« Verdict with Ted Cruz

Ep. 73 - What Just Went Down


Senator Ted Cruz joins Michael Knowles straight from the Hill, where a lot of things just happened that you probably didn’t hear about. The Senator introduces forty six—yes, really—amendments to the Democrats' precious Corrupt Politicians Act. Is this top priority for Democrats—S. 1 and H.R. 1—one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever introduced on the floor of the United States Congress? Also, what the hell is a "ghost gun?" Democrats may have finally lost it as they create a made-up term to describe a made-up problem. Plus, does Senator Cruz have a Hill digital director job in his future? Twitter says yes.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
A lot went down on capital held today, a lot of work, you probably didn't hear about, but one man was there to do. The job of many key refuted Democrats arguments for appending our election system. He shot down Democrats arguments for taking all of our guns, and most impressively of all he tweeted the whole time. I'm Michael noses verdict with take root. senator crews. I want you're everything that happened today. It seemed as if you were in multiple places at once hearing on guns, hearing on the corrupt politicians, act and There was a charge that well you tweeting during all of this that it was just your staff sorted weeding on your behalf. While you were in the Senate, you have to ask: I know you'll shoot straight here, were you one tweeting, oh yeah, that was me I was live twitting the outlook
when you're in a room with senators your droning on and on and on, particularly when their reading from like staff has written a couple of pages of like text for them to read it. It's a little bit like the student and Charlie listening to the teacher, and the teacher goes want. Why? Why? Why? Why why? Why and the truth of the matter is most senators or on their phones and our scrolling through email or texts or this being the sole media world than it is. I was on twitter and then, of course, some lefty publication saw me on Twitter c span and so tweeted about me being on Twitter on C span, and so I promptly retweeted them and said yup, that's exactly right and they were sort of surprise, go and wholly free does he retweeting us? Yes, I am and, and in fact they made fun of makers, Amy Clover Charles give some long, long speech that that I suppose somebody somewhere listen to, but but nobody in the room did
and and and they were frock- that I was on my phone for that nice too said. Well, she still reading her statement, even after your tweet well you obviously, where many hats you're a Senator Europe POD cast host. You are often looking produce run the show. So I am not at all surprised here that it was actually you on Twitter so you were covering. I she I mean we're joking about the twitter of an all, but it is. important that you were communicating as in shedding light on what was going on you, you, you were in multiple places, him looking in it and there's value to that, I was so the day started off. To tv studio and did did Fox news in the morning to talk about the market that was coming on on Hr Water S, one which is the big election federal take over of elections bill. That is the top priority for Democrats aunt and what we had to day was once called the mark up. The mark up is when you actually takes
bill, and you consider amendments to it and, and the Rules Committee in the Senate is 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, 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, tat I'd like you to lead the fight against this and and that sort of, like you know, throw me in that Briar patch. I am eager to defend the first amendment, 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 mark,
started at ten a m and it wrapped up about seven p m. So it went about nine hours straight and during the core that we had a wine or no 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- and I do hope and think that the market today highlighted just how extreme just how partisan the bill is an ant, and I think the Democrats ended up casting some really bad votes today that that that underscores their top priority is staying in power. What this bill is all about as keeping Democrats in power for the next hundred years, and then there really try rigged the game to do that, and- and- and I think the most important function of the mark up today was to highlight how they're doing you, so you you mention here the campaign finance angle. I did actually you
What surprised me, because I had forgotten how broad this It is when I think of ass. One hr one were calling it. The corrupt politicians act the In my mind, this was about changing the rules for congressional elections and and federalism 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. Dick nurse, could you just take us for a little bit of specifically that portion, but what sort of all that all the pieces of this legislation short that show this thing, 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. change elections to make sure that Democrats always win. What is the bill? Do let me, let's start with: what does it mean HR? Wonder ass one? Nobody knows what that means.
nature one means it is the very first bill filed by democratic leadership in the house. S gone means as the first bill filed by democratic leaders, leadership, the Senate? It means there it's their number one priority and, and so just pause for a second and think about what the Democrats are telling you their top priority, isn't cove id? It's not vaccinations. It's not jobs, start reopening schools, their top priority is staying in power and at that time Everything else now. What is this bill? Do well it federalized elections. It puts the federal government in charge of elections across this country. One of the things it does is look would get. Fifty states states generally administer elections and they pay 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? Let's hear hear some examples: voter Idee, twenty nine states require some four but the unification about you think about it. It's a common sense provision. Seventy percent of american support photo I d for voting by the way. That's true. Ah, sixty percent of Democrats support photos ie for voting. The seventy seven percent of independence support photo. I d for voting. Sixty percent of african american support photo I d for voting. What is it? politicians act. Do it repeals every one of those laws it makes it illegal for a state require voter Idee, likewise ballot harvesting, art. What is ballot harvesting and it is a particular care practice, where you send them a paid political operative to collect the balance of other peoples. But why is that corrupt? Well
because let's say you have had an operative from the Dnc, the Democratic National Committee. Who goes into a nursing home, we have a bunch of people or else 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 Odd, because number one they can prompt the people devote the way. The operative wants him to number two: Operative, sees how they vote. Let 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 track. It is dangerous when you have an employee of the police campaign handling the ballots of other people. That's why thirty one state either prohibit or restrict ballot harvesting. What is the corrupt politicians active
it repeals every one of those restrictions and mandates ballot harvest. Likewise, this bill, mandate? Universal melon, ballots, mandates boxes everywhere, both of which are very susceptible to fraud, it also provides for welfare for politicians as one of the more egregious elements of it that it, lives for a six to one federal government. Match more money raised in increments under two under dollar, so few race to utter dollars? The federal government 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 in need of subsidies in need of support policy genes are really near the bottom of the list and I'll tell you Michael
the provision that I think is is most naked. That makes most obvious what the Democrats are doing is the Federal Election Commission. It was establish after water two Watergate. Was a big scandal campaign financed scandal. They could the Federal Election Commission in the nineteen seventies. It's a bipartisan commission. There are three democratic commissioners. Three republican commissioners raised did that is they wanted it to be, for the Effie see to act it had to be by partisan agreement. You had to get at least four commissioners mean had to get at least one from the opposing parties. What is the corrupt politicians act? Do it turns into a partisan organization it it? It leaves it with three democratic dinners and only two republican commissioners, which means the Effie see, becomes essentially the attack dog for trucks, humor, and, and it's designed what what the intention of this would be, is to use it to target, to persecute, to invest
two gate Republicans and by the way to do it in all likely heard a month or two before the election right when their vulnerable to have an October. Surprise of whatever republican and a close race, the Chuck humor federal election, she 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 I've been you know, reading the headlines on this bill and but when you see all laid out, all of these things. It's it's such a major bill, and yet that's not all you were doing to back. There was another major issues a while the Democrats are trying to rammed down, which I think you put it very well, the most radical legislation you ve seen in Europe in your time, their approach perhaps rivalled 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 to the provisions that are most dangerous and corrupt politicians act, so why 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, You go to a State college university, your item, Technically registered to vote now that is intended. Two and will in fact of its enacted register, Millions of illegal aliens to vote because there are anywhere from eleven. The twenty million illegal aliens in the country, the estimates very a large say, a significant percentage of that group. We don't have an exact estimate, but it is in the millions by anyway you assess it is energy. 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
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 you're right devote what is the corrupt politicians It strikes tat every one of those laws, it says criminals. The instant there released from jail, can vote and the reason for this is is Democrats have decided, I think, quite reasonably that having millions of illegal aliens vote and thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals and felons vote on that Those individuals are likely to vote for Democrats and it will benefit Democrats. This is all about keeping Democrats in power so in the course of the day in the mark. Up, as I said, I had forty six amendments. I introduced an amendment to provide that before any one is automatically registered. To vote yes if I citizenship that you're not ready
bring someone illegal. Of course, every Democrat voted. No. That amendment was voted down another amendment, so a portion of this law grants amnesty grants, immunity to any illegal alien whose illegally register devout, because the automatic registration look the bill anticipates millions of illegal aliens are registered about, and so great amnesties. Is there not liable there? There's no criminal liability, no civil liability. There completely immune from any exe closure for being illegally registered about. I the 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 also when they are they'll get amnesty for that in the same bill, it is in the same bill. The Democrats argued
no illegal aliens will be registered to vote. I said great, then you should vote for my moments. If it's not registering anyone, then you are welcome these an Amazon. Gonna know we can't. We can't have the have the amendment. So I introduced a narrow amendment. Just say: let's get rid of the Amnesty Eve if nobody's registered illegally, devote what's the value of creating a special amnesty for bluer legally registered vote, every Democrat vote. No, they voted it down on the criminals are adhered to. 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 hide Smith and it was an amendment focused on child molesters and it said people that commit crimes against children States can prevent them foreboding and why-
other things I did going into this meeting. I sat down before that before the mark. Up with with much Mcconnell, I sat down with Roy Blonde who's. The ranking Republican in the committee- and we lay out a strategy for fighting this, and so I drafted a whole bunch of amendments in one of the things I dish gave a number of amendments to other republican senators for them to drive forward. So Cindy. Hide Smith Centre for Mississippi, introduce this amendment that that that said, if you ve committed a crime against children, states can prevent you from voting miraculously Michael This amendment passed an Angus king who is an independent from main, although he votes exactly like a Democrat, he voted yes and I'm apparent and Sophie commit a crime against kids states can say you 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 now AIDS. The enlightened views of child molesters is not high on the list, so once Angus voted for that,
and he's like well, you not can have a whole bunch of other amendments on the other crimes and I said, will you I do have a whole bunch of others, but I'll just do what so I pulled up mine which was murders. I said Hey you agreed child molesters states can say they can vote, have up murders, people convicted of the felony, a murder Angus, bout. It noted that the Democrats voted it down. So every democratic. The committee voted that it should be illegal for stay? to say, murderers, can't about that. That's how radical these guys are well it's not even to say he's, but people will you're, not confuse the Federalist not at all, all you're suggesting here is that states should have the right to determine what their hurry on murderers convert doubt the even that was too much for it. For the Democrats, to be clear. My amendments were not required a standard whether it is photo idea for voting, whether it is boring criminal
from voting under the constitution. The principal responsibility for those decisions are the states now I will say this: discussing it. There is an argument that some on the right or making, which is that this whole bill, is unconstitutional, actually think that argument is probably not right that the way the constitution is draft the states have significant results, Stability for structuring elections, but Congress also has the authority to to promulgate standards, and so it's a concurrent jurisdiction so I think it is that I don't think it's a valid argument to say: Congress can't legislate here. What I do think is is a valid argument. Is that Congress shouldn't be repealed the laws of twenty nine states when it comes to voters Idee 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 sex,
This is an important point, because there are a lot of conservatives. I think who just want to say how. Well we don't need to worry too much, because the courts will strike it down and so you're making the point actually That might not be a bullet proof argument, but then there is also the practical political, reality here, which is that when we rely on the court's very often were disappointed so probably were wouldn't want to fight against this now. Well, on it's worse than that, I dont think the courts will strike the style and inheres. Why? If the corrupt palette politicians act passes into law, it will be because the Democrats have ended the filibuster because they have rammed it through and fifty votes. It will be because Joe Mansion Kristen Cinema gave it. If that happens, the Democrats will also pack the U S: Supreme Court. They'll, put four left wing justices on the court and a pact Supreme Court with four left wing
Our services will uphold the corrupt politicians act. So the current Supreme Court would certainly strike down significant elements of this bill, but a pact Supreme Court with four new leftwing justices will rubber stamp this and, and so the filibuster it 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 at really break it hadn't into two baskets. What is bad policy? They want to do things that are just bad policy, massively high taxes, massively higher relations, open borders. Mass trillions of dollars and spending all of that is bad, its harmful, but that can be undone. If republicans take majorities again, we can cut taxes again, we cut regulations, we try to cut spending other Dorothy that's harder to do, but bad palace.
can be undone, there's a whole Cepit separate category that the Democrats are trying to do. That is rigging the game that is changing, the rules and an what falls into that HR one. The corrupt politicians act making DC a state to get to new democratic centre, and packing the? U S Supreme Court and those, designed to China It is the rules because I think Democrats believe if they enact those they stay in power. The next hundred years. That Republicans can't an 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 That is a political weapon going after Republicans, at the behest of of Chuck humor. They believe, I think, quite reasonably that that will ensure they win for a long time to combat that. That's why this is the whole edge, a lotta
Senator Eve 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 bet you were working on today, which is the grab Democrats or 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 it's! The constitution subcommittee, the Senate. You did Our committee- I've been the chairman of that committee for a number of years, I'm now ranking members where the minority so Centre, Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, is now the chairman at a hearing on so called ghost guns, and then you said it's always darkest before goes pitch black, I guess it's fitting. Pitch black is when the ghost come out. I showed irritatingly enough. This hearing was it the exact same time as the market for the corrupt politicians act. So what I talked about on the hearing on quote ghost guns and when one is a ghost gun, I mean twins who the hell is. He
The ghost guy. I mean you talk about a made up phenomenon at its does to be really scary, like who ghost guns, what what? What what the hacker, those their handmaid guns there, that that their their people, their hobbyists, to make handmaid guns they make guns from kits. They said that they order different kits online and they assemble them, and the reason this is a major problem is there is zero evidence like like, nothing nada that handmade guns are producing any violent crime at all. He gets it. only made up, and so I kind of unloaded on the Democrats. This morning I said: look you ve got a hearing on a totally bogus threat, but it's designed to be scared. Frankly, there taking advantage of it Liberals who don't really know anything about guns and a ghost gun that they want to use a term that sounds really frightening. but I said what are you next going to hold a hearing on on?
the war replica cannons I mean they're not being used in crimes you want to hearing you want to hearing on gun crime, gun crimes, a serious problem. How about have a hearing on Chicago and New York and fill? It we and how leftwing gun control laws are working. That's actually a real real hearing, but they don't want to do that and then what I talked about. Also at my opening comment, as 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 amount of rights from law abiding citizens. The people that build homemade guns are collectors frankly, if you're a gangbanger in Chicago you're, not me a homemade gun, you're buying and illegal gun on the black market- that your murdering people with me that that that's where the guns come from, but here's what this is all about, and it was interesting Blumenthal in 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 firemen american. I put it out. I said: listen I didn't I own a number of firearms. There is no government list, the firearms we'll it's not a your damn business, what fire We only want to find out what fires we own Commodore House at night, you'll find out what firearms wheel, but what like like it is an end. 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 of confiscated firearms. It always starts with a registry, a list of what guns does Michael Knolls own, so that when they come now on the door, they say: ok, Mr Knolls, you ve got a rifle, you ve got a shot gun and got a thirty. Eight revolver produce the gods. Now we're seizing them, and so.
I am fighting tooth and nail against a registry. This whole goes guns. Thing is a made up, be ass topic, because what they want is a registry of every gun to be able confiscate up before we go, I wear 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 dont understand anything about it and I think most people frankly are looking this conflict, the Israel, Palestine conflict, it seemed to have been fine. Everything seems to be going pretty well for the past. For years. We have lots of new peace treaties. We happen to be you're doing episodes we're in DC during this swedish, you re an air at the signing of them and Now everything's gone to Hell, unhand basket. What went wrong weakness causes violence that aggression terrorist, like weakness, their encouraged by weakness. You know I had dinner. I think we could
were last with David Friedman, who was the former? U S ambassador to Israel under President Tromp David is a good friend for years, a precedent You saw the palestinian attacks on Israelis on Americans dropped dramatically, and it was because I believe President Trump drew a line in the sand. Us as we stand with Israel. There is no ambiguity, about it. What did Joe Biden do when he came in immediately put ambiguity about immediately? One of the things Biden started to do Is he sent over a hundred million dollars to the Palestinian Authority? Now the palace any authority as the quasi government of the Palestinians within Israel it is in. It's called a unity government with Hamas. Hamas, as a terrorist organisation, is explicitly a terrorist organisation Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They pay bounties to terrorist. So if you're a palestinian terrorist- and you start- dynamite on a best and you walk into a mall and you detonate the dynamite and you
are women and children a mass of them. The new authority will pay your family, a ongoing stipend for the rest of their lives and at its major budget item that they want to incur So so it's the government spending money to pay the families of terrorists as rewards for them, murdering Israelis and murdering Americans young couple Years ago, Congress passed a law called the tailor forsake. Taylor force was attacks and he was a veteran who was murdered by a palestinian terrorist in Israel and the tailor forsake says you s: tax, scarlet dollars. would not go to any organization that rewards terrorists that pays the families of terrorist. As a reward for them committing terror. What did Joe Biden during the first couple of months in office basically ignored the tailor, force, act and started Hang hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority, so Joe Biden ascending your tax dollars, my tax dollars.
Fund Hamas in their payments? arrests, and you know what the terrorists see. And say: okay, this by the administration is weak. They won't stand with Israel, so let's start firing rockets and their firing rockets they're fine, hundreds of rockets at a Jerusalem in TEL Aviv. Up and down Israel and by the way, not only as the Bite administration not doing anything meaningfully about it. But you ve got Democrats, I like ill Hon Omar and an Rashid to leave Omar accused Israel of carrying out acts of terrorism, because it's trying to defend itself. Jen rocket attacks aimed at civilians and it's trying to take out the terrorist and at last night I tweeted this week. Why, as a member of Congress acting as the press secretary, Hamas and an end. This is contrast it six months we were seeing historic peace in the middle east- why?
does the present the United States in the. U S, government was clear and unequivocal: we stand with Israel and no one wanted to screw with us now because I'd and is not able to be clear and unequivocal. Suddenly they want to screw with. Israel may well screw with us, and this is it's a manifestation the failures abundance, foreign policy, it sets night and day. I remember when John Kerry, but before he traipsing all over the world. Stopping the sun monster when John, carry 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 palestinian conflict and the trouble frustration comes in and says you know, I don't think it's true. I think we're gonna just deal with all these other arab states and we're gonna peace deals with with those separate states and the Margaret said that was not possible. What happened for the last several years we ve seen lots and lots of peace treaties. Now that seems to be falling apart.
Tell you senator a bit of a depressing show on the voting rights on the guns on the international diplomacy is. Is there any glimmer of hope here? I think that the market today on the corrupt politicians act was very beneficial. In one sense, it showed just how radical and extreme the Democrats were mean when, when every Democrat on the committee voted to allow murderers devout, that's a pretty extreme vote when the Democratic the committee voted to allow millions of illegal aliens devout. That's an extreme when every Democrat voted to me take the amnesty for millions of illegal aliens voting illegally. That's an extreme vote There's another provision we talked about the sixty one match a federal funds, which is gonna welfare for politicians, things I did at the market today. I went through what every I'm a crowd 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 batch
someone get a million Angus king, I think, would get like seventeen fifty dollars. You got virtually nothing. The Democrats, who got the most was John Ass if it was just elected out of Georgia and he would yet a little over eleven million dollars in federal funds. I mean that's a bunch of money, eleven million dollars so the editor- who would get the most on the committee- was yours, true and last quarter In July of this year. I raised five point: three million dollars: five. point three million dollars. Ninety eight percent of that came from contributions under a hundred dollars. I think the average contribution of our memories are the forty one and forty seven hours I forget which, when it was, but it was forty something five point: three million dollar sixty one matched others a cap, so what it would have meant is, I would have gotten ninety four million dollars from the federal government- and I asked them
Frances, and why do my democratic colleagues want to give my campaign twenty four million dollars in federal fund This is asinine. I dont want the funds I'd like to go, raise the funds by the way, if you're, watching this go to ten crews, DOT Org make contribution welcome those funds, but I'm not interested he federal taxpayers, money and every Democrat folded 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 there. campaign. So as incumbents they have massive amounts of money than they can crush any challenger. I gotta say Chuck shimmered began the hearing by giving the market by giving this this sanctimonious speech- and it was a speech about Jim Crow and
and I responded shortly thereafter- I said- look Chuck humor. Rightly talked about Jim Crow, Jim Crow was shameful, it was racist, it was bigoted. Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. They were impulse by Democrats and the purpose of Jim Crow Laws was to keep Democrats in power forever. Now I recognise today's Democrats and end the corrupt me. Their narrative was well. That was the Democrats of a long time ago, but not to day. I said. Listen this bill today is Jim Crow to point out this is designed for the same purpose, which is to prevent the voters from throwing the bombs out, prevent the voters from loading Democrats out when they embraced socialism when they embrace open borders, but when they pack the Supreme Court when they advocate abolishing the police. The Democrats want the voters, to have the power to both them out and how do they do that they do that by Roy
the stirring millions of illegal aliens allowing criminals to vote, and Making the Federal Election Commission a partisan weapon to target Republicans. This is all about descent, enticing voters, just like Jim Crow and, I gotta admit to say Democratic 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 there trying to do. I think that True and you know a guy who's turned down. Twenty four million bucks, probably doesn't care with the Democrats say about him out on the committee. Four million bucks you, I guess there now is a good thing. is the glimmer of hope is no matter how they to twenty five. I might have been up open to it. That's exactly what I suppose. There's gotta be a number somewhere, but if you, you think you're having a bad day you're looking at the politics all around the world, you say: everything's gonna, Helena Hand basket. At least you didn't have to turn. twenty four million dollars today like Santa Cruz, did we have to leave it there senator
We will be back soon. I Michael knows this verdict with TED crews.
Transcript generated on 2021-08-10.