he was like, why are you talking about hot vampire women? And you know, my father and a Cuban accent, and he's a preacher, but he was he was dismayed. And I'm like, have you not watched Underworld?

Because like, that's objective truth is a defense. I actually don't even really get the views criticism because you know, of course, if you had, if you had said that the women were not beautiful, they'd call you a misogynist and a terrible they'd find some way to hit you. Kind of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But are we at the point of society right now where we're not even allowed to embrace objective standards? We're not even allowed to say that beautiful women are beautiful?

What what have we succumbed to? And by the way, my point was just there's a mismatch that Pete Davidson seems to be batting out of his league. Look if Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise dates hot women, of course, I mean the guy's Tom free and cruise like that. You know, Brad Pitt, you know you understand, Michael, I will tell you my favorite toast God bless near sighted women. That's maybe that explains it. That might actually maybe Kim Kardashian and all the rest of them, maybe they just need classes.

Before we go, I also have to get to some mailbag center because we've got very very good questions, as we always do from our Verdict listeners. If you haven't subscribed yet, subscribe what are you waiting for? Go head on over to Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher. We will play YouTube. You can enjoy the Verdict Plus community. Just click subscribe. Leave a seventy five star review. This question does relate

to gun control. This is from long Ethernet. Will the Supreme Court strike down standard capacity firearm magazine bands so greater than ten rounds? Say? From California and Washington. I think there's certainly a possibility. There's ongoing litigation on that.

The tests that comes from the Heller case, which was the case Heller versus District of Columbia that first clearly established and upheld the Second Amendment right to keep it bare arms laid out a test about whether a weapon in the same would apply to ammunition is in common

usage for self defense by American citizens. In that instance, what the Court struck down in DC was a ban on handguns and on functioning long guns on rifles and shotguns, both of which were required to be disassembled or have trigger locks on them at all times. The argument with regard to ammunition would be the same thing, that it is in common usage by individuals to defend their homes

and defend their families that's being litigated. My recollection is I think the California ban had been struck down in federal court, although I'm not following the litigation closely, so that's a fuzzy recollection that may or may not be right whether the Court takes it. Typically, the court will wait for what's called a circuit split to take a case. So the Supreme Court's general view on its docket is

that it doesn't engage an error correction. So even if there's a decision of the Court below that it thinks is wrong, its job is not to correct wrong decisions. Its job instead is to ensure uniformity of federal law, that the answer to a question of law a federal law be the same in one part of the country as it is elsewhere, that there not be a patchwork

quilt of different legal standards. So for the court to grant a case, there's got to be in almost all circumstances what they call a circuit split, which is multiple courts of appeals addressing the same legal question and coming to different outcomes. And if there's a circuit split, if it's significant and consequential, and if the case provides a good vehicle to address it, then in those instances, the

court is likely to take it. Right now, there's a pending Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court out of New York dealing with New York's restrictions on carrying guns, and it's an argument about the right to keep in bear arms, and in particular the right to bear arms not just to have them in your home, but actually to carry them for self defense. That's going to be expected to be one of the big blockbuster decisions in the next month on the extended magazine size. I don't

know if there's a circuit split right now. If there isn't my guess is the court would wait until a circuit split developed. That makes sense. You had mentioned earlier in the conversation about why these shootings appear to be more prominent now more prevalent. There's issues beyond the guns, one of which is family breakdown. So we have a question from Ben who asks would you support a Hungary style family incentive program? So throughout the West, the birthrates

have plummeted. We're blow replacement now, families are falling apart, and Hungary has implemented programs to incentivize people to get married, to have families, to create kids, or tax incentives, furious government subsidies, and it appears to have worked at least modestly, although I know a lot of conservatives recoil at the idea of government basically paying you to have kids. What's your take, Look, I think the objective is a good objective.

I would be skeptical of that particular means for implementing it. I think when it comes to federal policy, we should work to limit the harmful consequences. So there have long been disincentives for marriages, what's called the marriage penalty, and

I think our tax laws should not disincentivize marriage. There are also work disincentives, so you look at how some of the welfare programs work, where people at certain income thresholds, if they go get a job, they end up functionally paying over one hundred percent in taxes because they lose more government benefits than they earn in their job. Those negative tax implications are really really problematic. So I think

we should not be disincentivizing strong family units. UM. Look, at some level, we do things like we have child tax credits, which are designed to make it easier for families to raise kids. I think those make sense and an important part of the tax code. UM. You know. I have also seen different proposals for things like a universal savings account for each newborn child, that that that

potentially the government would populate. You have a baby, and there's a savings account that is populated with a couple thousand dollars that grows and gains in value during the child's life. Some of those ideas I think are interesting. I don't know that they're fully baked yet, but I think they're interesting ideas to to think about. UM. I think I would be hesitant to engage in the sort

of micro social engineering. I don't know a lot of details about the Hungary in a program, but just as you described it, I think there'd be a danger of screwing things up. I think we ought to be doing more to encourage strong families in churches and communities in the private sector. I don't know that we should be in trusting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris with that, right, there is also a middle ground where one could trust

the laboratories of democracy. And you see, yeah, if some sort of program like this works in a state, if it does, great, you consider it at the federal level. And if it doesn't, well, you know, too bad for you Colorado or whatever state. Probably not Colorado would ride out, but that yeah, it's a very it's a very measured take on things. Finally, Senator, very important question from Chris, what is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow

blue or black? There's no way the I can really even clarify this question without falling into all sorts of political incorrectness from Monty Python. So I suppose we should probably just leave it there. There is of course more to discuss for the verdict listeners, and that is on the cloak Room with Liz Wheeler. Liz, what will you

be talking about? Hi, Michael High, Senator. We're going to build this week on last week's episode of Cloak Room, where we talked about the police response or lack thereof, in Uvaldi at the shooting at the elementary school. This week, we're going to talk about a legal principle underpinning the

law enforcement response. It's called public duty doctrine, and it's been held by the Supreme Court that police officers, law enforcement officers actually have no legal duty to respond or to be dispatched or to aid in any situation, any circumstance, that they can't be held liable for that. And we're going to talk a little bit about this legal principle because it's kind of shocking, right It sounds very It sounds very shocking that police who we count on to

respond in emergencies actually have no duty to respond. We're going to talk about how that applies here and how that can be addressed legally to prevent anything like this from happening again in the future. You can join us for the Cloakroom on Verdict Plus. Go to Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com Slash Plus you can use my promo code Cloakroom to get one month free on your annual subscription. That's Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com slash

plus promo code Cloakroom excellent. There are so many opportunities to subscribe. If you haven't done it already, I implore you. I beseech you. Go to Apple Podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, YouTube, Google Play, MySpace, Aol, instant messenger, I don't know anywhere. Subscribe to Verdict. Senator, thank you as always. I'm Michael Knowles.

This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruise 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.