« Verdict with Ted Cruz

Ep. 62 - May It Please the Court

2020-12-11

17 states and the President have joined Texas in suing battleground states over election irregularities, and our very own Senator Ted Cruz was asked to argue the case before the Supreme Court. The Senator and Michael Knowles come together once again to break down the why the Court turned down the Pennsylvania case and what that could mean for the Texas case and, ultimately, the election as a whole. Plus, while America is focused on who will be the next president, what is going on in the rest of the world?

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Seventeen states and the President of the United States have joined the great state of Texas in sewing the battle group sounds over election. I in the Supreme Court this after there was another lawsuit brought up to the Supreme Court regard the irregularities in Pennsylvania and a host of this show has been asked to argue both of those cases before the Supreme Court. verdict with tat groups. Welcome back to vertically TED crews. I Michael Knolls and I should clarify- I have not been asked to argue those cases before the Supreme Court I have offered. My services I Paxton in Texas, is not return. My calls actually It was a senator crews. Who's been asked, Senator there's a lot get into right here. The last time we spoke we discussed in Pennsylvania. This case regarding
irregularities there and the possible violation of the fence when you state constitution. At that time, I believe you had not yet been asked to argue the case before the court at the Supreme Court then rejected that appeal anyway. Now we ve got this other, he's from Texas. What is going on? Why have you been asked? I suppose, because of your great experience argued before the Supreme Court, but but how did this autumn to pass? Well sure Let's, let's start with the Pennsylvania case, when we last did the podcast the Pennsylvania case was pending. and the lawyers for the plaintiffs, there's the plaintiffs and the Pennsylvania case were MIKE Kelly and income and report. can congressmen in Pennsylvania, who lost a very narrow reelection in November, Sean poor. Now who was a republican candidate for Congress who lost a very narrow race in Pennsylvania as well, and so their lawyers had drafted the pleading what we did the last pod they were pending in their lawyers reached out to me
and they ass, they said. Listen. If the court takes this case, would you be willing to argue it, and- and I thought about it And an usually more often than not eat. You argue a case where you drafted the breeze and you ve been part of the legal team for the getting so its fairly unusual to come in at the tail end, but but given the importance of it, I had already written a long statement which actually you read on on the last pod, ah urging the Supreme Court to take the case and I had already read the pleading in and thought it it it needed to be high and so I said sure, I'm happy argue at an end and we put that out publicly. Unfortunately, then, the Supreme Court declined to take the case. and I have to admit- although I wish the court had taken the case for for most absurd, myself included, it was not
astonishing surprise that the court didn't and end the reason for that that the challenge and the Pennsylvania case is I think there is a clear violation of state law in pencil play? Enya the constitution requires in person voting and in all, but very limited circumstances. The legislature expanded. the law to allow universal mail in voting. There is clear violation of state law. The problem is the: U S Supreme, we're done, decide, questions a state law so so question of state law are typically left to the Supreme courts of each state and what was more difficult to articulate was more difficult. I think for the court to see as what the clear federal quest It was, I think, the that the lawyers the Pennsylvania case they they worked hard to articulate a federal interestin, look, obviously get up the general elections so that a huge federal interest, although finding the federal court,
the two shall issue was as more complicated and so the court turned it down. they did not write an opinion, so we don't have any reasoning as to why they turned it down. It was simply a one line order. What that means is their work, five votes it Ex five votes to grant an injunction, and so they were not five votes to ease extraordinary relief to grant an injunction. We know that and then subsequently the Texas case was fine. Now I want to make Four people were recording this Thursday night. You been up on the hill all day, dealing with a lot a number of other issues unrelated to the election that I do want to hit on. In just a moment at sea,
We're just waiting to find out of the Supreme Court is even than a here this other law suit, fry Texas, suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, with the support of seventeen other states and president Trump at that law. Suit is coming up. You have been asked to give give the argument in that case as well, that the court, if they didn't take the Pennsylvania case, I fear it may be won't take this case either. That may be right, so so the Texas case, I first learned about Monday night Extra was doing Sean Hannity TV show, and so I was on Hannity inanity asked me about the Texas case, and, she was an entirely sure what he was talking about. An so I mean I just kind of spoke G. Really about suits between states, but but I didn't know the details of it. the reason was the Texas case wasn't filed until late that night. I actually think it was early the next morning at like one thousand two hundred and fifty morning or something like that:
and so I saw the case when, after it was filed, and then Tuesday is when the Supreme Court turned down the Pennsylvania case and that either when I was I was at dinner and and and gotta call on my cell phone from the president and the president was unhappy that that the quartet turned down the Pennsylvania. I understood that I was unhappy to I'd vocally and vigorously urge them to take it and then the President asked me the time said where you surprise. The court didn't take the case and I said look I was not like. I was not shock, they didn't take the case because of the challenge we just talked about a minute ago. Out of the difference between state law and federal law and that that was a challenging hurdle so the president on that call. He asked me said: look this Texas cases just been filed and in, and he said publicly, this is the case. As you noted, the president. Since intervened in it and he asked me: would you be willing?
to argue this case and I said sure I'd be happy to see if the court grants that I'll argue at an. and your question was in sight for one like the Pennsylvania case, there are hurdles to get it granite and end. One of the things to understand is just that. The overall numbers the spring doesn't take that many cases in a given year you get anywhere between eight thousand and ten thousand appeals to the Supreme Court. They typically grand about eighty. So it's about one percent A suit between the states is different, and, and This is a suit between Texas and for other states. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan Wisconsin. Under the constitution, the Supreme Court has what's called a regional jurisdiction in suits between states That means you know. Typically, if you file a federal law, so you go file and federal district court might give you that's how virtually all federal lawsuits begin.
A suit between two or more states. You can file it in the. U S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, but it's not mandatory jurists. so they don't have to conduct a trial and actually in suits. Tween states, so they usually come up in the context of say, a dispute over boundaries or dispute over a river. Those are the circumstances, you, get a fight were two states or say, and our line is here. The other state is that none of our line is here and the way the court many resolves. That is it. It will appoint a special master that is basically a trial judge and then go conductor trial on behalf of the? U S Supreme Court and then they'll prepare a report. The typically Supreme Court will adopt or change or in and they review it then. In this instance, the the court as a decision, whether to grant leave for the state to file a complaint that again takes five votes and- and so-
The Texas law suit is much broader than the Pennsylvania law suit. It raises a lot of the issues about fraud and irregularities and and different players in the difference aids changing the law in the middle. The process that breadth is good, But, on the other hand, that breadth may be a factor I dont know. If there are five votes, if they're not five votes, the court won't take the case and we could find you and I are sitting here Thursday evening. The court set a deadline for the defendant states to respond three p m and so after the response, the court could could resolve it at any time it could be tonight could be tomorrow, now the court could say we're gonna set a oral argument date for day after to Morrow, I mean that they could move really fast and they could move really slow. They could deny it altogether so by the time
this. This pod comes out, which I think will be some time Friday when we get get it all edited and processes and put out We may know the answer, but as of right now we don't know what the Supreme Court's gonna do and if they tell that you ve got an oral argument the following day than you are going to have a very busy night and day, and I know there's other work that you have to take their attention to on capital hillside. I do want to touch on a few of these issues, because I fear that in the crazy, None of the election drama we're missing out on some some pretty important changes that it that have been going on the Senate today back. A massive arms sale to the United Arab Emirates, there was a major peace deal between Morocco and Israel. You ve got a big. Debate over National Defence Authorization ACT at Ghent. Can you just move us for a second from domestic to foreign policy? A regardless of the election turns out what's going on,
rod. So there's a lot of foreign policy moving forwarded in and much of it is very, very positive. We saw a couple of months ago. We talked about an earlier pod, the Abraham Accords, which were the historic peace agreements between Israel and the USA and Israel in Bahrain, where, where both arab nations normalized relations Epps with Israel. That hasn't happened decades. Ah Anne and it was a major step forward for peace and and I'll say a couple of things one. It is an indication of a foreign policy approach that I have been advocating for a long time, which is that the best way to produce peace is clarity. and lack of ambiguity for eight years of Obama Biden, they deliberately embraced and big you Eddie, I've where with Israel were not. if Israel that they enjoy
is the notion that you must resolve the palestinian situation before anything else can be done and we now know that view was unequivocally wrong. It was simply below. And and- and I spent the night staff of the Obama administration. The time I was in the Senate, blasting that In saying this is foolish instead make unequivocal, we see And with Israel that will facilitate peace while when President Trump came in, he agreed with me, he moved the embassies to Jerusalem, a huge decision that I
vacated for he pulled out of the Obama IRAN's nuclear deal. A huge decision I advocated for both of those the State Department Defence Department had argued against. So President Trump overruled his own state secretary of state as own secretary defence to move the embassy to Jerusalem to end the Obama ran deal that clarity set the stage for the Abraham accords. I'll tell you the the weak the Abraham accords were signed. I was I was at the White House for the signing. I spoke with the foreign officials and in both you ay and Bahrain. Both said we want to be friends with American, really important with us to be friends with America.
and what we figured out is one of the best ways to be friends with America's be friends with Israel. So we're doing this because it clear that this will make America happy and- and it really is the fruits of that unambiguous, clarity now I worry if we have a President Biden that allow get screwed up, that they'll go back to the same strategic ambiguity. Now you asked about the votes this week there there were two big votes this week. Yes, They are on arms sales, american arms sales of drones and F thirty, five to the EU aid, even United Arab Emirates. They were controversial. They were closely contested, ran Paul. all wanted to disapprove of the arms sales, and most of the Democrats wanted a disapprove of the arms sales, and I take this week. I I struggled on this question. This was not an easy question. For me. It was a close question.
And the reason is look, if you look the haste, The Middle EAST, the Middle EAST, has been a tinderbox weapons like the F thirty. Five, the most advanced air frame we have only Israel has in the Middle EAST right now and then I view that is a big threshold. For another Middle EAST country to get the F thirty five answer I spent hours on the phone The israeli ambassador is a very good friend of mine and where we talked about it at great length, with with, You ve ambassador, have also got to know well with with Jerry pushed her. Ah with with other. and the administration with others on my team really trying to understand the pros and cons of it and an ultimately. I voted in favour. The arms sale, and I did so because I think he had it was a complete
of the Abraham accords. It's part of how we brought you aid at the table to make peace with Israel. That was a big deal, also Israel. Both given that Yahoo in bed again so the prime minister lead opposition figure both of them supported the sale that is weird to unite them. That done happened very for they were united on the Abraham accords. They were united on the arms sale, one of the important pieces of that. U S. Federal law requires that our policy in shore, Israel, have what's called a cue Emmy, a qualitative millet very edge, basically that their military can kick the bottom, every other military, the Middle EAST right at that that that that's, how you avoid warfare, what by making it clear Nobody else can take out the Israeli, so you don't have what we saw the Sixtys and Seventys witches Middle EAST war after Middle EAST war by
stone, extensive conversations with the Israelis and with our own Pentagon and based on classified briefings. I became king for both, this sale didn't undermine Israel's qualitative advantage and in of the You ain't ambassador said: look we stuck our neck out. We made this peace deal with us, we're standing with. We want to stand with you. We sent our soldiers and combat alongside you. And this is an important part of defending ourselves against IRAN. That, ultimately, it was to me was persuasive. Here's the interesting thing, Michael. I think it is likely that my vote was. ice upon this tat? I was one of the last senators to vote. I deliberately I wanted to wait and see where the vote shook out. I am. when I walked up, so they were whipping pretty hard
and John said the Republican where people can leaning in on me, although I will say that they actually learn that whipping huh. like beating me with a stick, done work. So you know he was kind of asking me where you gonna be, but wasn't one being too aggressive and when I went up to vote, I'm looking looking at the and tallying and John just said, I think your vote or probably decide it. I said ok, and so I voted in favour of the sale what's interest is the two Democrats immediately after me, here's the cinema and Mark Kelly, both from Arizona both voted the same way within a minute right. now Cinema had been talking about doing it anyway, but it was just it was it and it ended up being approved fifty two, forty six so so those three votes that clustered at the end. If the three of had gone the other way it would have been, it would have been disapproved right and its entry.
also senator to note that went when you look at national politics from an outsiders perspective, you justice, There were no grey areas, there's no deliberation. People know exactly where they stand. We have a very polarized country and I remember during impeachment this kind of surprised me, which is that things are happening in real time, people We are taking a new information there deliberating there may up their minds. The way one person votes is gonna, perhaps away other people boat and that these issues have a little more complexity, maybe them but the more knee jerk issues that we all know exactly where we stand. I think that's right. In particular questions of foreign policy, a national security there can be close, calls that their calls about standing with allies and listing those who are enemies, their easy calls. There things, like the Obama, ran nuclear deal being a train wreck which I think is a very easy call yeah, and if we end up with a job I dead, men
strange, and I expect that they will try to gallop back into that terrible deal in and if that happens, we spend the next four years fighting hard against that. That's an easy all this one, was much more on the edge but but an ice, and, as I said, hours really trying to listen to the relevant points, Here's listened to the experts, understand the details to get comfortable with the right call right an end. Love your point about clarity with our friends and clarity with our enemies. I would be remiss If I didn't mention that is we're talking about threats from IRAN, the threats from China. It did come out this week that a certain democratic member of the House of Representatives got extraordinarily closely a chinese spy. Well, I gotta say Michael for a long time, I've accuse the Democrats of being in bed with the chinese Communists I just didn't realize that that was not that that was,
more than a metaphor. Yes, yes represent Eric very well appears to bribes, in particular, have taken that message to heart it. This is a real issue China as spies and the assets and the United States spies, countries too in a lot of countries. Do it, but the degree of infiltration that China seems to have taken with the top ranks of the Democratic Party is troublesome well in let me be fair about what we know publicly and I don't know anything beyond what what now you ve read the newspapers, so I'm not divulging adding anything confidential but but what's been released publicly. as there was this spy for the chinese government, a communist spy hoops, a beautiful woman apparently was assigned to get very close to two Democrats and in its appears, California Democrats in particular an and what's been been made. Public is apparently she had sexual relations with two different mayor,
I think one of whom is described as a small town mayor another who describe as an older mare I'm at they don't know. I don't know beyond what I Add swore well to be clear, what's been released- has not allege that he went to bed with her but spent three days. Refusing to answer that question and- and you and I both married in, and I can say in your marriage and might if you come home in your wife said: did you sleep with that? Women in your answer is an immediate, not equivocal. You got a problem. Yes, yes, very wise that it doesn't take a total political genius to continue to read that situation, but obviously worrisome, especially you know if we do get abide, ministration, that there will be closed up to IRAN closing up to China, and then there is this their contentious issue. We only have a few more minutes before we get to mail bag, but.
The Endy, a the National Defence Authorization ACT. This is or issue where, where the fighter breaking out within the GEO P a we don't know how necessarily is going to go at once the controversy here. Well, the National Defence Authorization ACT passes every year authorizes our military across the board. I've been very active in draft freight years now there a lot of good things in the NDAA. It includes actually additional sanctions that I authored on Nord stream. Two we did a pot a while back on on the natural gas pipeline that that Russia was trying to build a Germany, that so far sanctions I authored has killed and- and this is a second wave of sanctions- that without will really driver a nail in the coffin of the Nord Stream pipeline.
the first version of the NBA that came out of the Senate. I voted for Mr Good Bill had lotta good elements in including the Nord stream to stuff the house. Bill was much worse and in the conference committee, this bill has gotten a whole lot worse. So I still haven't decided a hundred percent, how I'm gonna vote, but I gotta say I'm I'm quite unhappy with the direction the bill is gone in conference committee at includes a provision provision from from Elizabeth Warren on renaming basis that it that is really mandatory. Ah, that that that I've got concerns with. It also includes a provision that that restricts the ability of a president to draw down military from overseas conflicts like Afghanistan and Anne and one of the things I very much agree with drunk on. It is, as he puts it, ending endless wars that that I think we ought to be bringing our son and daughters home that we should use it
military were needed but be very reluctant to engage in in foreign military conflict in and this provision in Some of us were talking in the in in the cloakroom an end. You know one senator put it this way, so Let me get this straight. A president unilaterally can get us. the war anywhere in the world, but can't get us out of war anywhere and right. That's that's kind of a weird standard. And so, still assessing the details of it. But I am, I think, there's a pretty good chance, although no, my guess is they'll be enough. Yes, votes to pass. and maybe even to override a presidential veto, the president, as suggested he might veto the bill in the house. It
There was a big enough margin that if the president does vetoed the mill, the house had a big enough margin to override a veto, takes two thirds of the house, two thirds of the Senate. If you were to gas, it's a pretty good guess that their there there will be a similar margin in the Senate think will lose some of the votes we had at. This actually brings us to a mailbag question from real truth, cactus a which, if you're, not falling real truth catches on twitter is the cactus from our show, but whoever created that account really great work. Terrific stuff, this gets to the Senate Majority or what what it really means. I was sent a majority cactus rights. I dont know that the gender of cactus cactus rights, I know they Georgia Centre raises are important. Is gender ever knowable? Michael, you beg you know it. It remains to be seen day by day how the cactus will identify. The catches wants to know Georgia raises, are very important,
but should we also not be worried about rhinos such as an enemy puts in the name of a colleague of you, As I will not mention that to be polite to your colleague, but I think we all know who we're talking about siding with the Democrats agenda, assuming that Joe Biden does when are we gonna? Wait? Let's say we win and we have a majority in the Senate, but then you got all these switches that vote with the democratic at what? What does that get us? It looked absolutely. We should be worried about that it if we win in Georgia, if we are fifty two forty eight Republican, which is what we are right now and Joe Biden is sworn in as president, what kind of a rough couple of years? Yes, there are going to be squishy. Republicans wanting to make deals with the Democrats wanted to make deals with Joe Biden, that's gonna be a real issue and an I fully expect some terrible spending bills of a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there. I think there's
a real risk of a big amnesty bill. I'm very worried about that. I actually met yesterday with a number of leaders again illegal immigration, helping mobilise efforts to fight a Biden Amnesty if, if, if God forbid, we have by administration and an hour there republicans who would go along with that. Sadly, yes, in a heartbeat. Ah, so these fights will not be done if we have a narrow republican majority, but having the majority is enormously important, because if there's a shimmer majority there will be a massive tax increase there's a republican majority, we're not gonna have a massive tax increase. If there's a shimmer majority, the District of Columbia will become a state which will elect to new democratic senators. If there's a public and majority. Deasey is not becoming a state. If there's
humor majority. I think they will pack the. U S. Supreme court, though, add for new left wing justices to the Supreme Court. We ve talked about that allowed in this podcast. Obviously, my book, one vote away talks about the consequences of that. If there's a republican majority, the chances of packing the Supreme Court or zero point, zero. Zero percent ain't gonna happen. So the majority gives you ball control. What you can do is you can control what comes to the floor, so I'm not suggesting winning. Georgia will solve all our problems, but losing Georgia I think what we would likely create massive structural damage to the country rises. One of my favorite parts about doing the show is we get down into the detail, enter into the granular level, and often people just talk in all or nothing kind of terms, but what you are saying is yeah
having the majority doesn't give us everything. You might still get a ton of terrible legislation, especially with the swishes, but that there are certain fundamental pieces of legislation that have a zero percent chance of passing and that that is more than enough to keep me fighting last question this one. Actually, this question also, health risk actors who writes great questions. If I can this lawsuit Michael, is that you? I wish I'm not nearly clever enough at social media. Actually, if you like, worked on the account, a real risk cactus and it's just a car soon version of the actors from this show and very often adds his name to the the show title. So this shows actually called verdict with ten crews and cactus, but he wants to know this lawsuit between the states delay the final evaluation of the election or will we have a president? No matter what in January. You know who I know we ve got. These deadlines coming up, the electors are gonna vote, but JANET
comes along. Do we have a certainty on the present or not so in the ordinary course of things. Ah, we will have a net president, either a new president of the same president sworn in on January. Twenty a fact that that is the date set by law, a yellow, you can go through. All sorts of hypotheticals of the Supreme Court takes the case in issues of extraordinary order, but I think in. Nine hundred ninety nine out of a thousand universes work to know by January Twentieth, to paraphrase Jim, Harry from Dublin Dumber. What I'm hearing you say is we have a chance. If that's that's what I'm hearing, we will find it Obviously, these things are happening in real time. You are He was at the centre of this because the president has asked you to argue that this most recent case. If it goes to the court there, there is a lot happening. So I suppose we'll have to just come right back again and do another pod when we know more in the meantime, I Michael knows this is verdict with take root,
Transcript generated on 2020-12-19.