The Redefinition of Marriage

is sponsored by American Hartford Gold. If you're like me, then you are growing more and more concerned about the state of our country and about your own future. Inflation is at the highest rate that we've seen in forty years, and interest rates are skyrocketing. In fact, market experts like Jamie Diamond, who is the CEO of JP Morgan, are not only predicting that we will face an economic recession,

they're using phrases like economic hurricane and unprecedented. If you want to protect your future, then do what I did. Call the only precious metal dealers that I trust American Heart for Gold. They can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion

of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. All it takes to get started is a short phone call and they'll have physical gold and silver shipped directly to your door or perhaps into your IRA or four oh one K and they make it easy. They're the highest rated firm in the business, with an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. And if you call them right now, they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver and a

free safe on your first qualifying order. So don't wait, call them now. Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. That's eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or if you prefer text messaging, 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 you can send the word cactus via text message to six five five three two. You'll be glad you did. Welcome back to

Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles, Senator. Before we begin, I want to get to a ton of mailbag questions today because we have a ton of new subscribers because you and this show and even the series, the subscriber only series Cloakroom of this show have been all over the news all week because you had the goal, the temerity to express the view on marriage that was held by it literally every single person in the country, including

Barack Obama about ten or eleven years ago. And you expressed a view of the constitution that has been held by conservatives since time immemorial. How dare you, sir? We are living in a strange and bizarre land. I will say we crossed a threshold. So multiple times on Verdict, this podcast has driven the agenda and discussion, and indeed we've seen the Biden White House from the press room podium responding to this podcast in multiple times this week. However,

we crossed a dou threshold. It wasn't just Verdict that was driving the news. It was Cloakroom, which is, as you noted, the paid subscriber service on Verdict. Plus that one eighteen second snippet that got put out and it's actually it's a fascinating illustration of the lefty Twitter media world.

So one lefty hack on Twitter put out this eighteen second snippet of Cloakroom, every other blue check lefty immediately amplified it, and within minutes just about every corporate media outlet was running with it as their key story, and it culminated amusingly enough this week in Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, denouncing me on the Senate floor as unhinged based on that eighteen second snippet from Cloakroom the Paige Show on Verdict Plus that that we just need

to mark that that new territory because left wing twitter verse media industrial complex. It is truly remarkable. And apparently they're not as cheap as I thought they work, as they're shelling out for the extra service so they can watch the subscriber only show. So, and I do need to say to every communist, every leftist, to every Marxist, every person trying to destroy the country, obviously you need to subscribe to Verdict Plus because you can't know what

these nefarious conservative constitutionalist are doing unless you subscribe. And so I will take great pleasure at at the Marxist helping fund our podcast and keep this operation going spreading truth through their absolute sea of lies. That's right, you'll really show us Libs by subscribing and watching all of the content that we put out here. Not only did your comment drive the news cycle, Senator, it also led to a vote in the House of Representatives to codify

the Obergefell decision. Actually go a little further as a podcast. Ever driven a vote the next week in the US House of Representatives. I'm not aware of that threshold ever being crossed. So the House Deems bring this up, and it was obviously a ridiculous vote. There is absolutely no risk of the Supreme Court over ruling Oberghafell. The Court majority, and Dobbs said as much. Clarence Thomas and his concurrence suggested,

perhaps we should revisit that in some other cases. He couldn't get a single other justice, including any of the Conservatives, to sign on to that. So there's really nope. As a political matter, there's no risk of this whatsoever. And then the Democrats bring this bill out of their sheer shock and anger that you haven't changed your view on marriage from the view that's been held for all of human history and your view of the Constitution. Even more importantly,

the boy the Constitution should be interpreted and understood. And the vote comes up in the House and forty seven House Republicans vote to enshrine a new definition of marriage. Yeah, so let's take those water to time. Let's let's start with what actually I said on the cloak room. So the eighteen second snippet that they seized upon is where I said that a Burgha Fell was clearly wrong, it was wrongly decided, which is exactly what I said the

day it came down. It's what I believed then and every day since then, and it's what virtually every conservative in the planet believe then and still believes now, even if there's some Republicans scared to say it now. In a Burgher Fell, the Supreme Court struck down the marriage laws of states across the country, invented a brand new right. The proper way, I believe under the Constitution to decide the question of marriage and whether marriage should extend the

same sex couples is through the democratic process. And actually the democratic process was moving in that direction. The advocates of gay marriage were winning in multiple states. They were persuading the voters, and the democratic process was operating. Those who disagreed were making their case, and there was a full fledged democratic debate until the Supreme Court said no, sorry, silly people, there's only one right answer. You must adopt

what we decree. What they left out is you and I had actually it was Liz Wheeler and I had an extended discussion where she asked me. The entire cloak Room focused on Clarence Thomas's concurrence in the Dab's decision, where he called into question the subset of due process jurisprudence, and he mentioned a number of other cases dealing with contraception, dealing with sodomy, and dealing with gay marriage, and he

suggested that those opinions should be revisited. And what I articulated at great length in the full Cloakroom podcast is that the Supreme Court said, repeatedly, explicitly, unambiguously, no, we are not revisiting these precedents. Nothing in this decision calls him into question. We're not going to do it. At one point, the majority opinion says, we don't know how we can say this any clearer. No, no, no, As

you noted Justice Thomas, yes, he raised the issue. He was not joined by a single justice, so eight justices declined to join that opinion. I said that at great length, all of the lefty Twitter activists, all of the corrupt corporate media, ignored that entire discussion. We actually put out the entire six minute segment we put it out on social media to say, look, if you want to know what the discussion was, here's a radical and crazy idea. Maybe you could actually listen to what it was. I said.

Almost no one in the media could be bothered to do that. And there's a reason they seized upon this is there's a broader political point and when we've talked about this sum on the podcast, but it's worth underscoring. Democrats know that abortion is a political loser for them. So they're a handful of left wing activists in DC who are thinking, Okay, maybe the decision on row is going to be the hail Mary that saves the mid terms from the disaster it's going to be for Democrats otherwise.

But real and serious Democrats don't actually think that. Elected democrats don't think that. And how do we know that because their immediate reaction is not to focus on the fact that their policy preference of unlimited abortion on demand in all circumstances with no limits is now no longer mandated by the federal courts, because that's a really unpopular position in America, But it's rather to suggest, you know what this means, they're going to take away birth control.

They're gonna take away the right to consensual sodomy, They're going to take away gay marriage laws. Now, those are all issues that pull much better than the Democrats radical view on abortion, and when they immediately shift to those issues, they're giving you a tell. They're telling it just like in poker when someone is bluffing and they whether they twist their ring or they sweat or they fidget, they you know, people have tells that let you know what

they really think and believe. That's what the Democrats are doing and the reason they hyper ventilated in every media outlet. I got to say, CNN, I sort of feel like you and I deserve a credit on CNN shows because they filled their shows this week just with us. That was all of their content, apparably there was nothing else happening in the world, because it let them tell the story that a burgher Fella is going to be reversed, even though the Supreme Court said emphatically it's not going

to be reversed. Right, and then, as you noted, it predicated the vote in the House of Representatives to say, if bilbergha Fell is reversed, we're voting to enshrine gay marriage and federal law, and to repeal the Defensive Marriage Act, which had passed overwhelmingly in Congress and which that crazed right wing radical Bill Clinton signed into law. So you get this vote in the House. I'm no expert here, Senator. You know, I don't work at the Capitol, but I

think that means it's going to your place. I think that means it's going to the Senate for a vote. If you had asked me three days ago, I would have said, this doesn't stand a chance of going anywhere the Senate. Republicans are going to stand firm. This is an obvious this is an obvious issue. And yet after that vote in the House, I have to wonder, is this thing actually going to make it out of the Senate. Well, it's not clear if it's going to get floor time.

And we've got just a couple of weeks left before the August recess when Democrats want to get home in campaign, they've got a bunch of Democrats on the ballot, and there's a lot of other bad things Democrats are trying to do. So they've got a lot of legislation they're trying to ram through, including their last gasp at build back broke, and so there's a limited number of days of floor time. That being said, Schumer said this week he intends to take this up for a vote, which

will burn several days of floor time. That was the speech where he also described me as unhinged for cloak room. And if it comes up to move to proceed to the bill, we'll take sixty votes. That's the standard rule in the Senate. It presumably will get all fifty Democrats. So the question is does it get ten Republicans. It got what was at forty five Republicans in the House forty seven? I think forty seven. At least one of my colleagues is old reporters publicly intends to vote yes.

That's Tom tell Us from North Carolina who's told reporters he's going to be a yes. I could tell you we had a discussion today in the Senate Republican conference at lunch where there were multiple Republicans who, if they didn't say yes, they sure we're showing a lot of leg to use a euphemism, I don't know that this ought to be This ought to be a really easy vote Number one, because it's pure empty political messaging. Supreme courts said they're not going to overturn a Burger fell.

So the entire reason Democrats are having this vote is for political messaging and really to distract from every other aspect of their agenda that's a train wreck, which is inflation and crime and immigration and everything else. But secondly, look my views on the substance. I believe marriage is the union one man and one woman. And that's what

I have always believed. It's what I believe now. There are people who disagree with me, and the people who disagree with me are entitled to their views, and they're entitled to participate in the democratic process, and they're entitled to prevail in the democratic process if their arguments carry a majority vote. It is interesting. I hope it's not the case that a bunch of Republicans who used to

say that quite emphatically no longer believe that. But to be honest, I don't know, Michael, of course, I mean this is I'm with you. I hold the view of marriage that has existed forever. I sometimes say I hold the view of marriage that Obama and Hillary and Biden and all the prominent Democrats of today held until very very recently, and by the way, that the voters of California in two thousand and eight, bright blue left wing

California voted for in two thousand and eight. So I don't know that there has been a public policy issue on which views have changed more dramatic than the issue of gay marriage. And it's on the question of life. Views of the American voters have been moving in the direction of life, but on the question of marriage, they clearly are moving in the other direction. And that's indisputable.

And it's really quite quite a remarkable journey from where even a decade the debate was, of course, but I just think even for people who disagree, even for Republicans who for whatever reason, have changed their views over the last five or seven years, this is such a nakedly obvious political trap being pointlessly as in terms of the substance of the policy being pointlessly laid out by the Democrats. The only reason is to trap Republicans. Why on earth

would any of these these Republican senators take it. Those forty seven in the House took at hook line and Sinker. I hope, senator, I hope your colleagues are wiser than that. You know, you know who I know is wiser the subscribers to this podcast, so I do want to get to some of their questions for enough of CNN, Enough of Nancy Pelosi. A first question up from Jeff. This actually does have to do with another piece of legislation

that's making its way around the Capitol. Jeff says, I've been reading about a proposed reform to the Electoral Count Act. All I really know about it is that it's being pushed by Democrats and Rhinos. So I instinctively don't like it, but I want to keep an open mind. What is the act and should we support it? So, Jeff, a great question, and that's frankly a good instinct is if the people pushing it are not reliable conservatives that ought to give you a really big hint the direction it's going,

what is the act? To be honest, I'm not sure. Look, Democrats and a lot of wabbly Republicans who are really unhappy about January sixth and the fact that I stood up and objected. I objected under the Electoral Count Act, an act that has been on the laws for one hundred and fifty years, and I objected on the grounds that the Electoral votes were not made consistent with law. That's what the statute sets out that you can make

an objection on. And you'll recall I based my objection on calling for the appointment of an election commission to consider the evidence of voter fraud on the merits on the substance to an emergency ten day audit, and determined the extent to which fraud occurred in the extent to which it impacted the outcome of the election. That was modeled after what Congress did in eighteen seventy six, the

election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. In that election, as in twenty twenty, there were serious allegations of voter fraud in eighteen seventy six, Congress didn't throw up its hands and say we're powerless, we can't do anything about it. No, they appointed an election commission. It consisted of five Senators, five House members, five Supreme Court justices, and they did

exactly what I recommended. All the Democrats and some of the Republicans don't like that idea, and so this is a proposal to change that. I don't know the details of how they're going to change it, because they literally have just announced it today and so I haven't seen what they've announced. I will say, as I was walking in to film this podcast, some left wing not on Twitter, and I really do spend too much time reading what

left wing not say on Twitter. We all do. But oh, actually it was a lefty reporter for the Washington Post. He tweeted out, So the only question in this bill is do you want the decision about presidential electors made by the federal courts or made by Speaker of the House Jim Jordan and Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz. And I promptly retweeted him, and I said, sounds good to me. Yeah, So I'm sure that's their nightmare scenario. I was okay with it. That sounds that sounds just just fine to me.

Next question from Wanda, why are January sixth speaking of January sixth? Why are January sixth defendants being held in terrible conditions on ridiculous charges when Stephen Colbert's staffers get off the hook for doing basically the same thing. That's referring to Stephen Colbert's staffers who broke into parts of the capital that they weren't supposed to be in in order to embarrass Republican politicians because the Biden Department of

Justice is fundamentally corrupt and political. It is politicized, it is weaponized. As you know. I've got a book coming out in September, the title of which is Justice Corrupted. How the Left has weaponized our legal system. It goes into this in great detail, sadly Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was someone who spent over two decades on the Federal Court of Appeals. He built a reputation as a fairly

a political, reasonable judge. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone trash their reputation faster than Merritt Garland has done in the year and a half he's had his Attorney general. It's reminiscent of what the NFL did when they declared war on their fans and like just lit themselves on fire. Like The degree to which Garland is willing to allow DOJ to be the frontline soldiers for the Partisans in the White House is unprecedented and it's dangerous.

And I'll tell you when it comes to people who are wrongfully in prison. For January sixth, I have been pressing on it repeatedly. I've been pressing DJ for answers. Who is imprisoned, What are their charges? How many of them are violent? If they committed acts of violence, they should be prosecuted. And that's my view, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their politics. If you commit an act of violence, if you assault a police officer,

you ought to go to jail. But if they didn't commit acts of violence, then peaceful protest is fully protected by the Constitution. And this Department of Justice is being used as a political weapon to persecute those who exercise their First Amendment rights in peaceful protests without committing acts of violence because the Biden White House disagrees with them.

And it is shameful. It is disgraceful. And I'll tell you every time I press the Department of Justice for answers on the January six protesters comparing them, say to how DJ handled the violent rioters in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots, This Department of Justice essentially says, go jump in a lake. We won't tell you. It's none of your business. We're not going to answer it.

It is And our corrupt corporate media has zero, zero, zero interest in reporting on any of this no. Of course, Now, assuming Republicans do retake the House, maybe the Senate in the midterms. Will that give conservatives enough leverage to make some progress on this issue of the two tracks of justice, whether we're talking about the January six people in Colbert or even more broadly than that. So I hope so, and I have some modest level of optimism. I think

the chances of Republicans taking the House are overwhelming. They're well north at ninety percent, and I think a Republican House, the odds are very high that we will have oversight hearings on many of these topics. I expect House Republicans, particularly conservatives, to be aggressive in oversight of the Biden administration. The Senate is less certain. I put the odds about sixty five thirty five that we take the Senate. If we take the Senate, I hope the Senate engages in

oversight as well. You know, there's a difference in style and temperament between House oversight and Senate oversight. House oversight it's typically more partisan, it's typically more aggressive. It's it's they have bigger flamethrowers in the House. They you know, they torch each other many house members D's and ours hate each other, insult each other. The Senate is a much more genteel place. When I arrived, it scared the

hell out of them. Um you know, it reminded me of one of my favorite comedy riffs, Michael, have you ever seen Robin Williams do his riff on golf? I think I have. Okay, it is one of the funniest comedy riffs ever done. I love it. Language warning, it is profane, but it's Robert Williams. He's funny as all hell. And he's talking about golf and how golf is made up. But I listened to it regularly because it just doubled

me over laughing. But at one point he's talking about Tiger Woods and the reaction of sort of uptight country clubbers when Tiger Woods started showing up and dominating golf, and and and he does a a you know voice of you know, oh my, now we're gonna let him into our clubs, And it was just, you know, you can picture you know, almost invariably rich liberals sort of horrified when Tiger Woods showed up. I have to admit that was a little bit the reaction when I showed

up at the Senate. Some of the same folks were like, you know, oh goodness, what is this uh rabble rouser doing here? This whacko bird, this maniac. So, for those of y'all who may remember, whacko bird was the term John McCain used for me. He uh. And I was particularly gratified when some grassroots activists made a baseball cap with a picture of Daffy Duck on it and the word whacco bird. I keep it in my office, and it was sort of I happily embraced the title. Look.

The Senate with a Republican majority will engage in oversight. It will almost surely be more restrained and genteel than the House. But the Senate also carries with it typically a greater gravitas, a greater A Senate hearing can have a real impact. And so I hope we see vigorous oversight in both the House and Senate, and and that could help. I also expect the Biden administration to do with the Obama administration did when we had Republican majorities,

which is stiff arm ignore, defy. It is one of the interesting things watching the Dems setting all sorts of precedents, including trying to prosecute Steve Bannon for defying congressional Subpoenas you know, in a few months, the other party is going to have the power to issue of subpoenas. And

these are some interesting precedents they're setting. And I'm almost certain the bidendj will refuse to prosecute anyone for contempt of Congress for defying a Republican subpoena because this Department of Justice is not actually focused on enforcing the law. They're willing to become essentially the enforcement arm of the DNC. But real oversight, I believe is coming. But these prosecutions that the orange jumpsuit that is good for the goose is good for the gander, they make those sorts of

things and multiple sizes. So I agree, I think the Democrats should be cautious. A question from Aaron is Cookie Monster racist? Give me the reasoning on that. So I picked fights with lots of muppets. I've picked fights with Big Bird, I picked fights with Elmo, I picked fights with Mickey and Pluto or not muppets, but in the sort of vague genre. But but the Cookie Monster thing, he's blue and he likes cookies. I'm not sure, Michael.

Can you help me out on this? I can. I know so you have been the news for I don't know, ninety five percent of CNN airtime this week. But the other news story is that Cookie Monster is apparently racist. At some theme park or parade or whatever, a Cookie Monster figure a person like he ignored some African American children. Is that was that Cookie Monster did or did not?

It's not even really clear. He's wearing this big suit and he's high fiving people as he walks, and then there were these two little black girls and they wanted a high five, and he didn't high five them, and then he kept walking. And the interpretation of this when it was posted on Instagram was that it's basically David Duke wearing a furry blue suit and dressed up like a puppet. Now, maybe Cookie Monster is racist, but to jump to that conclusion to me seems a little premature.

So I haven't seen the video, so I can provide no direct knowledge on it. I'm sorry, I'm behind in my Cookie Monster theme park video watching the stories, but I will say this, I believe all children deserve a high five. I'm pro child and bold stance. And you know, if if, if, if these young children didn't get high fives, I think that was terrible and they deserve high fives. I'm against it. I'm against those people not getting the high five that they deserve. If you elect me, high

fives for everybody. Yep. And by the way, since since big Berg, Big Big Bird and Elmo have come out as Democrats and the Democrats for two hundred years have been racist, you can answer your own question. You know, if A, then B, if B then C, you can connect the dots using the Transiti property. That is true. That's true. We're getting a little math, and he really does feel like Sesame Street. Next question from Caligula, I

hope not the real one. If Biden is not the Democrat nominee in twenty twenty four, who will be good question. So I believe Biden will not be the nominee. He's not going to run. He is too old, he is beyond the capacity, he is severely diminished. Everyone knows this. All the Republicans know this, all the Democrats know this. Look, Biden is pretending he's going to run because of course he doesn't want to be a lamed Dock. I get that that's actually the right thing for Biden to do.

Any president in his position would pretend he's going to run. I don't think anyone believes it when Biden doesn't run, and he's going to delay announcing that as long as possible because he doesn't want to be a lame doc. I think we're going to see a free for all, bloody war in the Democratic Party. I think right now Kamala Harris and Pete buddhag Edge are firing bazukas at each other every day. I think they are stabbing knives in each other's back. I think they are planning stories.

I think it is open war. I think Elizabeth Warren is only a hair behind them. I think Elizabeth will run as well. She's clearly ambitious as all get out. She thinks she'll ride the Row decision all the way to the Democratic primary nomination. And then Gavin Newsom is making a play from California. He's he no longer has Michael Knowles to torment, he no longer has the Daily Wire to torment, so now he wants to torment all

of America. I do think it's funny that Gavin has gone all the way to Florida to run ads just so Ben Shapiro can see them because he wants to chase him from the Pacific to the Atlantic. That's obviously a presidential play by Gavin. And look, I'm not remotely an expert on Democratic presidential primaries, but right now I see those four as likely the top tier tier. I don't think at look, you will get other people Amy Kloba, Charle Ron. I like Amy, She's she's actually sometimes less

crazy than some of the other members of her party. Yea, this is these are slight gradations, which means to me the Democratic primary base won't want her. I think they haven't learned their lesson yet. They're still in crazytown. They're doubling down on crazytown. I think if Bernie were five years younger, he would run again, and he could easily win the nomination. Bernie is probably just old enough that

he suggested he's gonna run. I think that's probably a head fake that that that at this age he decides, Okay, my time has passed. So my guess is those four the top tier. If only we could get another another Bernie run, if only for the memes. But I think you're probably right, he's probably passed his prime. From Anna cultural question, Brad Pitt has set a new male fashion trend by wearing a skirt to the red carpet of his new movie Premiere. That happened months after Harry Styles

posed an address for a magazine, Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz, do you plan to embrace this new open minded style or are you a patriarchal, heteronormative oppressor? Option B, Option B. Obviously that was clear a mile away. I got no interest in wearing a skirt. The only possible exception might be if I'm in Glasgow at a party and they convinced me to wear a kilt. The real Scotsman were nothing under their kilts. I'm not a real Scotsman, so

that does not seem at all tempting to me. It actually sounds kind of cold, because Scotland is really kind of cold a lot at the time of the year, and like, I'm not interested in a breeze like that, Like sounds thoroughly unpleasant. All right, I will tell a story from college debating days, so I'm terrified to know how this is going to connect. Senator Okay, so it involves my alma mater, and you're alma mater. Now I'm

really terrified to know how this connects. When I was at a freshman at at Princeton at the Yale Debate tournament, in the final round, there was a team from Princeton who were sophomores. I was a freshman, so I was watching it. In the final round team from Princeton, really talented debaters, and a team from Scotland, Glasgow A. And the lead speaker there was a fellow named Auson Lalley. I don't know what he's maybe in politics or something.

It was incredibly talented speaker. He was the lead speaker for Glasgow A. And the tradition in college debate was that final rounds were typically humorous because the two teams that broke to the final round qualified for nationals, and so everyone watching the debate had lost, so they were all pissed off, and so you kind of you tried to do a funny round to entertain the people who had lost. And so the Princeton team of sophomores they got up in the case they proposed, is America is

better than England? They got they got up, and they had all of these funny reasons why America is better than England. And the lead speaker for the opposition, this fellow Austin Liley from Glasgow. He got up and he's in a full kilt. So this is how it knnects, because he's dressed in a full kilt and he goes, mister speaker, sir, there are few things you can do. And a Scotsman when he's in his kilt, has a sock that goes all the two socks that go all

the weapon. He has a ceremonial dagger in his sock. So he pulls out the dagger and goes, there are few things you can do to kiss wolf A Scooch more then to confuse him with an Englishman. And he sticks the dagger into the podium and it's just like it's stuck into the podium at Yale. The entire room erupts in laughter. I mean, it just brings the house down. He spends the remainder of his speech just mercilessly battering my teammates. I mean it was back and forth. The

round was over at that point. Yeah, fast forward to the very end of the round. He's clearly won the round. The very end his last speech. As Rebuttally's up there and he's about to close, he goes, all right, I know you've been waiting for it, so i'll give it to you. I can't give it anymore. Kept in, I'm giving it all. She's good, And with that again, the entire room lost it, and he returned to his seat in triumphant victory. In that circumstance, wearing a skirt which

was a kilt was a strong and manly thing to do. Yes, Hollywood actors or singers doing it. Let me just be mild and say, not my thing. Not so much, I agree. I also, by the way, Senator, do know what became of mister Lally. He actually became He became the groundskeeper on the Simpsons, which is which is unfortunate. You know, I know everyone thought maybe he could have become a

big political fac is funny, That is funny. All right, I think we have time for at least right, And I promise you when the libel suit gets filed against you, I will recommend a lawyer who's really expensive to represent you. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I know you're very busy, but if you could get me a pricey lawyer. That'd be great. From cautiously optimistic, this actually relates to school.

Dear senator, I'm a T fourteen law student who will be I don't even know what that means, a T fourteen law student who will be working at a big law firm after I graduate. I'm very passionate about litigation. How valuable is it to clerk for a federal judge? Great question, massively valuable if you want to be a litigator. It's the single most important thing you can do. I

clerk for two judges. I clerked for Mike Ludig, who was a judge in the Federal Court of Appeals, and then I clerked for Chief Justice William Rnquist on the Supreme Court. I learned more each year of my clerkship than I did all of law school. It is the single biggest thing you can do to learn to be a litigator. One of the problems in law school is you understand legal cases as these sort of abstract academic things. You don't understand that judges are people. You don't understand

how judges actually make decisions. The interaction, particularly in an appellate court, between multiple judges, the back and forth and clerking gives you an inside view to it that that is just you know, I remember Chief Justice Ranquist. It was amazing. So I clerked for him nineteen ninety six to ninety seven. That was his twenty fifth anniversary as a justice. It was his tenth anniversary as Chief Justice.

And for him when we'd have a case coming up and it was a case that you'd studied in law school and you thought of it as Smith versus Jones, you know, it was sort of an abstract that stands

for this proposition of law. What was amazing about the Chief is for him it was a memory, and it was a memory of sitting at conference with the other eight justices discussing and debating the case, and the Chief would be like, oh, yes, that was the case when thorough Good wanted to do such and such, but we didn't agree with that, And it just it gives you an insight into how courts actually reach decisions. If you want to do trial work, clerking at the district court

is incredibly helpful. If you want to do a pellet work, clerking at at a pellet court is incredibly helpful. But I enthusiastically recommend judicial clerkships. Well, next question from Godzilla rules, do you think the Antichrist in the Bible is alive today? I don't know. You know, the Bible says Jesus is coming,

but no man knows the hour. And look, I grew up in the evangelical world, Southern Baptist world, where they are all sorts of things saying the Antichrist is this or that or the other this is you know, whether the Antichrist is brock Bomb or the ni christis Donald Trump. I've like, whoever it is, I've heard a thousand people

of the Antichrist. I guess I have a degree of humility in that if I see someone stand up and mandate that we must all get six six six tattooed on our forehead in the back of our hand, I'll

be like, Okay, now you're telling that somewhere. But short of that, I'm going to express Look, the world could end tomorrow, it could end a thousand years from now, it could end ten thousand years from now, and if you look at biblical prophecy, there are all sorts of ways to interpret it that I'll just say I ain't smart enough to say I know the answer, and so I think we should live as if we've got a whole lifetime ahead of us, and we're going to have

the biggest impact on our community and our neighbors in our world. And if the Savior chooses to come earlier, we will welcome and celebrate that that happy moment. But in the meantime, we have work to do right ready to die tomorrow, but planning to live for a very long time and get a lot of things done. And to your point, Senator, I think anyone who tells you that they understand with crystal clarity the Book of the Apocalypse, revelation or so, that is how you know with certainty

that person is completely insane. They certainly don't know what you're talking about. But I do love the point. Sometimes people will ask, do you think we're living in the end times? And I always think, well, somebody's going to be living in the end times. I don't think we are. I wouldn't bet on it exactly, but I guess somebody's going to so I will say so. Growing up in Houston,

I was a little kid. For a period of time we went to First Baptist Church, and the pastor there, John Beside, you did a year long sermon series in the Book of Revelation, and I think I was, like, I don't know, nine or ten years old at the time, and I thought it was fascinating. I mean, it really

was interesting. And today Heidi and I were members at First Baptist, the same church, and our pastor today is the successor to John Bisignia's Gunam Greg Mott is a wonderful pastor, incredible man of God, very scholarly, but very humble, very down to earth, which is unusual for a pastor to big church. But he did an extended sermon series on the Book of Revelation that was just fascinating, and having as a kid listened to one, I didn't remember what the pastor said forty years ago, but it was

it was. The Book of Revelation is challenging, it's fascinating, and there's so much imagery that that you know, things could have all kinds of meanings, and I certainly don't purport to know which interpretation is right as to what all is going to happen in the end times and when it's going to start. Before we go, one last question this is from our very un cactus masks are

coming back to our school. We've been told it's because is getting bad again, But to me it seems like just a way to gin up anxiety for the midterms and distract from Biden's bad policy. What are y'all's thoughts? Is manipulating COVID fear the only way for the Dems to stave off the red wave? Oh? Look, I think it's one hundred percent. They're going to try something. Whether it is COVID, whether it is monkey pox, I don't

know what it is. But the issue set they don't want the election to be about is inflation, gas prices, crime and illegal immigration. If that's what the election is about. Republicans are winning fifty to seventy seats in the House, We're taking the Senate with a big majority, and it is a absolute Democrat bloodbat and so they're desperate to change the topic to anything. COVID has been a good, reliable one, So we'll see if if they have any hook to do it, they'll try. But and I think

masks are part of it. I also think most Americans are just done with masks. I'm like, I'm certainly there. But although I will say it was thoroughly amusing so let Last week, several Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, were out because they tested positive for COVID. I don't know if they were symptomatic or not, but I do think that Democrats are testing much more frequently when they're asymptomatic than

Republicans are. And I've joked I want to introduce a resolution mandating that Democratic senators must take COVID tests every day, because I, for one, don't feel safe. And even if they have no symptoms whatsoever, if they test positive, they're out. They can't vote on the Senate floor, and they can't pass socialism, the Green New Deal and build back broken, destroying, bankrupt the country, and strip our constitutional rights and destroy

the republic. And that seems only responsible. I think effect twice a day'd be even better. And an ancillary to that is I think Democrats should be required to wear masks forever. The only problem is their masks aren't tight enough because we can still hear them talking. That's right, you make a great point. Maybe double mask, triple mask,

twenty or thirty masks. We will find out what the next crazy issue that the Democrats want to distract with, probably momentarily, because you will be sticking around for a Cloakroom conversation with our friend Liz Wheeler. I'm sure CNN is tuned in. They want to set their programming for the coming week. Liz, what will you be making their heads explode with this time? Hi Michael, Hi, Senator, good

to see you both. Thanks for having me back. And Senator, aren't you the same guy that I've seen splashed all over CNN headlines, in international headlines all over the world for saying something, you know, something so well constitutional and conservative. This is what we do on the cloak Room. This is it's a really fun series that we do on your Verdict plus community. Today we're talking about the Wisconsin

Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on the twenty twenty election on the infamous drop boxes and said that those drop boxes were illegal not just for elections moving forward, but for past elections too. So we're going to talk about the legal implications of this. And you know, CNN, we're looking forward to seeing you over there, all of the new subscribers, both conservatives and the Kami Lives. We

will see you over there. You can actually even use my promo code, which is Cloakroom to get your first months free on your annual subscription. Go to Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash plus and use my promo code Cloakroom. It sounds completely uncontroversial. I'm sure that the Libs will have no problem with it whatsoever. I'm going to duck out before my face is smeared on CNN.

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.