July 15, 2026 • 35 mins
1. Tribute to Lindsey Graham
- U.S. Senator 23 years in the Senate
- A veteran with 33 years of Air Force service
- An influential figure in Republican politics
- A close friend and ally of Ted Cruz
2. Trump's First Impeachment Trial
- Debate over whether additional witnesses, particularly former National Security Adviser John Bolton, should be called.
- Efforts by Republican senators to prevent the trial from expanding into a lengthy investigation.
- Arguments that the House impeachment process was rushed and lacked due process.
- Discussion of a Senate vote that ultimately rejected calling additional witnesses.
3. Senate Strategy and Politics
Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham explain behind-the-scenes efforts to persuade key Republican senators, especially:
- Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
- Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
4. Constitutional Issues
- Executive privilege
- Separation of powers
- The Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts
5. Criticism of Democrats
- House impeachment managers such as Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler
- Senator Elizabeth Warren
- The Democratic Party's impeachment strategy
6. Hunter Biden and Ukraine
- Hunter Biden's work with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company
- Questions about conflicts of interest involving the Biden family
- Calls for further investigation into those matters
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz
X: https://x.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to a very special episode of Verdict to his
Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you, and as we promise, Senator,
as we talked about your dear friend Lindsey Graham and
his passing, we said we were going to put out
that original episode with the Senator that he was the
very very first guest of Verdict, and that is going
to be this show.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Well, Lindsey Graham. The Senate lost Lindsey this weekend. The
world lost Lindsay this weekend. He was one of a kind.
He had an extraordinary life and legacy serving our nation.
Twenty three years in the Senate, thirty three years in
the Air Force. He made a profound difference. And he
was also he was the very first guest on Verdict
(00:45):
right when this show launched, and he came in and
joined us right when the show was started. It started
on the first day of the very first Trump impeachment.
This episode is in the middle of the impeachment and
Lindsey came from the Senate floor leave about midnight to
go to the studio to record. It was a classic
and priceless episode. In fact, he starts off by saying,
(01:10):
what is a podcast and we actually talked for years
about selling t shirts. Verdict with Ted Cruz and on
the back, what is a podcast? Lindsey Graham? It was.
He was one of a kind. I am grieving and
miss my friend. Every member of the Senate missus Lindsey Graham,
(01:33):
and give a listen to this podcast, watch this podcast
to remember why he was such an extraordinary senator and
such an extraordinary human being.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Hello, I'm Senator Lindsey Graham. Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz,
the number one podcast in the entire country. What is
a podcast?
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles.
I'm joined by not one, but two usc to help
us break down the most shocking day of the entire
impeachment trial. Senator Graham, thank you so much for being
here at vire. Gentlemen. The last time that we sat down,
I was told this impeachment was going to drag on
for weeks. We were going to get witnesses, we were
(02:15):
going to get Bolton, we were going to get Hunter Biden.
This was going to get long and ugly. I go
to sleep, I wake up today and the Senators are
voting no more witnesses. This thing could be over next week.
Senator Cruz, what happened, Well, today was a big day.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And let me say, Lindsey, thank you well you I
appreciate your coming. This is late at night. We spent
all day in the setting.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
A lot of money on production.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I'm sorry, Well, this was you're right yesterday. If the
vote had gone differently today, this trial could have gone
on for months. We could have seen it drag on
and on and on. And it was a big deal.
It was up in the air, and today was the
most important vote we've had in the entire trial. It
really came down to we knew we had forty seven
(03:00):
Democrats that wanted more witnesses. Why because they hadn't proved
in the case. They're losing, and so the only hope
they have is extended going a fishing expedition and see
if they can find something. The big open question was
were four Republicans going to join them? We knew that
two Republicans were, they'd announced it already. Mitt Romy and
Susan Collins were voting with them. There were two other
(03:21):
senators who were in play, Lamar Alexander Lisa Murkowski, and
it was close last night Lamar announced that he was
going to come out and say enough is enough. And
we just found got a final decision from Lisa today
just a few minutes before she voted absolutely So I.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Saw the update on my phone when Senator Murkowski finally
decided she was going to vote no more witnesses.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
How does that work?
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Well, that's what I was going to ask you, because
it's Michael. You've ever seen his phone?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Here? You get hang in there, that's worth it, worth
the wait. The Russians can't get in this. You'll all
have one in a five year.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Senator Green, you are clearly a fiscal conservatives. We were
using that kind of cell phone. What happened with Senator Murkowski?
I know that you two gentlemen were healing and dealing
a little bit on the Senate floor.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
So well, let's say number one, Ted was awesome. We
had a little team trying to convince people. Can you
say shit show on podcasts?
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
I think you just did this all right? So what
would happen if you call witnesses being a shit show?
You're just not gonna call John Bolton. If you're gonna
call a witness, we're gonna call all the witnesses. Would
you know, I want to know a little bit about
the Bidens. You know, I like Joe Biden, But give
me a break. If Mike Pence's son was making three
million dollars a year from the most corrupt gas company
(04:41):
in the Ukraine, don't you think you might hear about it.
You only go to hear about the Bidens on this podcast.
So the bottom line here is Ted made a very
eloquent argument that it throws the courts into chaos. It'd
be the first impeachment in history if you have executive
of which will be decided by the United States Senate,
(05:02):
that if you call one witness, you're going to call
a bunch of witnesses. The President didn't get to call
one witness in the house. So you open up Pandora's
box and number two, the whole idea of legitimizing an
impeachment in the House that took seventy eight days. You
can't get a parking ticket in seventy eight days, if
you can test it. Not one witness allowed to be
(05:25):
called by the president, no cross examination. The bottom line
is the whole thing was a sham, and we were
trying to convince Lisa and everybody else. Don't legitimize this,
don't do their work for them. They're accusing you of
being unfair because you did not call a witness. They
chose not to call. Why didn't they call John Bolten
because it would be inconvenient. They couldn't impeach the president
(05:46):
by Christmas. That's not a good reason to ignore the courts.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Do you think that it was the public arguments, well,
we all saw on TV that moved Senator Murkowski, or
was it more private conversation? So I think the pivotal
moment happened before yesterday. Day before yesterday, Adam Schiff made
a mistake. He was standing up.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Arguing and he said, he said, listen, the White House
defense team have made John Bolton relevant because they have
contradicted what he said. And then he threw a little aside.
He said, if they'd just stipulated to it, then they'd
have an argument. And it was interesting. I heard that
Jay Seculo's eyes got real wide when he said that,
(06:24):
and I got up and went back to the cloak room.
Lindsey went back to the cloak well.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I opened my eyes at that point.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
So for those of us who were not us senators.
Why is that the big light bulb moment? So well,
I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
So, I immediately in the cloak room, got my phone,
texted my team and said, give me the transcript of
exactly what Schiff just said. And I went to Lindsay
and we began talking, saying, look, we need to get Lamar.
We need to get Lisa this idea of if you
stipulate to a quid pro quo, if you agree, even
if there is a quid pro quo, we win. That
(06:57):
might get their vote, that might give them, give them
a ground to be comfortable. So we got the script,
Lindsay and I together in the cloak room. We talked
with Lamar. We showed him exactly what he said. We said,
what do you think about this? We talked with Lisa.
They said, hey, what do you think about this? They
were open to the idea. They weren't convinced, but they
were thinking about it. They were listening. We kept talking
(07:17):
the next day. In the question period, I think the
most important question is a question Lindsay wrote that I
helped him write, and it was a question that was
to the White House team that essentially said, if you
assume for sake of argument. Then John Bolton testifies and
everything he says is right, that we just assume everything's right,
that there's a quid pro quo? Is that an impeachable
(07:38):
offense or not? And the White House lawyers that they
didn't want to go down this road. They had to
be dragged, kicking and screaming to this point. And I'll
tell you there was some kicking and screaming that Lindsay
and I were both engaged with. But they got up
and they gave the answer, the most important answer where
they said, look, even if he testified, even if he
says it's a quid pro quo, it doesn't change the
(08:00):
it's an impeachable offense, which means his testimony isn't necessary.
And they walked through, as we've been talking about on
this podcast, that a president can always investigate corruption and
if that's right, that a president can always investigate corruption,
there was more than enough evidence of corruption, and I
think that played. That exchange where the White House lawyers
made that argument in response to the question we teed up,
(08:22):
I think was pivotal to getting both Lisa and Lamar,
especially Lisa, to yes, which we need.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
So what you're saying the White House team was pushing back.
They didn't necessarily want to go down this road of
if there was a quid pro quo, then X, Y
and Z. However, if you address that argument and it
still doesn't matter, if there is a quid pro quo,
then there is no basis whatsoever for the impeachment.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, there's no basis to call John Bolton. So what
brought all this up? You know, Ted was very I'm
a practical guy. Lisa Murkowski is independent from Alaska. Yeah,
we're Republicans from Texas in South Carolina, a little different politics.
And here's the problem. They could have called John Bolton
and others, but they choose not to because they wanted
(09:09):
to impeach the president before Christmas. The president would declared
executive privilege had gone to court like Nixon and Clinton did.
But that got in the way of this railroad right job.
But the problem is there's a blurb in the New
York Times, as they always do, saying John Bolton has
direct evidence that the President asked him to condition the
AID on investigating the bodies looking at interference by the Ukraine.
(09:33):
That was different. The defense team of the President said
there is no direct evidence there right, there was no
direct evidence in the record that the House chose to establish,
and from just a common sense point of view, it
raises a question. Lamar is an institutionalist. He wanted to
make sure that the Senate was a body that was
open minded, fair, and Lisa had to go back home
(09:56):
and explain, well, why didn't you call any witnesses? And
here's the point. If we call John Bolton, now, won't
the president raise executive privilege? Because if he doesn't, he
forfeits that for future presidents. Do we as senators destroy
the privilege? It'd be the first impeachment in history where
there was no court access. We would have to decide
(10:18):
executive privilege. And I think that made Lamar feel uncomfortable.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
So walk me through that just a little bit more,
because this is now not an argument.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
So this is really important right here. So this is
about what happens if we try to capture this testimony.
The president was denied the chance to go to court
in the House. They shut him out. What if we say,
now we want to call him for a new reason,
and if he'd asked to go to court, the logic
(10:45):
is the court of impeachment decides not Article three courts.
It may be the first time in history a president
was impeached without ever being able to avail the courts.
So what's the answer to this, assuming for a moment
argueindough podcast people, you.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Don't go look up, okay, you shut off your Latin
into episode.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
So arguing, I.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Am like it is a lawyer word.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
You put it in brace all the time.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Or you say assume argumentdo which is I'm not admitting it, yeah,
but assume for case of argument this is true, we
still win. And so you do that in briefs all
the time.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, that's right in South Carolina. What if he said
it just assuming ARGUMENTO, would it matter? So I assume,
for a moment, for argument, for the sake of argument,
that if John Bolton did, if he was told by
the president, I want to suspend a until I find
more about what the Bidens did. He had every reason
(11:38):
in the world because if you were in charge, did
if I put you in charge of fixing corruption in
the Ukraine and I find out that your son.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Who's getting to you, I'm told that job pays a
million bucks A yeak, okay, So it's pretty don't you
think the podcasting, don't you think when Joe Biden gets
in front of the Ukrainian parliament says, we got in
corruption in the Ukraine, particularly the intersect energy sector, and
everybody said, well, why is your son on the border
breize by making a million.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Dollars it kind of undercuts your argument. It destroyed our ability,
quite frankly, to be credible agents of change. And that's
a public policy. And you know, all Lamar said, that's right,
there's a reason to look at that. And there was
all kind of evidence that the Ukraine didn't like Trump
and like Clinton at least parts of it. So the
president had a legitimate public purpose. And that gets back
(12:26):
to Dershowitz. He says, if there's a mixed motive, the
reason is impeachment sucks so much. We got to get
into Trump's brain and find out how much of it
was personal and how much of it was public and
what ted and I said, you know, they said, there's
not a sentient of evidence that the Biden said anything wrong.
I said, Yo, there's not. There's a herdisan dillas. You know,
if you find one of these little suckers rumming around
(12:48):
and you win, so like even I could prove this
doesn't pass the smell test. And they started thinking, and
I said, assume for a moment that the conversation was
most beneficial to the house managers. You wind up right
where you are today. There's a legitimate public purpose to
suspend the AID and this is not an impeachable fence.
(13:10):
Do you think the founders really meant to throw the
president out of office who could never run again because
for forty days he's suspended age of the Ukraine. They
wind up getting the money and they didn't investigate anybody.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
But this is a real trick, a real political trick here,
because you've got Senator Alexander, who you say cares about
the institution. He's a wonderful man, a credibility absolutely, And
you've got Senator Murkowski, who's independent. She's got to go
back home. They had real problems, so they have separate problems.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
So I understood maybe differently than others. Now I'll let
Ted talk here. You've got to address the problem in
front of you from Lisa Murkowski's point of view. If
we could show lie so that if you had the
New York Times article in front of you, and I
tried to get a stipulation the day before. Would it
really matter it didn't still fall short of impeachment. Is
(14:02):
this really what they meant to throw a president out?
That you supend aid when they got the money, never
did investigation the big picture stuff. Then I think that
turned the thinking that you really didn't need Bolton because
it wouldn't change the outcome.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
So one of the things that I think was really
potent is Lindsey's a trial lawyer.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
I'm an appellet lawyer.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Those are different worlds, those are different arenas.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I say shit show and he says other stuff.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
So that's difference between the trial lawyer and apello lawyer.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Look look, trial lawyers talk to jury's, appellate lawyers talk
to judges. Those are different ways of framing things. But
he and I teamed up very closely. We probably wrote
a dozen questions together, some of which we asked, some
of which we gave to our colleagues and they asked,
But a lot of it we were aiming over and
over and over again. We had a purpose at Lamar
(14:49):
and Lisa, trying to move them but trying to also
give them. You know, we've talked on this podcast a
lot of times about framing the narrative and choosing choosing
the terrain on which you find if the whole fight.
Early on, the White House spent hours an hour saying
there's no qui pro quot, there's no quid pro quote. Well,
you know what, if that's their argument, the fact that
The New York Times says John Bolton says there is
(15:11):
a quid pro quo that suddenly makes if someone or
even handed, If that's the central dispute, it's really hard
to say, well, goy, shouldn't we bring him in to testify?
What was important? And it took a couple of days
to get us there is to make clear, it doesn't
matter if there was a quid pro quot or not.
That's not the issue.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
So I'm certain interrupt there were these competing strategies.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Two okay, So here's the point. You got to know
who you're talking to. Lisa Murkowski is very independent. She's
not going to do something because somebody tells her to.
It's inconvenient. If you want a witness, that's not going
to matter. It may hurt the team if you call
a witness. And Lamar loves the institution. He's about to
retire he's going to do what he thinks best, and
(15:58):
what we try to do is explain play it out.
They're playing a game here. They set us up. They
could have called the witness, they chose not to because
it's inconvenient. Now they're asking you to deal out Article
three courts bad. So assume for a moment you had
Bolton in front of you. Would it really change the
outcome here? Does it make it an impeachable offense for
(16:19):
Bolton to say what he's going to say? And the
answer is clearly no.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Now, there was another argument that I think moved them
quite a bit, yes, and it was that what the
Democrats were trying to do if we'd have been fifty
to fifty, this is a big one here. The Democrats
were trying to go after the US Supreme.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Court because if it had been fifty to fifty, and
we talked about this on the show last time, it's
completely unclear.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
If there is, they would have tried to make John
Roberts decide, and whatever he did, it would have been
viewed through a political lens. And so look, one case
that a number of us made is is we're in
a world where people have lost faith in Congress. They've
lost faith in the presidency. And if we come through
this and let the Democrats tarnish the Supreme Court to
(17:04):
where they lose faith in every institution of government, that's
a real problem. And Michael, I think we've got a
clip here, Yes, that'll give an example of the democrats strategy.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Question from Senator Warren is for the House Managers. At
a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith
in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is
presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican Senators have
thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to
the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court,
(17:38):
and the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Now, that is an insulting question.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Now, Michael, I'm going to tell you something surprising. Elizabeth
Warren helped defeat the impeachment of the President of the
United States. How do you mean that little stunt she
pulled was a campaign stunt. That was a fundraising stunt
that was designed to thrill the left wing activists in
the Iowa Caucus. There ain't nothing else going on than that.
(18:02):
But I'll tell you what that's stunt. Yeah, helped deliver
the votes of Lisa and Lamar.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
It did because it.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Made clear this is a political game and if John
Roberts doesn't vote the way Elizabeth Warren wants, she's gonna
call him a political hack and throw him into politics.
And it suddenly raised the price of their voting and
making it fifty to fifty because you don't want to
see the court thrown into that political swamp.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
Do you agree with that, lindsay one hundred percent. All
you got to do is look at her statement. She
said a fair trial in the sentence impossible because of them.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
This is Lisa Mercowski.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Yes. So her statement was that they're going to set
up the Chief Justice because they hate Trump so much.
So the difference between fifty one and fifty is enormous.
If it's fifty to fifty, then you put the Chief
Justice in the cross hairs of history. You begin to
corrupt the court. As Ted said, they could give a
damn on the other side. They just want an outcome here.
(19:01):
And I think it really mattered to Lamar and Lisa
that Ted explained the historic nature of what the Chief
Justice would be required to decide. And I think I
explained honest to God, if you believed every word of
John Bolt, would it matter.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
The truth is it would be a left wing attack
group today put out an attack ad with John Roberts
bring a MAGA hat. Yeah, and that ticked off Republican
senators that helped produce the vote we had today.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
So you think it was just an overreach by people
like Senator Warren, by these left wing groups. So what
I want to know? I mean, this was a truly
shocking day. What happens now?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Well, I just want to fill out with what you said.
It wasn't just an overreach by them. They helped. It
was two senators or are good people thinking it through?
And Ted bringing to the table and expertise that very
few people have, quite frankly, And I just tried to say, listen,
I try to be fair. Supported the Muller investigation. I
actually co sponsored legislation that would prevent Muller from being
(20:06):
fired without.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Causing Yeah, what the heck were you thinking?
Speaker 5 (20:08):
There?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Well, just to tell Trump what the hell are you thinking?
I understand you know, if you fire this guy, you're dead.
And I thought Muller would be fair, but this whole
process has not been fair. So I could say listen, guys,
it's not like I think the presence beyond being looked at.
What they did in the House is dangerous to the country.
It's a partisan impeachment, no due process, and we need
(20:30):
to end it the right way. Do not make it worse.
And what would make it worse is to do what
Ted said, put the court in the crosshairs of history
in the wrong way. And what would make it worse
is to to let them go to us into calling
a witness. That wouldn't matter because they think we're unfair.
You've done nothing wrong here. It was the other side
who did something wrong well. And as a consequence, John
(20:53):
Roberts is not in a position where he has to
make any controversial rulings where they get where he's being
set up to be attacked as being political. He simply
he presided over a fair trial and it was the senators.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Who were voted. And look, we're elected to make policy
decisions and political decisions and also to apply the constitutional standard,
and that's what we did.
Speaker 4 (21:15):
In some way, it feels like we dodged a bullet
if it were a fifty fifth you.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Have no idea, No, no, you dodged a canniate truck. Yeah,
but because really just play it out. We call witnesses.
Then you're not just going to call John Bolton. You're
going to have the whistleblower. It's going to be a
nightmare for the country. You have all kinds of issues
decided by the Senate should be decided by the courts,
and you would set a precedent that I think would
(21:40):
make impeachment of every president in the future almost a certainty.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
And it seemed actually in some of the arguments we
heard during the trial, there was a threat there or
an acknowledgment that if we continue down this path, we're
going to impeach every president from now on.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Well, and that remains a real risk that we've opened
the door to.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
So how do you stop that? If the House loses?
And one of the reasons they lost is because they've
gone crazy. Donald Trump's changed the Republican Party, but he's
driven the Democratic Party completely nuts. What would happen if
President Trump gets re elected? Death exoneration?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Well, and let me underscore that, because that's a very
good point. I actually think Bill Clinton helped keep Barack
Obama from getting impeached. Now, why is that Republicans impeached,
and actually, lindsay was you don't try this at home, okay,
And it backfired. It it hurt Republicans, it got Bill
(22:34):
Clinton re elected. It didn't work, and a lot of
Republicans took that message, Hey, wait a second, being seen
being two partisan, too aggressive using impeachment. That's a problem.
And so when it came to Obama, look Obama on
the abuse of power theory that we've heard from the
House managers. Obama abused his power in many respects, and
yet all of us agreed we shouldn't be impeaching Obama.
(22:57):
We should beat him at the ballot box, which we
tried to do. But impeachment wasn't the right tool. If
Republicans hadn't gotten burned so bad on the Clinton impeachment,
there would have been some loud voices to impeach Obama.
But as it was, people said, let's not go down
that road. So, if you want to stop partisan impeachments
going forward, the best way and Lindsey, you're right, I
(23:18):
hadn't thought about it and connected it like this. The
best way to stop it is for Democrats to get
walloped in November, because then the next Democrats will say, okay, wow,
this impeaching business. And by the way, the Republicans will.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Too, well, you know we still remember okay. Lamar asked
a question, what's the partisan difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump?
A lot, a little Nune, a lot of bipartisanship for Nixon.
H that's the kind of thing the founders had in mind.
You know, this is a constitutional death penloity for a politician.
(23:54):
You should use exparingly. Clinton had thirty three Democrats say,
let's look at it, bipartisan impeachment, and Clinton basically cheated
Paula Jones out of her day in court, hit, evidence, perjury,
you name it. You can't have the most powerful person
in the country destory a private citizen's right to have
their day in court. Now Here we are with Trump
(24:15):
bipartisan rejection of the articles of impeachment, and I think
that bothered Lamar. It was the way it was done
and the outcome in the House. We don't want to.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Be joined with Lamar on a question exactly Now.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Lamar really rose to the occasion because what you're saying
is there was a bipartisan rejection and rejection, but in
terms of the people who actually voted for impeachment. It
was the first time in US history you had a
purely partisan impeachment.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
I hope it's the last. See Clinton was in his
second term, Nixon resigned. If Trump wins, he'll be the
first person impeached in his first term to get reelected.
That will exonerate him.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
Now, I want to know. Obviously, the impeachment hearings have
been so dreary and tedious, and.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
It's been kidding me.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
It's you know, I fun I admit it.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
You're watching this podcast, you're loving this well the.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Podcast maybe sea Span I don't know, although actually people
listen to this because they can't watch sea Span for
thirteen hours and it makes their eyes and ears bleed.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
But this way, this is somewhere between c Span and
the trough.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Was there any moment that was that had some levity
to it? The some foibles?
Speaker 2 (25:27):
I think the funniest moment was last night, the very
last of the questions, sixteen hours of questions, Amy club
a chart submits the last question, sends the car down
number one. She sends the wrong card down so the
chief doesn't read it. She realized that she screwed up.
She has to run down and write her name on
the car.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
So that starts off with it's not not cracking up
at that, and it's not that hard.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
You literally write your name on it, you know, kindergarten.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Okay, I did it three times and I didn't screw up,
you know, put.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Your name on the top block letters. I think she
was thinking about Iowa.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
Maybe she was so phil this is a good one.
Keep going.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
So her question was with the house managers give a
closing argument. So Adam Shift stands up, you seem kind
of puff at his chest.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
He starts walking.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Forward, and Jerry Nadler, who is sitting in like four
seats behind him, runs behind him, push a schiff out
of the leg and goes to the microphone, and and
Schiff is literally going Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. And he stands
there behind Lynnadler, I mean glaring. He wanted to punch
(26:31):
or strangle him.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
These are the two House Democrat impeachment managers. They're the leads.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
And Nadler just went and gave his closing arguments, and
Schiff stood there for a good ten seconds, and then
he just sat down and glared at Nadler the whole time.
And by the way Roberts, he had his reading glasses
on the tip of his nose. And I know I've
known John Roberts twenty five years. You saw a slight smile,
which for him is cracking up because they almost had as.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Were smiling his luck.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
So he's actually wickedly funny.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
I know, John, You're right, he's a breeding and is
only Mitchell O'Connell's funny in his own way. So so
here's the deal. Jerry's wife is sick. Pray for it.
She's got she's got pinker added cancer and I'm praying
for driving. Known him for a long time. But Jerry
can throw a punch. He can take a punch. So
number one shift. If Jerry Nayler is out running you,
(27:28):
you need to get better shape. So but the deal is,
it was just shocking and we were all pulling for
Nadler to win the race. We've heard enough of shift,
so shifts started good. But after about thirty hours of shift,
you're ready to turn the channel. You know, it's bad
when people want to hear Nadler, not not shift. So
(27:49):
the bottom line, here's another the classic story. And I
know we got to go. Y'all gotta do whatever you
do in a podcast.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Wolf.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Don't drink and dry.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
So here's the deal, flip flowing.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
So Chuck Schumer trying to be clever. Sometimes he is,
sometimes we all fall short in his business. He invites, uh,
he gives his ticket to be a spectator at the
trial to parn Us to this is this cool crooked
a snake guy, And the Ukraine said that I'm in
(28:26):
on it. Lindsey Graham knew it all. And they said,
have you ever taught Lindsey Graham? No, but I heard
he knew it all, so I don't know it all.
So they invite him to come. He shows up to
get his ticket. He can't get in because he's got
an anklet bracelet from the court. You can't make this one.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
Up, that is you know.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
I almost wish that Schumer's guess can't come into the
trail because he's got an ankle bracelet's.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
Par for the court, you know, State of the Union.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I heard Schumer's bringing Charles Manson.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
That'd be good, that'd be interesting. The guys did so, Uh, anyway,
I've never done this before. If you're number two in
the podcast world, you need to up your game. Is
number apparently we're number one. I know that.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
Compliment, you know, speaking of we've got to get you
out of here because the senators are off, you get
a couple of days off.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Now, weird union.
Speaker 4 (29:23):
We're I'm headed to Texas, heading to Texas.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Senator Graham, you're done, is going to South Carolina? One
last store. You know the two guys that led the Alamo,
both of them are from South Carolina. What does that mean?
We'll go a long way for a lost cause? And uh,
I was an impeachment Maxas heroes. I would love Texas heroes.
God blessed Texas. But Henry I was giving us the
old take the hill boys. We're gonna go over the Senate.
(29:48):
We're gonna stand for truth, justice in the American way.
You know, the the the brave men and women at
the Alamo. You know they stood their ground, and you
know that's our charge, that's our charter. I said, hey, Henry,
didn't they all get killed? And he says, that's a
that's something I ignored. But it's a good point. But
(30:08):
he did say we're still talking about him to this day.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
It's true.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
And a final point wrapping up, there will be another bombshell.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
There will be an whole scene.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Now in Cavan all times too.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Do you promise you something.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Else is coming between now and and and and the
verdict on impeachment that will be voted on on Wednesday.
There'll be another bombshell in the New York Times probably,
but something else is coming.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Because I when I when I saw it today, I
just thought, Okay, it's over right. I don't need to
worry about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
You're saying, oh my god, we both were on Cavanaugh
and you asked what's next after this? Is that we're
going to ask some hard questions State Department. Why didn't
you understand this conflict of ventures? Why didn't you do
something about it. We're going to get to the bottom
of the fives and warrant abuse. We're going to do
all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
But by the way, this is breaking news.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Yeah, we cannot live in a country.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
So you're because a lot of questions in the mailbag
people are asked.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Now, trust me now, because I actually like Joe Biden.
I have traveled the world with him. But you know,
if it had been Mike Pence or Vice President Cheney,
they'd be all over. We can't live in a world
where just one side gets looked at. I don't have
any animosity in my heart toward toward anyone, But the
truth of the matter is you got to have a
(31:17):
country where the rules matter for everybody, not just President Trump.
I mean not for Democrats. President Trump, from the day
he took office to now has gone through hell. His
family's gone through hell. And I promise you to those
who care, We're going to get to the bottom of
barisma because it's important we find out about barisma. We're
going to find out how could you an issue a
warrant four times against an American citizen. Here's the world.
(31:41):
If Trump goes to a Russian restaurant to have dinner,
he's a Russian, you know, and you know you can
have three million dollars paid to your son in the
Ukraine and nobody cares.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
Now, if President Trump gets acquitted, you're saying, the Senate
Republicans are not going to give up on this. What
can be done over to get to the bottom.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Of Jim Rish, Chairman of Foreign Relations Community, The first
witness I want to call is John Carrey's chief of staff.
When you were told that there was a conflict of interest,
by John Carrey's step son, who is their business partner?
Why don't you do something about it?
Speaker 4 (32:12):
And last I checked, both you and I are on
foreign relations.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Last time I checked, we're on judiciary and we're on
foreign relations. This is the beginning of a day of reckoning.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
This is not the beginning of the end. Maybe the
end of the beginning. We're moving on is the end
of the podcast, and it's the end of the One
thing I want to know before we let you get
out of here and hop onto a plane. One last
thing is I noticed it's much earlier tonight. Usually we're
here at two o'clock in the morning. It's only eleven
o'clock at night. Why is it that, Mitch McConnell, that
(32:44):
all these senators are letting people get out of here
so early? Was there some I think the Democrats wanted
to go to Iowa? The Democrats a three demo jumping
to go to Iowa. Did did you talk to any
of your colleagues?
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Were they well, you know, let's look at it this way.
I'm not married, So why can't you get everything done
the way you want it? I'll let ted answer that question.
We've got one hundred people in the Senate. Everybody has
different agendas. But Monday, so Sunday's super Bowl, right, Monday
is the Iowa Caucus. Tuesday's the State of the Union.
(33:19):
Bottom line is, this is the best Mitch could do.
And I think Mitch McConnell did a brilliant job handling this.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
I really do bets on the Super Bowl before we go.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Look, I'm rooting for the Chiefs just because they beat
the Texans and so on that principle. If they go
on to win, all I get to say the Texans
are the second best in my record.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
We're pulling for the Falcons.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
There we are. That's our show. That's the that's the
final verdict on the super Bowl. We've got a whole
lot more coming. Yes, I'm Michael knowles on behalf of
Senator Lindsey Graham, so gracious to spend the night in
our bunker over here. Yeah, this is verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Senator that I'm so glad that everybody got to watch
that podcast. Listen to it. If you didn't get to
watch it, you can on YouTube. If you're listening to
this as an audio podcast right now. It is you
don't realize when you guys were taking that what a
blessing it was going to be to have that video
and those really fun moments, but also just to remember
what a fighter he was and how you guys became
(34:16):
good friends.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
He had a profound impact Without Lindsey Graham. I don't
know that Brett Kavanaugh ever gets confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I don't know that we get the Reconciliation Bill passed.
I don't know that that President Trump has anywhere near
the number of successes he's had without Lindsey Graham. And
and so that podcast, You're right, when we were doing it,
(34:39):
I didn't realize that there would come a time when
he wasn't with us. To be honest, if we were
going to have a guest for a second time on Verdict,
Lindsey would have been right at the top of the list.
And and we're not going to have the chance to
do that. But I will say I missed my friend,
and and thank you, Lindsey, thank you for the legacy
(35:00):
you left for America.
Welcome to a very special episode of Verdict to his
Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you, and as we promise, Senator,
as we talked about your dear friend Lindsey Graham and
his passing, we said we were going to put out
that original episode with the Senator that he was the
very very first guest of Verdict, and that is going
to be this show.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Well, Lindsey Graham. The Senate lost Lindsey this weekend. The
world lost Lindsay this weekend. He was one of a kind.
He had an extraordinary life and legacy serving our nation.
Twenty three years in the Senate, thirty three years in
the Air Force. He made a profound difference. And he
was also he was the very first guest on Verdict
(00:45):
right when this show launched, and he came in and
joined us right when the show was started. It started
on the first day of the very first Trump impeachment.
This episode is in the middle of the impeachment and
Lindsey came from the Senate floor leave about midnight to
go to the studio to record. It was a classic
and priceless episode. In fact, he starts off by saying,
(01:10):
what is a podcast and we actually talked for years
about selling t shirts. Verdict with Ted Cruz and on
the back, what is a podcast? Lindsey Graham? It was.
He was one of a kind. I am grieving and
miss my friend. Every member of the Senate missus Lindsey Graham,
(01:33):
and give a listen to this podcast, watch this podcast
to remember why he was such an extraordinary senator and
such an extraordinary human being.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Hello, I'm Senator Lindsey Graham. Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz,
the number one podcast in the entire country. What is
a podcast?
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm Michael Knowles.
I'm joined by not one, but two usc to help
us break down the most shocking day of the entire
impeachment trial. Senator Graham, thank you so much for being
here at vire. Gentlemen. The last time that we sat down,
I was told this impeachment was going to drag on
for weeks. We were going to get witnesses, we were
(02:15):
going to get Bolton, we were going to get Hunter Biden.
This was going to get long and ugly. I go
to sleep, I wake up today and the Senators are
voting no more witnesses. This thing could be over next week.
Senator Cruz, what happened, Well, today was a big day.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And let me say, Lindsey, thank you well you I
appreciate your coming. This is late at night. We spent
all day in the setting.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
A lot of money on production.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I'm sorry, Well, this was you're right yesterday. If the
vote had gone differently today, this trial could have gone
on for months. We could have seen it drag on
and on and on. And it was a big deal.
It was up in the air, and today was the
most important vote we've had in the entire trial. It
really came down to we knew we had forty seven
(03:00):
Democrats that wanted more witnesses. Why because they hadn't proved
in the case. They're losing, and so the only hope
they have is extended going a fishing expedition and see
if they can find something. The big open question was
were four Republicans going to join them? We knew that
two Republicans were, they'd announced it already. Mitt Romy and
Susan Collins were voting with them. There were two other
(03:21):
senators who were in play, Lamar Alexander Lisa Murkowski, and
it was close last night Lamar announced that he was
going to come out and say enough is enough. And
we just found got a final decision from Lisa today
just a few minutes before she voted absolutely So I.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
Saw the update on my phone when Senator Murkowski finally
decided she was going to vote no more witnesses.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
How does that work?
Speaker 4 (03:45):
Well, that's what I was going to ask you, because
it's Michael. You've ever seen his phone?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Here? You get hang in there, that's worth it, worth
the wait. The Russians can't get in this. You'll all
have one in a five year.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Senator Green, you are clearly a fiscal conservatives. We were
using that kind of cell phone. What happened with Senator Murkowski?
I know that you two gentlemen were healing and dealing
a little bit on the Senate floor.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
So well, let's say number one, Ted was awesome. We
had a little team trying to convince people. Can you
say shit show on podcasts?
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
I think you just did this all right? So what
would happen if you call witnesses being a shit show?
You're just not gonna call John Bolton. If you're gonna
call a witness, we're gonna call all the witnesses. Would
you know, I want to know a little bit about
the Bidens. You know, I like Joe Biden, But give
me a break. If Mike Pence's son was making three
million dollars a year from the most corrupt gas company
(04:41):
in the Ukraine, don't you think you might hear about it.
You only go to hear about the Bidens on this podcast.
So the bottom line here is Ted made a very
eloquent argument that it throws the courts into chaos. It'd
be the first impeachment in history if you have executive
of which will be decided by the United States Senate,
(05:02):
that if you call one witness, you're going to call
a bunch of witnesses. The President didn't get to call
one witness in the house. So you open up Pandora's
box and number two, the whole idea of legitimizing an
impeachment in the House that took seventy eight days. You
can't get a parking ticket in seventy eight days, if
you can test it. Not one witness allowed to be
(05:25):
called by the president, no cross examination. The bottom line
is the whole thing was a sham, and we were
trying to convince Lisa and everybody else. Don't legitimize this,
don't do their work for them. They're accusing you of
being unfair because you did not call a witness. They
chose not to call. Why didn't they call John Bolten
because it would be inconvenient. They couldn't impeach the president
(05:46):
by Christmas. That's not a good reason to ignore the courts.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Do you think that it was the public arguments, well,
we all saw on TV that moved Senator Murkowski, or
was it more private conversation? So I think the pivotal
moment happened before yesterday. Day before yesterday, Adam Schiff made
a mistake. He was standing up.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Arguing and he said, he said, listen, the White House
defense team have made John Bolton relevant because they have
contradicted what he said. And then he threw a little aside.
He said, if they'd just stipulated to it, then they'd
have an argument. And it was interesting. I heard that
Jay Seculo's eyes got real wide when he said that,
(06:24):
and I got up and went back to the cloak room.
Lindsey went back to the cloak well.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I opened my eyes at that point.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
So for those of us who were not us senators.
Why is that the big light bulb moment? So well,
I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
So, I immediately in the cloak room, got my phone,
texted my team and said, give me the transcript of
exactly what Schiff just said. And I went to Lindsay
and we began talking, saying, look, we need to get Lamar.
We need to get Lisa this idea of if you
stipulate to a quid pro quo, if you agree, even
if there is a quid pro quo, we win. That
(06:57):
might get their vote, that might give them, give them
a ground to be comfortable. So we got the script,
Lindsay and I together in the cloak room. We talked
with Lamar. We showed him exactly what he said. We said,
what do you think about this? We talked with Lisa.
They said, hey, what do you think about this? They
were open to the idea. They weren't convinced, but they
were thinking about it. They were listening. We kept talking
(07:17):
the next day. In the question period, I think the
most important question is a question Lindsay wrote that I
helped him write, and it was a question that was
to the White House team that essentially said, if you
assume for sake of argument. Then John Bolton testifies and
everything he says is right, that we just assume everything's right,
that there's a quid pro quo? Is that an impeachable
(07:38):
offense or not? And the White House lawyers that they
didn't want to go down this road. They had to
be dragged, kicking and screaming to this point. And I'll
tell you there was some kicking and screaming that Lindsay
and I were both engaged with. But they got up
and they gave the answer, the most important answer where
they said, look, even if he testified, even if he
says it's a quid pro quo, it doesn't change the
(08:00):
it's an impeachable offense, which means his testimony isn't necessary.
And they walked through, as we've been talking about on
this podcast, that a president can always investigate corruption and
if that's right, that a president can always investigate corruption,
there was more than enough evidence of corruption, and I
think that played. That exchange where the White House lawyers
made that argument in response to the question we teed up,
(08:22):
I think was pivotal to getting both Lisa and Lamar,
especially Lisa, to yes, which we need.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
So what you're saying the White House team was pushing back.
They didn't necessarily want to go down this road of
if there was a quid pro quo, then X, Y
and Z. However, if you address that argument and it
still doesn't matter, if there is a quid pro quo,
then there is no basis whatsoever for the impeachment.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, there's no basis to call John Bolton. So what
brought all this up? You know, Ted was very I'm
a practical guy. Lisa Murkowski is independent from Alaska. Yeah,
we're Republicans from Texas in South Carolina, a little different politics.
And here's the problem. They could have called John Bolton
and others, but they choose not to because they wanted
(09:09):
to impeach the president before Christmas. The president would declared
executive privilege had gone to court like Nixon and Clinton did.
But that got in the way of this railroad right job.
But the problem is there's a blurb in the New
York Times, as they always do, saying John Bolton has
direct evidence that the President asked him to condition the
AID on investigating the bodies looking at interference by the Ukraine.
(09:33):
That was different. The defense team of the President said
there is no direct evidence there right, there was no
direct evidence in the record that the House chose to establish,
and from just a common sense point of view, it
raises a question. Lamar is an institutionalist. He wanted to
make sure that the Senate was a body that was
open minded, fair, and Lisa had to go back home
(09:56):
and explain, well, why didn't you call any witnesses? And
here's the point. If we call John Bolton, now, won't
the president raise executive privilege? Because if he doesn't, he
forfeits that for future presidents. Do we as senators destroy
the privilege? It'd be the first impeachment in history where
there was no court access. We would have to decide
(10:18):
executive privilege. And I think that made Lamar feel uncomfortable.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
So walk me through that just a little bit more,
because this is now not an argument.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
So this is really important right here. So this is
about what happens if we try to capture this testimony.
The president was denied the chance to go to court
in the House. They shut him out. What if we say,
now we want to call him for a new reason,
and if he'd asked to go to court, the logic
(10:45):
is the court of impeachment decides not Article three courts.
It may be the first time in history a president
was impeached without ever being able to avail the courts.
So what's the answer to this, assuming for a moment
argueindough podcast people, you.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Don't go look up, okay, you shut off your Latin
into episode.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
So arguing, I.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Am like it is a lawyer word.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
You put it in brace all the time.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Or you say assume argumentdo which is I'm not admitting it, yeah,
but assume for case of argument this is true, we
still win. And so you do that in briefs all
the time.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, that's right in South Carolina. What if he said
it just assuming ARGUMENTO, would it matter? So I assume,
for a moment, for argument, for the sake of argument,
that if John Bolton did, if he was told by
the president, I want to suspend a until I find
more about what the Bidens did. He had every reason
(11:38):
in the world because if you were in charge, did
if I put you in charge of fixing corruption in
the Ukraine and I find out that your son.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Who's getting to you, I'm told that job pays a
million bucks A yeak, okay, So it's pretty don't you
think the podcasting, don't you think when Joe Biden gets
in front of the Ukrainian parliament says, we got in
corruption in the Ukraine, particularly the intersect energy sector, and
everybody said, well, why is your son on the border
breize by making a million.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Dollars it kind of undercuts your argument. It destroyed our ability,
quite frankly, to be credible agents of change. And that's
a public policy. And you know, all Lamar said, that's right,
there's a reason to look at that. And there was
all kind of evidence that the Ukraine didn't like Trump
and like Clinton at least parts of it. So the
president had a legitimate public purpose. And that gets back
(12:26):
to Dershowitz. He says, if there's a mixed motive, the
reason is impeachment sucks so much. We got to get
into Trump's brain and find out how much of it
was personal and how much of it was public and
what ted and I said, you know, they said, there's
not a sentient of evidence that the Biden said anything wrong.
I said, Yo, there's not. There's a herdisan dillas. You know,
if you find one of these little suckers rumming around
(12:48):
and you win, so like even I could prove this
doesn't pass the smell test. And they started thinking, and
I said, assume for a moment that the conversation was
most beneficial to the house managers. You wind up right
where you are today. There's a legitimate public purpose to
suspend the AID and this is not an impeachable fence.
(13:10):
Do you think the founders really meant to throw the
president out of office who could never run again because
for forty days he's suspended age of the Ukraine. They
wind up getting the money and they didn't investigate anybody.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
But this is a real trick, a real political trick here,
because you've got Senator Alexander, who you say cares about
the institution. He's a wonderful man, a credibility absolutely, And
you've got Senator Murkowski, who's independent. She's got to go
back home. They had real problems, so they have separate problems.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
So I understood maybe differently than others. Now I'll let
Ted talk here. You've got to address the problem in
front of you from Lisa Murkowski's point of view. If
we could show lie so that if you had the
New York Times article in front of you, and I
tried to get a stipulation the day before. Would it
really matter it didn't still fall short of impeachment. Is
(14:02):
this really what they meant to throw a president out?
That you supend aid when they got the money, never
did investigation the big picture stuff. Then I think that
turned the thinking that you really didn't need Bolton because
it wouldn't change the outcome.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
So one of the things that I think was really
potent is Lindsey's a trial lawyer.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
I'm an appellet lawyer.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Those are different worlds, those are different arenas.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I say shit show and he says other stuff.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
So that's difference between the trial lawyer and apello lawyer.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Look look, trial lawyers talk to jury's, appellate lawyers talk
to judges. Those are different ways of framing things. But
he and I teamed up very closely. We probably wrote
a dozen questions together, some of which we asked, some
of which we gave to our colleagues and they asked,
But a lot of it we were aiming over and
over and over again. We had a purpose at Lamar
(14:49):
and Lisa, trying to move them but trying to also
give them. You know, we've talked on this podcast a
lot of times about framing the narrative and choosing choosing
the terrain on which you find if the whole fight.
Early on, the White House spent hours an hour saying
there's no qui pro quot, there's no quid pro quote. Well,
you know what, if that's their argument, the fact that
The New York Times says John Bolton says there is
(15:11):
a quid pro quo that suddenly makes if someone or
even handed, If that's the central dispute, it's really hard
to say, well, goy, shouldn't we bring him in to testify?
What was important? And it took a couple of days
to get us there is to make clear, it doesn't
matter if there was a quid pro quot or not.
That's not the issue.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
So I'm certain interrupt there were these competing strategies.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Two okay, So here's the point. You got to know
who you're talking to. Lisa Murkowski is very independent. She's
not going to do something because somebody tells her to.
It's inconvenient. If you want a witness, that's not going
to matter. It may hurt the team if you call
a witness. And Lamar loves the institution. He's about to
retire he's going to do what he thinks best, and
(15:58):
what we try to do is explain play it out.
They're playing a game here. They set us up. They
could have called the witness, they chose not to because
it's inconvenient. Now they're asking you to deal out Article
three courts bad. So assume for a moment you had
Bolton in front of you. Would it really change the
outcome here? Does it make it an impeachable offense for
(16:19):
Bolton to say what he's going to say? And the
answer is clearly no.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Now, there was another argument that I think moved them
quite a bit, yes, and it was that what the
Democrats were trying to do if we'd have been fifty
to fifty, this is a big one here. The Democrats
were trying to go after the US Supreme.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
Court because if it had been fifty to fifty, and
we talked about this on the show last time, it's
completely unclear.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
If there is, they would have tried to make John
Roberts decide, and whatever he did, it would have been
viewed through a political lens. And so look, one case
that a number of us made is is we're in
a world where people have lost faith in Congress. They've
lost faith in the presidency. And if we come through
this and let the Democrats tarnish the Supreme Court to
(17:04):
where they lose faith in every institution of government, that's
a real problem. And Michael, I think we've got a
clip here, Yes, that'll give an example of the democrats strategy.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
Question from Senator Warren is for the House Managers. At
a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith
in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is
presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican Senators have
thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to
the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court,
(17:38):
and the Constitution.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Now, that is an insulting question.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
Now, Michael, I'm going to tell you something surprising. Elizabeth
Warren helped defeat the impeachment of the President of the
United States. How do you mean that little stunt she
pulled was a campaign stunt. That was a fundraising stunt
that was designed to thrill the left wing activists in
the Iowa Caucus. There ain't nothing else going on than that.
(18:02):
But I'll tell you what that's stunt. Yeah, helped deliver
the votes of Lisa and Lamar.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
It did because it.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Made clear this is a political game and if John
Roberts doesn't vote the way Elizabeth Warren wants, she's gonna
call him a political hack and throw him into politics.
And it suddenly raised the price of their voting and
making it fifty to fifty because you don't want to
see the court thrown into that political swamp.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
Do you agree with that, lindsay one hundred percent. All
you got to do is look at her statement. She
said a fair trial in the sentence impossible because of them.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
This is Lisa Mercowski.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Yes. So her statement was that they're going to set
up the Chief Justice because they hate Trump so much.
So the difference between fifty one and fifty is enormous.
If it's fifty to fifty, then you put the Chief
Justice in the cross hairs of history. You begin to
corrupt the court. As Ted said, they could give a
damn on the other side. They just want an outcome here.
(19:01):
And I think it really mattered to Lamar and Lisa
that Ted explained the historic nature of what the Chief
Justice would be required to decide. And I think I
explained honest to God, if you believed every word of
John Bolt, would it matter.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
The truth is it would be a left wing attack
group today put out an attack ad with John Roberts
bring a MAGA hat. Yeah, and that ticked off Republican
senators that helped produce the vote we had today.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
So you think it was just an overreach by people
like Senator Warren, by these left wing groups. So what
I want to know? I mean, this was a truly
shocking day. What happens now?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Well, I just want to fill out with what you said.
It wasn't just an overreach by them. They helped. It
was two senators or are good people thinking it through?
And Ted bringing to the table and expertise that very
few people have, quite frankly, And I just tried to say, listen,
I try to be fair. Supported the Muller investigation. I
actually co sponsored legislation that would prevent Muller from being
(20:06):
fired without.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Causing Yeah, what the heck were you thinking?
Speaker 5 (20:08):
There?
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Well, just to tell Trump what the hell are you thinking?
I understand you know, if you fire this guy, you're dead.
And I thought Muller would be fair, but this whole
process has not been fair. So I could say listen, guys,
it's not like I think the presence beyond being looked at.
What they did in the House is dangerous to the country.
It's a partisan impeachment, no due process, and we need
(20:30):
to end it the right way. Do not make it worse.
And what would make it worse is to do what
Ted said, put the court in the crosshairs of history
in the wrong way. And what would make it worse
is to to let them go to us into calling
a witness. That wouldn't matter because they think we're unfair.
You've done nothing wrong here. It was the other side
who did something wrong well. And as a consequence, John
(20:53):
Roberts is not in a position where he has to
make any controversial rulings where they get where he's being
set up to be attacked as being political. He simply
he presided over a fair trial and it was the senators.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Who were voted. And look, we're elected to make policy
decisions and political decisions and also to apply the constitutional standard,
and that's what we did.
Speaker 4 (21:15):
In some way, it feels like we dodged a bullet
if it were a fifty fifth you.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Have no idea, No, no, you dodged a canniate truck. Yeah,
but because really just play it out. We call witnesses.
Then you're not just going to call John Bolton. You're
going to have the whistleblower. It's going to be a
nightmare for the country. You have all kinds of issues
decided by the Senate should be decided by the courts,
and you would set a precedent that I think would
(21:40):
make impeachment of every president in the future almost a certainty.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
And it seemed actually in some of the arguments we
heard during the trial, there was a threat there or
an acknowledgment that if we continue down this path, we're
going to impeach every president from now on.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Well, and that remains a real risk that we've opened
the door to.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
So how do you stop that? If the House loses?
And one of the reasons they lost is because they've
gone crazy. Donald Trump's changed the Republican Party, but he's
driven the Democratic Party completely nuts. What would happen if
President Trump gets re elected? Death exoneration?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
Well, and let me underscore that, because that's a very
good point. I actually think Bill Clinton helped keep Barack
Obama from getting impeached. Now, why is that Republicans impeached,
and actually, lindsay was you don't try this at home, okay,
And it backfired. It it hurt Republicans, it got Bill
(22:34):
Clinton re elected. It didn't work, and a lot of
Republicans took that message, Hey, wait a second, being seen
being two partisan, too aggressive using impeachment. That's a problem.
And so when it came to Obama, look Obama on
the abuse of power theory that we've heard from the
House managers. Obama abused his power in many respects, and
yet all of us agreed we shouldn't be impeaching Obama.
(22:57):
We should beat him at the ballot box, which we
tried to do. But impeachment wasn't the right tool. If
Republicans hadn't gotten burned so bad on the Clinton impeachment,
there would have been some loud voices to impeach Obama.
But as it was, people said, let's not go down
that road. So, if you want to stop partisan impeachments
going forward, the best way and Lindsey, you're right, I
(23:18):
hadn't thought about it and connected it like this. The
best way to stop it is for Democrats to get
walloped in November, because then the next Democrats will say, okay, wow,
this impeaching business. And by the way, the Republicans will.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Too, well, you know we still remember okay. Lamar asked
a question, what's the partisan difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump?
A lot, a little Nune, a lot of bipartisanship for Nixon.
H that's the kind of thing the founders had in mind.
You know, this is a constitutional death penloity for a politician.
(23:54):
You should use exparingly. Clinton had thirty three Democrats say,
let's look at it, bipartisan impeachment, and Clinton basically cheated
Paula Jones out of her day in court, hit, evidence, perjury,
you name it. You can't have the most powerful person
in the country destory a private citizen's right to have
their day in court. Now Here we are with Trump
(24:15):
bipartisan rejection of the articles of impeachment, and I think
that bothered Lamar. It was the way it was done
and the outcome in the House. We don't want to.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Be joined with Lamar on a question exactly Now.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Lamar really rose to the occasion because what you're saying
is there was a bipartisan rejection and rejection, but in
terms of the people who actually voted for impeachment. It
was the first time in US history you had a
purely partisan impeachment.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
I hope it's the last. See Clinton was in his
second term, Nixon resigned. If Trump wins, he'll be the
first person impeached in his first term to get reelected.
That will exonerate him.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
Now, I want to know. Obviously, the impeachment hearings have
been so dreary and tedious, and.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
It's been kidding me.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
It's you know, I fun I admit it.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
You're watching this podcast, you're loving this well the.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
Podcast maybe sea Span I don't know, although actually people
listen to this because they can't watch sea Span for
thirteen hours and it makes their eyes and ears bleed.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
But this way, this is somewhere between c Span and
the trough.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
Was there any moment that was that had some levity
to it? The some foibles?
Speaker 2 (25:27):
I think the funniest moment was last night, the very
last of the questions, sixteen hours of questions, Amy club
a chart submits the last question, sends the car down
number one. She sends the wrong card down so the
chief doesn't read it. She realized that she screwed up.
She has to run down and write her name on
the car.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
So that starts off with it's not not cracking up
at that, and it's not that hard.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
You literally write your name on it, you know, kindergarten.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Okay, I did it three times and I didn't screw up,
you know, put.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Your name on the top block letters. I think she
was thinking about Iowa.
Speaker 3 (25:59):
Maybe she was so phil this is a good one.
Keep going.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
So her question was with the house managers give a
closing argument. So Adam Shift stands up, you seem kind
of puff at his chest.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
He starts walking.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Forward, and Jerry Nadler, who is sitting in like four
seats behind him, runs behind him, push a schiff out
of the leg and goes to the microphone, and and
Schiff is literally going Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. And he stands
there behind Lynnadler, I mean glaring. He wanted to punch
(26:31):
or strangle him.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
These are the two House Democrat impeachment managers. They're the leads.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
And Nadler just went and gave his closing arguments, and
Schiff stood there for a good ten seconds, and then
he just sat down and glared at Nadler the whole time.
And by the way Roberts, he had his reading glasses
on the tip of his nose. And I know I've
known John Roberts twenty five years. You saw a slight smile,
which for him is cracking up because they almost had as.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Were smiling his luck.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
So he's actually wickedly funny.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
I know, John, You're right, he's a breeding and is
only Mitchell O'Connell's funny in his own way. So so
here's the deal. Jerry's wife is sick. Pray for it.
She's got she's got pinker added cancer and I'm praying
for driving. Known him for a long time. But Jerry
can throw a punch. He can take a punch. So
number one shift. If Jerry Nayler is out running you,
(27:28):
you need to get better shape. So but the deal is,
it was just shocking and we were all pulling for
Nadler to win the race. We've heard enough of shift,
so shifts started good. But after about thirty hours of shift,
you're ready to turn the channel. You know, it's bad
when people want to hear Nadler, not not shift. So
(27:49):
the bottom line, here's another the classic story. And I
know we got to go. Y'all gotta do whatever you
do in a podcast.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Wolf.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Don't drink and dry.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
So here's the deal, flip flowing.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
So Chuck Schumer trying to be clever. Sometimes he is,
sometimes we all fall short in his business. He invites, uh,
he gives his ticket to be a spectator at the
trial to parn Us to this is this cool crooked
a snake guy, And the Ukraine said that I'm in
(28:26):
on it. Lindsey Graham knew it all. And they said,
have you ever taught Lindsey Graham? No, but I heard
he knew it all, so I don't know it all.
So they invite him to come. He shows up to
get his ticket. He can't get in because he's got
an anklet bracelet from the court. You can't make this one.
Speaker 4 (28:46):
Up, that is you know.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
I almost wish that Schumer's guess can't come into the
trail because he's got an ankle bracelet's.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
Par for the court, you know, State of the Union.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
I heard Schumer's bringing Charles Manson.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
That'd be good, that'd be interesting. The guys did so, Uh, anyway,
I've never done this before. If you're number two in
the podcast world, you need to up your game. Is
number apparently we're number one. I know that.
Speaker 4 (29:13):
Compliment, you know, speaking of we've got to get you
out of here because the senators are off, you get
a couple of days off.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Now, weird union.
Speaker 4 (29:23):
We're I'm headed to Texas, heading to Texas.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Senator Graham, you're done, is going to South Carolina? One
last store. You know the two guys that led the Alamo,
both of them are from South Carolina. What does that mean?
We'll go a long way for a lost cause? And uh,
I was an impeachment Maxas heroes. I would love Texas heroes.
God blessed Texas. But Henry I was giving us the
old take the hill boys. We're gonna go over the Senate.
(29:48):
We're gonna stand for truth, justice in the American way.
You know, the the the brave men and women at
the Alamo. You know they stood their ground, and you
know that's our charge, that's our charter. I said, hey, Henry,
didn't they all get killed? And he says, that's a
that's something I ignored. But it's a good point. But
(30:08):
he did say we're still talking about him to this day.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
It's true.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
And a final point wrapping up, there will be another bombshell.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
There will be an whole scene.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Now in Cavan all times too.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Do you promise you something.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Else is coming between now and and and and the
verdict on impeachment that will be voted on on Wednesday.
There'll be another bombshell in the New York Times probably,
but something else is coming.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Because I when I when I saw it today, I
just thought, Okay, it's over right. I don't need to
worry about it anymore.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
You're saying, oh my god, we both were on Cavanaugh
and you asked what's next after this? Is that we're
going to ask some hard questions State Department. Why didn't
you understand this conflict of ventures? Why didn't you do
something about it. We're going to get to the bottom
of the fives and warrant abuse. We're going to do
all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
But by the way, this is breaking news.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Yeah, we cannot live in a country.
Speaker 4 (30:55):
So you're because a lot of questions in the mailbag
people are asked.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Now, trust me now, because I actually like Joe Biden.
I have traveled the world with him. But you know,
if it had been Mike Pence or Vice President Cheney,
they'd be all over. We can't live in a world
where just one side gets looked at. I don't have
any animosity in my heart toward toward anyone, But the
truth of the matter is you got to have a
(31:17):
country where the rules matter for everybody, not just President Trump.
I mean not for Democrats. President Trump, from the day
he took office to now has gone through hell. His
family's gone through hell. And I promise you to those
who care, We're going to get to the bottom of
barisma because it's important we find out about barisma. We're
going to find out how could you an issue a
warrant four times against an American citizen. Here's the world.
(31:41):
If Trump goes to a Russian restaurant to have dinner,
he's a Russian, you know, and you know you can
have three million dollars paid to your son in the
Ukraine and nobody cares.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
Now, if President Trump gets acquitted, you're saying, the Senate
Republicans are not going to give up on this. What
can be done over to get to the bottom.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Of Jim Rish, Chairman of Foreign Relations Community, The first
witness I want to call is John Carrey's chief of staff.
When you were told that there was a conflict of interest,
by John Carrey's step son, who is their business partner?
Why don't you do something about it?
Speaker 4 (32:12):
And last I checked, both you and I are on
foreign relations.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Last time I checked, we're on judiciary and we're on
foreign relations. This is the beginning of a day of reckoning.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
This is not the beginning of the end. Maybe the
end of the beginning. We're moving on is the end
of the podcast, and it's the end of the One
thing I want to know before we let you get
out of here and hop onto a plane. One last
thing is I noticed it's much earlier tonight. Usually we're
here at two o'clock in the morning. It's only eleven
o'clock at night. Why is it that, Mitch McConnell, that
(32:44):
all these senators are letting people get out of here
so early? Was there some I think the Democrats wanted
to go to Iowa? The Democrats a three demo jumping
to go to Iowa. Did did you talk to any
of your colleagues?
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Were they well, you know, let's look at it this way.
I'm not married, So why can't you get everything done
the way you want it? I'll let ted answer that question.
We've got one hundred people in the Senate. Everybody has
different agendas. But Monday, so Sunday's super Bowl, right, Monday
is the Iowa Caucus. Tuesday's the State of the Union.
(33:19):
Bottom line is, this is the best Mitch could do.
And I think Mitch McConnell did a brilliant job handling this.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
I really do bets on the Super Bowl before we go.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Look, I'm rooting for the Chiefs just because they beat
the Texans and so on that principle. If they go
on to win, all I get to say the Texans
are the second best in my record.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
We're pulling for the Falcons.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
There we are. That's our show. That's the that's the
final verdict on the super Bowl. We've got a whole
lot more coming. Yes, I'm Michael knowles on behalf of
Senator Lindsey Graham, so gracious to spend the night in
our bunker over here. Yeah, this is verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
Senator that I'm so glad that everybody got to watch
that podcast. Listen to it. If you didn't get to
watch it, you can on YouTube. If you're listening to
this as an audio podcast right now. It is you
don't realize when you guys were taking that what a
blessing it was going to be to have that video
and those really fun moments, but also just to remember
what a fighter he was and how you guys became
(34:16):
good friends.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
He had a profound impact Without Lindsey Graham. I don't
know that Brett Kavanaugh ever gets confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I don't know that we get the Reconciliation Bill passed.
I don't know that that President Trump has anywhere near
the number of successes he's had without Lindsey Graham. And
and so that podcast, You're right, when we were doing it,
(34:39):
I didn't realize that there would come a time when
he wasn't with us. To be honest, if we were
going to have a guest for a second time on Verdict,
Lindsey would have been right at the top of the list.
And and we're not going to have the chance to
do that. But I will say I missed my friend,
and and thank you, Lindsey, thank you for the legacy
(35:00):
you left for America.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.