« Verdict with Ted Cruz

Ep. 67 - The Prosecution Rests


After much sound and fury, the Democrats have rested their case in the second impeachment "trial" of Donald Trump. Michael Knowles quizzes Senator Ted Cruz on what the heck is going on. Plus, the podcasting pals zoom out to cover cancel culture more broadly. Is the same nasty double standard the Left is using to cancel Trump responsible for the ouster of Gina Carano?

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
The Democrat House, impeachment managers have concluded their case against former president Trump. The second impeachment trial in one year of Donald Trump seems to be heading for it. Lucian and we are going to Big with a man who is watching at all is going to be a you're on the case and has spent most of today. Speaking with the Trump legal team, this verdict was dead welcome back to verdict with tat grace? I am Michael Knolls. It's funny that we are in the midst of this impeachment trial of the former president and the bigger news of the day would seem to be Disney firing, one of their big tv stars, Gina Cyrano. Other news cancel culture not just affecting the former president, but affecting a conservative journalists as well. We will get to all of them
but I do have to ask you senator what is going on today. I know that the they Democrats concluded their case, but, unlike last year it it seems like there's just not a lobbying reported. It seems I kind of an opaque process. We know you know how long this thing is. Gonna go so. Could you just briefly tell us about how that case concluded and then what the Trump legal demons thinking well sure I think that's. The kind of quick bottom line is that the Democrats failed to get the job done and then they run out of steam says so they were given sixteen hours. They were given eight hours both days. They ended up finishing warfare hours early today so so vague they quitted early, and I think it was because they had been number one unbelievably repetitive, making the same points over and over again fact. I had fun today, Clare Mc Caskey, member, the former democratic senator from Missouri tweeted out that that she thought the house managers case was getting really repetitive and redundant kept repeating its
she didn't quite did do that and I thought you would appreciate that an end, an ice. They are there and just hit retweet like with no monetary whatsoever. I'm just and I'm sure clear, like that. I was retweeting her, but she was right on that day, Many even his lap when she's right, she's right so they ran out of steam The bottom line is that you get the job done and so. Where are we now tomorrow? The president's defence lawyers will present their case. They have a total of sixteen hours over two days. They will not take all that time. They will take substantially less time than that, and so after we finish today,. when sat down with the lawyers, I do actually grabbed Linsey, Graham and I grab MIKE, lay and said: hey, let's, go sit down and just talk through with lawyers, what their planning and give our thoughts and then so the three of us went in
President's defence team there at their meeting in the L B, J Room, which is actually the room where in non covert times this minority has lunch so therein we'll be our lunchroom. Sadly, we weren't in the Abbey J Room for the last six years, but we will have moved back to the elder J Room once cope. It is over raw with this sort of smirking portrait of L b J. Looking down on its right off the side of the Senate floor, and so what happened. Linsey shared his thoughts MIKE shared his thoughts. I I'm in a refrain from saying what they had say, but I am happy to tell you and and and vertical listeners what I had to say,
I would like to know sort of your your advice for the legal team, because I know, on the one hand, people are thinking. Look this cases over, as you made, I think, very clear. Last night it ain't goin anywhere there they're not going to convict trump and in so as a practical matter up there, obviously not going to move on from office, because that's not possible and they're not gonna, convict anyway, but is a historical matter that this really does matter. I mean there's. This is setting a new president. Yes, that you know this could have huge political effects the future of the arguments they make are going to reduce, write history, there's no doubt an and we ve had two days of the Democrats pounding their narrative, and so there needs to be a counter story. When I started out, saying is actually what you just as I said lucky, you gotta remember you ve already one. There are not sixty seven votes to convict there. There are fifty five votes to convict plus minus two. I think there is a low of fifty three. I think there's a high
fifty seven and an that's really the ban that's in play, so my opening advice was don't, do anything to screw up dope. You know, don't piss any went off in a related to that my advice would be com. I thought the jurisdictional argument for president trumps lawyers. At times they got a little hot, they got a language, and- and I encourage them, be com- be reasonable. Be rational, though, with where put it, as I said, think more like a pellet argument, like your arguing to Supreme Court
stresses and less like a jury argument, so we'll see if they follow through. On that that the most important advice I had said look, we ve had two days of a Democrat House managers, arguments and, and ninety percent of what they ve done, has focused on being emotional and powerful and telling the story of what happened on January. Six telling the story of the assault, the attack on the capital, telling the story of the police officers, who are physically assaulted, telling the story of of officer sick Nick who was murdered that day an end. I gotta say they did it powerfully the Democrats. They have some good trial lawyers. They have some good story tellers an end so as they told that story over and over
in it it was powerful and effective. That was ninety percent of their argument and my advice to the Trump lawyers as disagree with none of it looked yes, we agree everyone in this jury. All the senators were here that day it was a horrific tat terrorist attack. It was despicable and anyone who committed crimes of violence that they should be fully prosecuted and locked up a long long time. Don't argue with about that that that is indisputably true. Every one in the in the Senate understands that believes that, and everyone agrees on the only question before the Senate is whether President Trump committed. High crimes are misdemeanours and there's only one that discharge, and that is incitement. Incitement to violence- and I pointed out in the entire Sixteen hours they had allocated the Democratic House managers devoted about fifteen minutes to that question, and it was the second to last speech
the house managers gave was congressmen from my Colorado's, actually talented trial lawyer, who got up and spent about fifteen its laying out the legal argument why they believe this constitutes an incitement. To be honest, it's the only relevant moment fact. I said the entire time. It's there. Tom I pulled out. Notepad made any notes, because it was the only time they actually said anything relevant to the question before the body. What the house managers articulated was a three part standard for incitement. They said number one was violence. Foreseeable number two. Did President Trump encourage the violence and number three was the president's conduct wilful. So I wrote those three down an point I made to the trump lawyers I said. First of all, you'll notice. Those three elements are not found anywhere in a statute there, not Eleanor
of a crime that they're they're not actually the elements of incitement they're, not fair, In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court case that that talks about incitement lays out the constitutional standard they literally just made em up that's a very strange way. The prosecutor crime, as I said, look Gill the lawyers on the defence team had been either. Prosecutors are criminal defence lawyers, where prosecutor proceeds, if they are charging you with it with a crime, there are statutory elements of the crime. Here's what constitutes the crime in the prosecutor sets out to prove each of the elements of the crime. That's not in fact how the house managers proceeded here because they can meet the statutory elements for insight, and so they just made these three up
Ok, those are the three they made up. I said: look I'd start by pointing out. Where did these come from? They literally just pulled about a whole cloth, but then here's the critical point at Saint looked on any standard. The question for the Senate to assess is: is there any coherent way? This test can distinguish between the conduct of Donald Trump versus the conduct of countless other political figures, including a whole bunch, a Democrat right right and- and I said, look I think you should walk through in particular, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck, humor, Maxine Waters calmly Harris Nancy Pelosi. She referred to police officers, a storm troopers compared him, it's not right
you know, there's some rich irony that suddenly the Democrats are the defenders of copies, of course here where, for a year they been vilified, demonizing police officer, they ve been marching against cops. They ve been saying, abolish the police, they ve been saying, abolish ice. They been embracing a c a b as a slogan. And Michael, you know what I see as being either all cap cops are Bower, bastards, right, yeah, that's, and that has been the democratic base that they ve been smuggling up with. They don't get
suddenly be the grand defenders of police officer. I you know I love this senator this. I guess two points here in this advice that a lot of Republicans have have not recognised, which has one don't always beyond the defensive. You can go on the offensive, arrogant point at inconsistency and use the Democrats, words against him, but but you may be, even more importantly, you don't have to accept their ridiculous premises. You know that the early premise that is actually a bit the Democrats are trying to get these Republicans to buy into Is that somehow Republicans support riots at the capital? I dont know any serious Republicans who say I'll I loved when their eye in the bowl horns wrote walked in their he's. My guy, where can I vote for him, and likewise I mean you ve, just spelled it out so perfectly on under the question of incitement. If I look, I'm I'm not a constitutional law scholar, I am not a lawyer of of
sort. If, if I were just listening, but you did stand a holiday unless I- but I did did you know if I were just listening to them- lay out the standard for incitement
that was our guy sounds by right. I mean I don't know what the real standard is. So if, if the legal team can go in there- and I wait a second I just so, you all know they completely made that up out of whole cloth. That is not the actual standard for incitement. There is no reason for us to accept premises that have been crafted purely to put us at a disadvantage. We're gonna talk about the law, we're gonna talk about what what is so always been true. You know what the long standing standard here for incitement, that that seems much more effective than just going along with with what the Democrats trying to lead them. I think that's exactly ride and and and what I encourage the trump learn to do is say I take their standard and apply it to the conduct of Democrats. Let's take, for example, Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders uses all sorts of hot incendiary rhetoric and annual recall. We had a crazed lunatic, a leftist who was an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter who came to Washington D C
With with an eight hour, fifteen went and sought out the congressional baseball game practice asked: are they Democrats and Republicans their Republicans ass? He went to kill republican members of Congress to senators, their ran pollen Jeff Lake that there were a dozen or so house members there and he opened fire on them an end, and it was only the coincidence that Steve's police happened to be there, so Steve's police as a member of house leadership. So his detail was there and there were capital police officers who engaged with his crazed, lunatic and stop them, but they didn't stop him before he had shot Steve's gullies and nearly killed her many states months in the hospital I mean it was a serious wound, Steve for many months after that could couldn't walk, was on crutches, he's doing much better now, but it was a life through
Ning injury and an end all right. Let's take their three standards was violence foreseeable while well, given the rhetoric Bernie was using and encourage them in a play. Video show the rhetoric burning was using. He said, they're trying to take your house healthcare away and wants you to die. Ok is violence foreseeable from that did burning, encourage it Yet I guarantee you Bernie. Has the rhetoric saying go fight? Stop it go, has exactly the kind of rhetoric Donald Trump used. and then was it wilful under that standard, Barneys conduct apparently as incitement. I guess gonna start the removal proceedings for Bernie Sanders. Maxine waters who told her support, You see a Republican go harass, them engage them yell at surround the money that is in by inviting violence by the way. Corey Booker did the same thing and the most compelling chuck humour on on the steps of the Supreme Court calling out to Supreme Court Justice.
By name and saying you unleash the whirlwind: you're gonna pay the price, but the central example in what I encourage them to make it exactly side by side. Is Harris so calmly, Harris did a couple of things. number one as we had black lives matter and anti for rights all over the country. We have violence going on. We had police cars being firebomb, we had police cars, police officers being murdered, commonly Harris, went on Stephen Colbert and was asked about. It said this is a move in its powerful and she said, and it needs to keep going right and it won't, and then it shouldn't end and it shouldn't, and she explicitly encourage that- and this was by the way after the violence after the riots, not only that, but she raised money for bail money to bail out and by the way wasn't bailing out the peaceful protesters. The people who were arrested were the people committing acts of violence.
Literally, raised bail money to support the violent criminals and aren't let's look at the three standards. This is apparently the standard for incitement was violence foreseeable. It was going on right that then it was not only for US Will it was blazing the obvious and indisputable because it was happening as she was speaking, she never knew full well. Did she encourage it? She explicitly said yes, it needs to go on. Was it wilful? She raised money, supporting the violent criminals and end. There is no coherent way with the stand. House Democrats have put forward can conclude that Trump committed incitement commonly Herriston eat. You can conclude, rightly that neither committed the crime of incitement. That's actually the right answer. Or you can use their made up standard, in which case right after we finish,
Donald Trump, I guess we're gonna start in impeachment. Proceeding a vice president camel here right right, but you don't get both at and by the way under their standards in a lot of ways. Kamel is behaviour was worse, as, as I told him to ask, I said lesson last. I check Donald Trump isn't raising bail money for the violent criminals,
Their whole bunch people have been arrested, he's not raising bail money for them. She raise money for them. So if it is- and this is another important point I made Michael so that the house managers put a lot of emphasis on- did President Trump do enough to stop the riot once Tappitt ditty, denounce it D. Tell him to stand down, and I said: look you guys got it aside, Us President's lawyer what you think about that. Frankly, I wish he done more when I, when I look back at what he said that day, I wish he had been clearer. More unequivocal, sank. Stop this right, now immediately go home and Lee there were lotta republicans calling on him to do that. I wish he had been clear, but we
in an hour or two. He sent out a tweet telling him to stand down. He put out a video calling on them to stand down, so he did in fact tell him to stand. I wish it had been clear and more unequivocal, but he didn't fact do a camel hair still hasn't done it get it right. We had this week and teeth and black wise matter, protesters marching in DC, saying burn the place down. She still hasn't told them to stand down, and so, if that's the test, did you tell him to stand down after the violence? Erruptive look what we had in the chairs autonomous zones we had Democrats defending it called the summer of love. Remember that just harmless yes, bill, are being murdered, but its harmless, because we are
politically, with those guys up an end, and so what I urge the Trump legal team is to calmly without emotion. Just compare the conduct of Democrats, what the conduct of the president and under the standard, their laying out either we're gonna start impeaching dozens of people or ain't nobody guilty of because this is a made up political persecution, which is again the right answer to what's up. You know that I think this is great advice, not just for the impeachment trial, though it is, but but just generally speaking, reject their false premises and hold them to their own standards, because in this is so much bigger than impeachment Frank,
I think impeachment isn't even the biggest new story right now. It'll have historical implication, so so we really have to focus on it, but the bigger stories right now involve cancel culture more broadly, not just to cancelling the former president, but cancelling tv stars, cancelling journalists- and we ve seen this with Gina Cyrano, who is in the star wars, show the man Delorean a Disney has fired her because of their accused of making anti semitic comments. I've read all the comments. I can't find even a hint of Anti Semitism in any of them. Really. I think they're going after her because, broadly speaking, she's been little more conservative she's been little more right wing and they can tolerate that are so they're going after her. We ve just found out that James, ok,
The investigative journalist, a real thorn in the side of the liberal establishment he's been permanently kicked off of twitter because it turns out he's now the running investigations on big tech companies. What what these people have been ostracised foreign censored for, would absolutely fall apart. If you help the left. To that same standard seems there's one set of rules for conservatives, another one for liberals, but that's a world we live in. What what are we supposed to do about it? Look I think you're exactly right would happily Carano is not some number one. You have a strong kickass character of the the Delorean which which lots of kids, especially little girls, are, are inspired by and an end made. You know Helpmate STAR more fun. It's always been fun and look. I grew up on star wars. I still remember standing in line with my dad on opening
of empire, strikes back and we stood in line for two hours to see empire. The first day it opened up Disney this day is not the company it used to be Disney. Is a giant corporates politically correct propaganda? Outfit an end you look at here, so I haven't read all of the blog posts that that that Jana Krona put up I've, I've seen eye, looked for it online. It was hard to find, but I read stories, quoting excerpts habits. It read the excerpts that were quote
the stories and what I read that she posted ass. She was saying: look if you looked at that the rise of the Nazis in Germany, an and all of the horrific things that happened to the jewish people that culminated in six million Jews being being murdered in concentration camps that began and because the Nazis demonize the Jews, they dehumanize the jewish state. They they and used rhetoric that caused ordinary Germans, not SS storm troopers, but a baker or in our storekeeper to view the Jews as as sub human, it is not human too, to inculcate hatred and in her point, was that hatred, yes in a rapid and in the hall, refit grotesquely evil genocide that was carried out by the Nazis, but it also manifested in day to day
barbaric any humanity because they had been dehumanized an end. from what I read her blog posts. She was saying you know what we're seeing that's aim dehumanizing happening in America, where people are demon, raising their other rising their political opponents? That than if you disagree, you, you are not via its valid for you to have a different point of view. Now, from what I read, she didn't say that we become Nazi Germany, she didn't say were erecting concentration camps, but because she simply made the point that spreading a culture of hate and dehumanizing is really dangerous and leads in bad directions. Disney described her com as abhorrence, and I was like saying we shouldn't hate each other and dehumanize each other. What what Missing, unless they're portions, of the blog posts that work quoted in the stories then given the stories are credit
I'm assuming they included wherever the worst portions were. This is there's an irony that she's complaining we're becoming hateful and intolerant of day. Princes and opinions and what is Disney say we hate your opinion, your fire. It would seem to me there is this even deeper irony here, which is it may be that the best way I can read Disney statement? Is there saying that any comments that makes any comparison to Nazi Germany is unacceptable as important? We can't. We cannot tolerate that sort of thing, and ok, let's just take that standard for what it is, am I wrong or, as the left not spent the past five years, calling Donald Trump literally Hitler, why they call him Hitler? They refer to do seventy five million Americans is Nazis NEO Nazis regularly, so they they make the exact same of analogy an end before Trump they called George W Bush Hitler thereat their standard. Any
Publican they dislike, they call Hitler now my view is you shouldn't actually call people Hitler unless they in fact, genocidal maniacs that are murdering millions of people right. There is a unique like like in in Dantes circles of of Hell there is a unique hell. The Nazis are the most grotesque example of of evil, in in certainly modern times and may be ever look, there is reason. Why never forget? Has such power there's a reason why holocaust museums are important because it's worth reflecting on the absolute inhumanity? You know you look at Hanner aunt to who you know wrote on what led to to the to the evil. That is the Nazis and she had a phrase that there was really powerful the banality of evil and an end at its worth reflect
and she really she talked about how it's not just you know, someone cackling with horns and a red tail like so obviously evil that that yet you're like okay. This is this is a crazy bad guy. It was the boring aspect she talked about. I think it was Eichmann how, when he testified that Nuremberg he's a sound like an accountant that it will, isn't it wasn't Hannibal Lecter in silence of the lambs too, to sort of mixed references. It wasn't like. You know why there's giant eyes on the screen, you're like, oh god, that guy's really creepy an evil, but it a boring account yeah simply carrying out Hitler's quote final solution. Jane to murder six million people. It was it's worth asking what conditions?
Add to use another movie. You know Schindler's list, which is one of the greatest movies ever I love Schindler's list, but it talks about how it in a different world. These people would be regular ordinary people and yet the conditions of evil made them all complicit. In this grotesque, horror. We should ask what causes that to happen and from what I read. That's that's what Gina was doing the right I mean just you know, take then the Nazi comparison out, because that seems to be what they are objecting to that just the circumstances. The end date broader point that Gina was making I've seems to be perfectly true. I don't know, I don't know how you could disagree with that, and this is you know it's not just in an enemy jumping Jumpin record Michael there's also a broader pattern of evil, which is the dehumanizing anyone.
Defining them to no longer qualify as human in area Billy leads to horrific oppression, and so it was in a girl to what the Nazis did, but it was also in a world of slavery and a new look at at all of the reasoning that that was used to justify the mythic evil that was slavery in Amerika. It was based on the proposition dread. Scott. The Supreme Court decision was based on the proposition. At an african American was not a human being, but instead was defined as as property, and that is incorrect really dangerous, and it leads to grotesque oppression and evil and- and you and I have talked about this before where that is also the justification that is used to justify abortion. the San unborn child is not a human being that any time you are taking and if it leads to today's democrats justifying things like part
birth, abortion, delivering a child whose living and an end with cold blood taking their life. All of those begin with saying the person in question is not a person, and that is a really dangerous step. One of an analysis, because step too is is invariably rifts, and you know we ve been hearing for on the topic of other icing or dehumanization. Half the country called deplorable irredeemable they'll be going back to about a bitter clinkers right. You know these people who basically ought to be asked receives from society, were now seeing this ostracism manifest through cancel cultures that people lose their jobs. They lose their platforms yeah through the censorship through the deep through actual deeply forming on the social media platforms. The.
Cancellation of journalists, James O Keefe, would be a good example of this. It seems to be an that's outrageous by the way that the fact that that that that social media and James O Keefe look James, O Keefe, the guy has done incredible, undercover journalism and they may not like that. He's exposed what people on the laughter doing, including exposing big tech by the way. This is a protect their own asses stem because he's uncovered the corruption, a big tech, and so there like well, let's just muslim than that
You know this is trying to silence a whistle blower b because he gets whistleblowers and he engages in an undercover tactics which, by the way, sixty minutes does other rationalistic outlets do, but the differences that big tech agrees with their politics. So that's great, but if you disagree with their politics, this is the left is trying to consolidate power in their systematically trying to silence every single dissenting voice, and I think this word banality is very important because that the way there you're doing it, but what has really
pressed me most about it- is how steady it is, how gradual? It's not you know, people jumping out what the devil horns leg. It's just this slow, more and more people being kicked off of social media not being permitted to even work or not being permitted to go to those loitering a frog. Yes, it is boiling a frog, and you know that this gets to a mail bag question that I was hoping to get to last night, but obviously there is a lot like going on with the trial. This is from right minded. Usa, who asks is referring to that time magazine article where liberal establishment Arians basically said there was a conspiracy in the twenty twenty election was right before our eyes, those all these groups kind of working to make the situation were absent ages to Democrats. He says, in light of that time article that detailed the collusion between the F Elsie IO, big tack in the Chamber of Commerce, to win the twenty twenty election. What does the senator
The GEO, p and conservative should be doing right now to build something to counteract it in twenty twenty two and, more importantly, in twenty twenty four look, it's a great question and in and that article was chilling number one time magazine was celebrating that you had the titans of industry, the fortune, five hundred ceos teaming up with big tech and then teaming up with the Big Union bosses, all of them together, saying, let's work together to make sure Donald Trump can't win this election work together did to hand this election over to Joe Biden and by the way. Anyone who said this before the election has said that that that the fix was in would get ridiculed is a crazy conspiracy, theorist and then afterwards Time magazine said: oh look: how wonderful to fix was in. Aren't we happy because we're part of the people engaged in this? Look, I think, as conservatives we need to be not naive.
You- and I did alive episode in in Miami last weekend, and our big theme was big, is bad. Big business is bad. Big government is bad. Big Tec is bad. Any big accumulation of power and money be used here. You know it's like Lord ACT and sad power corrupts absolute power, corrupts absolutely giant. Corporal Asian name me one fortune, one hundred ceo, who is actually a courageous concern, we'd, be here all night. It doesn't it's why in fact they were, willing to get in bed with their ostensible adversary the union bosses to preserve power. I think the answer is we ve got to empower the people, we gotta go around big tech. I think the answer. Frankly, as things
the podcast, I think the answer is finding ways to empower the people and into focus on small businesses. Look. It is the small businesses that that you know the economist Schumpeter talked about creative Ruction. I'm look, I'm interested in small entrepreneurs, people better shattering the status quo and Anne and frankly there are more of us than there are of them. They are willing to use power to hold on to control, but there is a common sense conservative corps. In this country and we gotta develop ways to mobilise, educate, energize and turn them out. That's how we fight against it, because you better believe they ve done it once they're gonna, keep doing it again and again, those with power want to hold on to power in the only way to stop him is to take it away
on them and the only thing powerful to do that as the people. You know, you're you're going to be accused of being a populist for saying these sorts of things. But what you are saying is such an important point and is something that has driven me crazy about the GEO P four years, which is they have all too often cosy up to these big business, and they make as it is these oligarchy who hate our values, who often have very little while tee to the country who who push radical leftism, who abuse their power, who are cronies and crooks very often and there's nothing. Particular conservative about that you know, get concern as once understood that big, I'm limited power is a danger to the people into constitutional government, whether it's in a government bureaucracy or whether its corporate bureaucracy, I think that's exactly right and and then there's another dynamic. Look, I'm not interested in attacking a company, that's a job creator and trying to destroy them. I like jobs. I
many jobs as possible, but if you look at what happens with big business, they almost invariably get in bed with big government. There's a reason big business wants. Joe Biden wants socialism cause they profit. And, in my view, a big business, and I look. I work with lots. Companies, lots of employers, as I say, if you want to see if you want a subsidy, if you want corporate welfare, if you want a special handout, I ain't your guy. We shouldn't be in the business of corporate welfare and if that incorporation doesn't mean, I want to go out and try to destroy businesses that are giving people good livelihoods. But you know the big companies of the world, they don't need governments help. Also what big business does it's, not just that they want subsidies and and welfare. They want government to hammer the little guys so big business
goes to governments. As you know, the only thing that can beat us as some upstart small business that might challenge us. Can you shut him down and an end that pattern it? It is their both focused on maintaining the power of the status quo and an end its look. Conservatives who believe in the free market there's something revolutionary about the free market. You look at socialist countries and communist countries there are giant companies that are the status quo. Nothing changes when government is control of the economy. Whoever's in charge stays in charge. It is about maintaining power. There is a a chaos that that state a state in a free market society, but that's incredibly good for prosperity and opportunity because it means list guys can achieve great things. You don't have to be born into the lucky sperm club of just happening. To me, you know
I was born in the right family, so woohoo I get to be a duke or what have you it? Instead, it is you succeed based on the content of your character. I did not anticipate the phrase lucky sperm club coming up on the show tonight, but I think the point is Very very important, and this this is really what about joint and by the way of if we do get sponsors and advertisers. Let's turn them down. If, if that is actually like it, if you dont have a seat club led led. Let us not forget that one is that whether they have no place on this show, but you know that that is really. What we're talking about here is the future, because this impeachment trial this whole thing- that's happening right now. This feels like we're just stuck in mud that is coming to an end and then we'll have to look to the future, a future for the conservative movement and a future for the country in and Michael two things to go back where we started
two things. Just to close out on of advice that I gave the trump lawyers number one. I said that the house managers keep using the the word insurrectionist and my advice to the trump lawyers that don't repeat that. I would refer to them either as rioters or violent criminals and end. The reason is: look. Insurrection actually has a definition under the law. An insurrection is an organised. It's like a revolution it it is designed to to overturn the government and to take over the country. That's the democratic political narrative. It's why they keep using erectness insurrectionists insurrectionists its by the way why they also apologise four and brush under the rug, the writer who were burning cities all across the country as they saw while they're, not insurrectionists, they're, just murderous murderers or pay for peaceful protestors, and my
my side, I told the trumpeters look, don't make the argument about whether their insurrectionists or not, that that is quicksand, just don't buy into the democratic raising of terms just call them what they are, unquestionably, which is violent criminals and then and then a second thing that I told them, as I said, look sitting on the republican side of the Senate floor and talking with a lot of the republican senators. As I have been hearing this trial, a sentiment that is very widely felt is real frustration with the Democrats of there Parker, see an end to hypocrisy is writ, shall you know I mentioned before how their waxing eloquently about how much they love police officers after spending a year demonizing cops. One of the house managers did a presentation of protesters who showed up at the house, and I think it was the Michigan Secretary of State
and that use high dungeon just can you believe they would come to the house? How terrible that is- and I gotta tell you most of the republican senators we ve had protesters coming to our house right. I had a couple of weeks ago, protesters put three a full size coffins in my front yard, while Heidi was at home and well, my kids were at school and an end. Virtually all of us have had this happened. Susan Collins, leftist protesters dropped off. I think it was hundreds of body bag, and her home not only that they threatened both Susan Collins and her staff with sexual assault. They threatened to rape them. Eric swore well, is one of the house impeachment managers when they did that he tweeted out in response to the threats of rape against Susan Collins and her staff. He tweeted out boo hoo.
I may a river. These guys, the hypocrisy and, by the way Susan remembers that yeah Why, when were listening to these Democrats Molly decry. Oh, we don't like people coming to your house. I actually agree that you shouldn't be coming to any right: public officials thousand terrorizing their family engage in a free speech and the public square, but leap people's families in homes alone. But the Democrats, don't they remained silent and not just silent. They cheered it on when it's their leftist borders harassing others, and now suddenly they discovered virtue- and I think I tomorrow in in the president, lawyers presentation we're going to see the theme of hypocrisy coming out, prepared briefly- and I think that will resonate, certainly among republican senators. It's it's something
that a lotta republican centres. When we sit down for lunch before the trial, a lot of us thinking and in an pretty irritated with the holy or than thou since we're getting from the house managers? Well, if that advice can in any way persuade the this legal team and the Republicans more broadly to hold Democrats to their own standards, that will be a massive step forward, an advantage. We have to leave it there, but we will get into a whole lot more. I assume, depending and how long it takes to finally acquit bread, a president rub former president from impeachment trial of a now private citizen, we will obviously breakdown more of that. Thank you to everyone for subscribing. If you haven't already subscribed, be sure to subscribe to verdict wherever you get your podcast, be that you tube apple pie, guessed at your Google play Spotify we'll be there
with a whole lot more and meantime. I Michael knows this is verdict with TED groups.
Transcript generated on 2021-08-16.