What Just Went Down

on guns, hearings on the Corrupt Politicians Act. And there was a charge that while you were tweeting during all of this, that it was just your staff sort of tweeting on your behalf while you were in the Senate. I have to ask, I know, you'll shoot straight here. Were you the one tweeting? Oh yeah, that was me.

I was live tweeting. The look when you're in a room with senator who are droning on and on and on, particularly when they're reading from like staff has written a couple of pages of like text for them to read. It's a little bit like the student and Charlie Brown listening to the teacher, and the teacher goes wa wah wah,

wah wah. And the truth of the matter is, like most senators are on their phones and are scrolling through email or text or this, being the social media world that it is, I was on Twitter, and then of course some lefty publications saw me on Twitter on c SPAN and so tweeted about me being on Twitter on c SPAN, and so I promptly retweeted them and said, yep, that's exactly right, and they were sort of surprised, going, holy crap, is he retweeting us. It's like, yes, I am,

and uh. And in fact that they made fun of me because Amy Klobuchar was giving some long, long speech that I suppose somebody somewhere listened to, but but nobody in the room did, and they were shocked that I was on my phone for that, and I just said, well, she's still reading her statement even after your tweet. Well, you obviously wear many hats. You're a senator, you're a podcast host, you are often the booking producer on this show. So I'm not at all surprised to hear that it

was actually you on Twitter. So you were covering it. Actually, I mean, we're joking about the Twitter of it all, but it is important that you were communicating this and shedding light on what was going on. You were in multiple places. Yeah, look, and there's value to that. I was.

So the day started off, I went to a TV studio and did did Fox News in the morning to talk about the markup that was coming on HR one or S one, which is the big election federal takeover of elections bill that is the top priority for Democrats. And what we had today was what's called the markup. The markup is when you actually take the bill and you consider amendments to it, and the rules could comte in the Senate as the committee that has jurisdiction. I'm

on the Rules Committee. Actually, interesting bit of trivia. I was put on the Rules Committee as a brand new baby freshman, which is relatively unusual for newly elected senators in my case nine years ago, to be put on it. And actually the reason Mitch McConnell asked me to serve on the committee is that the Rules Committee has jurisdiction

over campaign finance reform legislation. And he asked me at the time, he said, look, when the Democrats come with some horrible campaign finance legislation, Ted, I'd like you to lead the fight against this, and that's sort of like, you know, throw me in that briar patch. I am eager to defend the first Amendment to stop the Democrats' efforts to undermine democracy, and so I was happy to do it then. And this is the most dramatic time. And so the markup started at ten am and it

wrapped up about seven pm. So it went about nine hours straight and during the course of it, we had, oh, I don't know thirty or forty different amendments. I filed forty six amendments, and so we brought up amendment after

amendment debating the bill. The bill is a really bad bill, and I do hope and think that the markup today highlighted just how extreme, just how partisan the bill is, and I think the Democrats ended up casting some really bad votes today that underscores their top priority is staying in power. What this bill is all about is keeping Democrats in power for the next hundred years, and they're really trying to rig the game to do that. And I think the most important function of the markup today

was to highlight how they're doing it. So you you mentioned here the campaign finance angle. It actually sort of surprised me because I had forgotten how broad this bill is. When I think of S one HR one, we're calling it the Corrupt Politicians Act. The In my mind, this was about changing the rules for congressional elections and federalizing those those rules that would ordinarily be made by the states. But then you're reminding me there's a campaign finance aspect

to it. There. Could you just take us through a little bit of specifically that portion, but but sort of all the all the pieces of this legislation. Sure. So this thing is nearly nine hundred pages long, and it is every bad idea every left wing advocacy group has had over the last twenty years to try to change elections to make sure that Democrats always win. So what does the bill do? Well, let's start with what does it mean? HR one or S one. Nobody knows what

that means. HR one means it is the very first bill filed by Democratic leadership in the House. S one means it's the first bill filed by Democratic leader leadership in the Senate. It means it's their number one priority. Yeah, and so just pause for a second and think about what the Democrats are telling you. Their top priority isn't COVID, it's not back nations, it's not jobs, it's not reopening schools. Their top priority is staying in power, and that trumps

everything else. Now, what does this bill do. Well, it federalizes elections. It puts the federal government in charge of elections across this country. One of the things it does is, look, we've got fifty states. States generally administer of elections and they pass laws governing how elections are handled. This bill, which many of us are calling, as you noted, the Corrupt Politicians Act, what it does is it essentially repeals

virtually every state voter integrity law. Now what does that mean. Here, here's some examples. Voter ID twenty nine states require some form of identification to vote. You think about it, it's a common sense provision. Seventy five percent of Americans support photoid for voting. By the way, that's true, sixty percent of Democrats support photo for voting. Seventy seven percent of Independence support photoid for voting. Sixty percent of African Americans

support photo ID for voting. What does the Corrupt Politicians Act do It repeals every one of those laws. It makes it illegal for a state to require voter id Likewise, ballot harvesting, all right, what is ballot harvesting? It is a particularly corrupt practice where you send in a paid political operative to collect the ballots of other peoples. Why

is that corrupt? Well, because let's say you have an operative from the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, who goes into a nursing home where you have a bunch of people who are elderly, some of whom may not even be capable of making decisions. With ballot harvesting, these operatives help them fill out their ballots, including people that may not be competent to make those decisions. And it invites voter fraud because number one, they can prompt the people

to vote the way the operative wants them to. Number Two, if the operative sees how they vote, Let's suppose you have a senior who stubbornly votes for Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden, the corrupt operative can take that ballot and throw it in the trash. It is dangerous when you have an employee of a political campaign handling the ballots of other people. That's why thirty one states either prohibit or restrict ballot harvesting. What does the Corrupt Politicians

Act do? It repeals every one of those restrictions, and it mandates ballot harvesting. Likewise, this bill mandates universal mail in ballots, It mandates drop boxes everywhere, both of which are very susceptible to fraud. It also provides for welfare for politicians. Is this one of the more egregious elements of it? That it provides for a six to one federal government match for money raised in increments under two

hundred dollars. So if you raise two hundred dollars, the federal government gives you twelve hundred dollars to match that. That is a particularly idiotic proposal, as I observed at the hearing today. If you think of all of the populations in need of welfare and need of subsidies, in need of supports, politicians are really near the bottom of

that list. Yeah. And I'll tell you, Michael, the provision that I think is most naked, that makes most obvious what the Democrats are doing is the Federal Election Commission. It was established after Watergates. So Watergate was a big scandal, campaign finance scandal. They created the Federal Elections Commission in the nineteen seventies. It's a bipartisan commission. There are three

Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners. The reason they did that is they wanted it to be for the FEC to act, it had to be bipartisan agreement. You had to get at least four commissioners, meaning you had to get at least one from the opposing party. What does the Corrupt Politicians Act do. It turns it into a partisan organization. It leaves it with three Democratic commissioners and only two Republican commissioners, which means the FEC becomes essentially the attack

dog for Chuck Schumer. And it's designed. What the intention of this would be is to use it to target, to persecute, to investigate Republicans, and by the way, to do it in all likelihood a month or two before the election, right when they're vulnerable, to have an October surprise of guess what, every Republican in a close race, the Chuck Schumer Federal Election Commission is going to announce an investigation into some scandalous aspect of them. It's a

really bad idea, and that's what this bill does. So it's amazing because I've been reading the headlines on this bill, but when you see it all laid out all of these things, it's it's such a major bill. And yet that's not all you were doing today. There was another major issue. So while the Democrats are trying to ram down which I think you put it very well, the most radical legislation you've seen in your time, there perhaps perhaps rivaled only by the Equality Act or something like that.

And Michael, it's much more dangerous than the Equality Act because it's designed to rig the system. So two of the provisions that are most dangerous in the Corrupt Politicians Act. So one is automatic voter registration. So any individual that has any interaction with the government. So if you get a welfare check, get an unemployment check, if you get a driver's license, if you go to a state college

or university, you're automatically registered to vote. Now, that is intended to and will, in fact, if it's enacted, register millions of illegal aliens to vote, because there are anywhere from eleven to twenty million illegal aliens in the country. The estimates vary a large a significant percentage of that group. We don't have an exact estimate, but it is in the millions by any way you assess it is interacting

with the government. And all of these who are interacting with the government, this bill is designed to automatically register them. Not only that a number of states have very reasonable provisions that provide that criminals can lose their right to vote. That if you commit a horrific crime, a number of states have said you can forfeit your right to vote. What does the Corrupt Politicians Act do. It strikes down every one of those laws. It says criminals the instant

they're released from jail can vote. And the reason for this is Democrats have decided, and I think quite reasonably, that having millions of illegal aliens vote, and thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals and felons vote, that those individuals are likely to vote for Democrats and it will benefit Democrats. This is all about keeping Democrats in power. So during the course of the day, in the markup, as I said, I had forty six amendments.

I introduced an amendment to provide that before anyone is automatically registered to vote, you have to verify citizenship, that you're not registering someone illegal. Of course, every Democrat voter know that amendment was voted down. I introduced another amendment, so a portion of this law grants amnesty, grants immunity to any illegal alien who's illegally registered to vote because

of the automatic registration. Look at the bill anticipates millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote, and so it grants amnesty. It says they're not liable. There's no criminal liability, no civil liability. They're completely immune from any exposure for being illegally registered to vote. I introduced it amendments to just strip that. That is so radical, and I feel

people may not appreciate that. On the one hand, Democrats are saying this bill absolutely will not register illegal aliens to vote, and also when they are, they'll get amnesty for it. That's in the same bill. It is the same bill. The Democrats argued, no illegal aliens will be registered to vote. I said, great, then you should vote for my amendments. If it's not registering anyone, then you ought to welcome these amendments. They're like, no, no, no, no,

we can't have that. Have the amendments so I introduced a narrow amendment, just say, let's get rid of the amnesty. If nobody's registered illegally to vote, what's the value of creating a special amnesty for people who are illegally registered to vote. Every Democrat voted no. They voted it down on the criminals. All right, here's a very funny thing. So I had a whole series of amendments allowing states

to prevent criminals from voting. The first amendment that got called up was from Senator Hyde Smith, and it was an amendment focused on child molesters, and it said, people that commit crimes against children, states can prevent them from voting. And one of the things I did going into this meeting, I sat down before the markup with Mitch McConnell. I said, down with Roy Blonde, who's the ranking Republican on the committee, and we lay it out a strategy for fighting this.

And so I drafted a whole bunch of amendments. And one of the things I did is gave a number of amendments to other Republican senators for them to drive forward. So Cindy Hide Smith, Senator from Mississippi, introduced this amendment that said, if you've committed a crime against children, states can prevent you from voting. Miraculously, Michael, this amendment passed, and Angus King, who is an independent from Maine, although

he votes exactly like a Democrat, he voted yes. He said, I'm a parent, and so if you commit a crime against kids, states can say you can't vote. And I argued, forcefully, like, why is it Democrats think our democracy would be better if child molesters were voting. When I think of what the country needs, the enlightened views of child molesters is not high on the list. So once Angus voted for that, and he's like, well, you're not going to have a

whole bunch of other amendments onto other crimes. And I said, well, yeah, I do have a whole bunch of others, but I'll just do one. So I pulled up mine, which was murderers. I said, okay, you've agreed child molesters. States can say they can't vote. How up murders people convicted of the felony a murder. Angus King voted, noted that the Democrats voted it down. So every Democrat of the committee voted that it should be illegal. For states to say murderers

can't vote. That that's how radical these guys are. Well, and it's not even to say, because people will you confuse the federalism of it all. All you're suggesting here is that states should have the right to determine whether or not murderers can vote. That even that was too much for the Democrats. Yeah, to be clear, my amendments were not requiring a standard, whether it is photoid for voting, whether it is barring criminals from voting. Under the Constitution,

the principal responsibility for those decisions of the states. Now, I will say this in discussing it, there is an argument that some on the writer making, which is that this whole bill is on constitution. I actually think that argument is probably not right. That the way the Constitution is drafted, the states have significant responsibility for structuring elections, but Congress also has the authority to promulgate standards, and so it's a concurrent jurisdiction. So I think it is.

I don't think it's a valid argument to say Congress can't legislate here. What I do think is a valid argument is that Congress shouldn't be repealing the laws of twenty nine states when it comes to voter ID thirty one states when it comes to restricting ballot harvesting, that Congress should respect the state laws that in turn reflect

the values of their citizens. This is an important point because there are a lot of conservatives, I think, who just want to say, oh, well, we don't need to worry too much, because because the courts will strike it down, and so you're making the point, actually that might not be a bulletproof argument. But then there's also the practical political reality here, which is that when we rely on the courts very often we're disappointed. So probably we're gonna

want to fight against this now. Well, and it's worse than that. I don't think the courts will strike this down. And here's why. If the Corrupt Politicians Act passes into law, it will be because the Democrats have ended the filibuster, because they have rammed it through on fifty votes. It will be because Joe Manchin and Christen Cinema gave in. If that happens, the Democrats will also pack the US

Supreme Court. They'll put four left wing justices on the court, and a packed Supreme Court with four left wing justices will uphold the Corrupt Politicians Act. So the current Supreme Court would certainly strike down significant elements of this bill, but a packed Supreme Court with four new left wing justices will rub or stamp this. And so the filibuster is the whole ball of wax in terms of stopping this.

And this is really about, you know, Michael, if you look at what the Democrats are trying to do, I'd really break it into two baskets. What is bad policy? They want to do things that are just bad policy. Massively high taxes, massively high regulations, open borders, massive trillions of dollars in spending. All of that is bad, it's harmful. Yeah, but all of that can be undone. If Republicans take

majorities again. We can cut taxes again, we can cut regulations, we can try to cut spending all the Historically that's harder to do. But bad policy can be undone. There's a whole separate, separate category that the Democrats are trying to do that is rigging the game, that is changing

the rules. And what falls into that HR one the Corrupt Politicians Act, making DC a state to get two new Democratic senators and packing the US Supreme Court, and those are designed to change the rule because I think Democrats believe if they enact those, they stay in power the next hundred years. That Republicans can't win if millions

of illegal aliens and millions of criminals are voting. And that's why they want to do it, particularly if you have a partisan federal election commission that is a political weapon going after Republicans at the behest of Chuck Schumer. They believe, I think quite reasonably, that that will ensure they win for a long time to come. That's why this is the whole edgelata. Senator, you've sufficiently depressed me

about the corrupt politicians act. So now, because a wise man once said that it is always darkest before it goes totally pitch black, we have to address the other topic that you were working on today, which is the gun grab. Democrats are trying to pass big gun control. You were there, you were in the room. What's it look like and how do we stop it? Well, it's the Constitution Subcommittee, the Senate Judiciary Committee. I've been the

chairman of that committee for a number of years. I'm now the ranking member because we're in the minority, so center Richard Bloomenthal from Connecticut is now the chairman. He had a hearing on so called ghost guns. I mean you said it's always darkest before it goes pitch black. I guess it's fitting that pitch black is when the ghosts come out. I showed up. Irritatingly enough, this hearing was at the exact same time as the markup for

the Corrupt Politicians Act. So what I talked about on the hearing unquote ghost guns and what is a ghost gun? I mean, to be honest, who the hell has heard of a ghost gun? I mean, you want to talk about a made up phenomenon, and it's designed to be really scary, like, oh, ghost guns? What? What? What the heck are those? They're handmade guns. They're they're people, they're hobbyists who make handmade guns. They make guns from kits.

They order different kits online and they assemble them. And the reason this is a made up problem is there is zero evidence, like, like nothing, nada, that handmade guns

are producing any violent crime at all. Like it It's a totally made up And so I kind of unloaded on the Democrats this morning, and I said, look, you've got a hearing on a totally bogus threat, but it's designed to be scary and frankly, they're taking advantage of ignorant liberals who don't really know anything about guns and a ghost gun that they want to use a term that sounds really frightening. Yeah, but I said, what are you next going to hold a hearing on civil war

replica canons? I mean, they're not being used in crimes. You want a hearing, You want a hearing on gun crime. Gun crime is a serious problem. How about have a hearing on Chicago and New York and Philadelphia and how left wing gun control laws aren't working. That's actually a real hearing. But they don't want to do that. And what I talked about also in my opening comments, I said, listen, why is it the Democrats are trying to do this?

Because number one, their objective is not going after actual gun crime. It is stripping the Second Amendment rights from law abiding citizens. That the people that build homemade guns are collectors. Frankly, if you're a gang banger in Chicago, you're not making a homemade gun. You're buying an illegal gun on the black market that you're murdering people with. I mean that's where the guns come from. But here's

what this is all about. And it was interesting Bloomenthal at his opening statement, he said, look, these are untraceable, and untraceable is meant to be scary. They want to be able to trace every firearm in America because they want a registry of every firearm in America. And I put it out. I said, listen, Heidi and I own a number of firearms. There is no government list of the firearms we own. It's none of your damn business what firearms we own. You want to find out what

firearms we own. Come into our house at night, you'll find out what firearms we own. Look like it is. And for the big government liberals, they want a registry. And the reason they want a registry is if you look at countries throughout history that have confiscated firearms, it always starts with a registry, a list of what guns does Michael Knowles own, so that when they come knock on the door, they say, okay, mister Knowles, you've got a rifle, you've got a shotgun, and you've got a

thirty eight revolver. Produced the guns now we're seizing them. And so I am fighting tooth and nail against a registry. This whole ghost guns thing is a made up bass topic. Yeah, because what they want is a registry of every gun to be able to confiscate. Before we go. We're as always pressed for time before we go, We've got to touch on this Israel issue. We have to touch on it because I don't understand anything about it, and I think most people, frankly, are looking at this conflict, the

Israel Palestine conflict. It seemed to have been fine. Everything seemed to be going pretty well for the past four years. You had lots of new peace treaties. We happened to be doing episodes. We were in DC during those peace treaties. You were there at the signing of them. And now everything's gone to hell in a handbasket. What went wrong? Weakness causes violence and aggression. Terrorists like weakness. They're encouraged

by weakness. You know, I had dinner, I think week before last, with David Friedman, who was the former US Ambassador to Israel under President Trump. David is a good friend. Four years of President Trump, you saw the Palestinian attacks on the Israelis on Americans dropped dramatically and it was because I believe President Trump drew a line in the SANUS as we stand with Israel. There was no ambiguity about it. What did Joe Biden do when he came

in immediately put ambiguity about it. Immediately. One of the things Biden started to doing is he sent over one hundred million dollars to the Palestinian Authority. Now, the Palestinian Authority is the quasi government of the Palestinians within Israel. It is in what's called a unity government with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's explicitly a terrorist organization. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority they pay bounties to terrorists.

So if you're a Palestinian terrorist and you strapped dynamite on a vest and you walk into a mall and you detonate the dynamite and you murder women and children a moss and the Palestinian Authority will pay your family a ongoing stipend for the rest of their lives. And it's a major budget item that they want to encourage. So it's the government spending money to pay the families

of terrorists as rewards for them murdering Israelis. And murdering Americans. Yeah, a couple of years ago, Congress passed a law called the Taylor Forsac. Taylor Force was a Texan. He was a veteran who was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in Israel. And the Taylor Forsack says, US tax collet dollars will not go to any organization that rewards terrorists, that pays the families of terrorists as a reward for them committing terror What did Joe Biden do in the first couple

of months in office. Base basically ignored the Tailor Force Act and started paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian authorities. So Joe Biden is sending your tax dollars, my tax dollars to fund hamas in their payments to terrorists. And you know what, the terrorists see that and say, Okay, this Biden administration is weak. They won't stand with Israel. So let's start firing rockets. And they're firing rockets. They're firing hundreds of rockets at Jerusalem, at Tel Aviv, all

up and down Israel. And by the way, not only is the Biden administration not doing anything meaningfully about it. But you've got democrats like Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tali. Omar accused Israel of carrying out acts of terrorism because it's trying to defend itself against rocket attacks aimed at civilians and it's trying to take out the terrorists. And listen, I tweeted this week, why is a member of Congress

acting as the press secretary for Hamas? And this is contrast at six months ago, we were seeing historic peace in the Middle East. Why because the President of the United States and the US government was clear and unequivocal, We stand with Israel, and no one wanted to screw with us. Now because Biden is not able to be clear and unequivocal, suddenly they want to screw with Israel and they want to screw with us. And this is it's a manifestation of the failures of Biden's foreign policy.

It's night and day. I remember when John Kerry, but before he was trapesing all over the world stopping the sun monster. When John Kerry was the Secretary of State, he said that it is not possible to solve the Israel Palestine conflict. It is not possible. Rather, to solve the Middle Eastern conflict more broadly, without first dealing with the Palestinian conflict. And the Trump administration comes in and says,

you know, I don't think that's true. I think we're going to just deal with all of these other Arab states and we're gonna get peace deals with those separate states. And the Democrats said that was not possible. What happened for the last several years, we've seen lots and lots of peace. Three now that seems to be falling apart. I have to tell you, Senator, a bit of a depressing show on the voting rights, on the guns, on the international diplomacies. Is there any glimmer of hope here?

I think the markup today on the Corrupt Politicians Act was very beneficial in one since it showed just how radical and extreme the Democrats were. I mean, when every Democrat on the committee voted to allow murderers to vote, that's a pretty extreme vote. When every Democrat on the committee voted to allow millions of illegal aliens to vote, that's an extreme vote. When every Democrat voted to maintain the amnesty for millions of illegal aliens voting illegally, that's

an extreme vote. You know, there's another provision we talked about, the six to one match of federal funds, which is, you know, welfare for politicians. One of the things I did at the markup today I went through what every Democrat on the committee had raised in Q one in the first quarter of this year, and I went through how much they would get under the match, and some would get a million. Angus King I think would get

like seven hundred fifty dollars, he got virtually nothing. The Democrat who got the most was John assaf who was just elected out of Georgia, and he would get a little over eleven million dollars in federal funds. I mean, that's a bunch of money, eleven million dollars. So the senator who would get the most on the committee was yours truly. And last quarter in Q one of this year, I raised five point three million dollars five point three

million dollars. Ninety eight percent of that came from contributions under one hundred dollars. I think the average contribution, if I remember Wright, it was either forty one or forty seven dollars. I forget which one it was, but it was forty something five point three million dollars six to one match. Now there's a cap. So what it would have meant is I would have gotten twenty four million

dollars from the federal government. And I asked the Democrats, I said, why do my Democratic colleagues want to give my campaign twenty four million dollars in federal funds? This is asinine. I don't want the funds. I'd like to go raise the funds. By the way, if you're watching this, go to Ted Cruz dot org and make contribution. I welcome those funds, but I'm not interested in taking federal taxpayer money. And every Democrat voted to give my campaign

twenty four million dollars in federal funds. I mean it's asinine because their priority is staying in power, and so they want billions of dollars of federal funds going to their campaign. So as incumbents, they have massive amounts of money and they can crush any challenger. And I gotta say, Chuck Schumer began the hearing by the markup by giving this this sanctimonious speech, and it was a speech about Jim Crow. And I responded shortly thereafter, and I said, look,

Chuck Schumer rightly talked about Jim Crow. Jim Crow was shameful, it was racist, it was big. Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats, they were implemented by Democrats, and the purpose of Jim Crow laws was to keep Democrats in power forever. Now I recognize today's Democrats and the corrupt media. Their narrative was, well, that was the Democrats of a long time ago, but not today. I said, listen, this

bill today is Jim Crow two point zero. This is designed for the same purpose, which is to prevent the voters from throwing the bumbs out, to prevent the voters from voting Democrats out when they embrace socialism, when they embrace open borders, when they pack the Supreme Court, when they advocate abolishing the police. The Democrats want the voters not to have the power to vote them out. And

how do they do that. They do that by registering millions of illel aliens, allowing criminals to vote, and making the Federal Election Commission a partisan weapon to target Republicans. This is all about disenfranchising voters, just like Jim Crow. And I gotta admit to say Democrats didn't like that would be something of an understatement, and I think there is value just shining the light and explaining what it

is they're trying to do. I think that's true. And you know, a guy who's going to turn down twenty four million bucks probably doesn't care what the Democrats say about him on the committee. Twenty four million bucks. You know. I guess there is the glimmern thing. I guess the glimmer of hope is no matter. If they'd upped it to twenty five, I might have been up open to it, That's exactly. And I suppose there's got to be a

number somewhere. But if you think you're having a bad day, you're looking at the politics all around the world, you say everything's going to hell in a hand basket. At least you didn't have to turn down twenty four million dollars today like Senator Cruz did. We have to leave it their senator. But we will be back soon. 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.