It’s Not Over Yet

Published Feb 1, 2020, 4:50 AM

Sen. Lindsey Graham stops by to walk us through how Mitch McConnell got 51 votes to stop further witnesses. But Senator Cruz knows a lot could happen between now and acquittal.

Verdict is co-hosted by Senator Ted Cruz and Michael Knowles. To hear more of Michael, check out The Michael Knowles Show on Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you stream your favorite podcasts.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, I'm Senator Lindsay Graham. Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruise, the number one podcast in the entire country. What is a podcast? Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruise. I'm Michael Knowles. I'm joined by not one, but two US Senators to help us break down the most shocking day of the entire impeachment trial. Senator Graham, thank you so much for being here. 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 gonna get Bolton, we were gonna get Hunter Biden. This was gonna 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 Cruise, what happened? Well, today was a big day. And let me say, lindsay, thank you. Well. You appreciate your coming. This is late at night. We spent all day, all day in the setting, a lot of money on production. 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 a 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 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 Romney and Susan Collins were voting with them. There were two other 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 saw the update on my phone when Senator Murkowski finally decided she was going to vote no more witnesses. How does that work? Well, that's what I was going to ask you, because it's Michael. Have you ever seen his phone. You hang in there. That's worth worth the way. Oh you know it is. The Russians can't get in this. You'll all have one in a five years. Senator Grant, you're clearly a fiscal conservative if you were using that kind of cell phone. What happened with Senator Murkowski? I know that you two gentlemen were kneeling and dealing a little bit on the Senate floor. So unless number one Ted was awesome, we had a little team trying to convince people. Can you say shit show on podcasts? I think you just did that all right? So what would happened if you call witnesses being a shit show? Yeah, you're just not gonna call John Bolton. If you're gonna call a witness, we're gonna call all the witnesses. What do you want to know a little bit about the Bidens? You know, I like Joe Biden, but give me a break. If Mike pen this son was making three million dollars a year from the most corrupt gas company in the U Train, don't you think you might hear about it. You're only gonna hear about the Bidens on this podcast. So the bottom line here is Ted made a very eloquent argument that it throwes the courts in the chaos to be the first impeachment in history. If you have executive privilege, we'll be decided by the United States Senate that if you call one witness, you're gonna call a bunch of witnesses. The president didn't get to call one witness in the House, so you open up Pandora's bogs 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 called by the president, no cross examination. The bottom line is the whole thing was at 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 doctor call. Why didn't they call John Bolton because it would be inconvenient. They couldn't impeach the president by Christmas. That's not a good reason to ignore the courts. Do you think that it was the public arguments well, we all saw on TV that moved Senator Murkowski or was it more private conversations? So I think the pivotal moment happened day before yesterday. Day before yesterday, Adam Schiff made a mistake. He was standing up arguing and he said, he said, listen, the White House defense team had made John Bolton relevant because they have contradicted what he said. And then he threw a little aside. He said, if they'd a stipulated to it, then they'd have an argument. And it was interesting. I heard that Jay Sekulo's eyes got real wide when he said that, and I got up and went back to the cloak room. Lindsay went back to the close. Well, I opened my eyes at that point. So for those of us who were not us senators, why is that the big light bulb moment? So well, I'll tell you. So, I immediately in the cloak room, got my phone, texted my team and said, give me the transcript of exactly what Shift 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 might get their vote, that might give them, give them a ground to become 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, He 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 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 impeachable 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 that 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, I think was pivotal to getting both Lisa and Lamar, especially Lisa, to yes, which we need. 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 right. However, if you address that that argument and it still doesn't matter if there was a quid pro que, then there is no basis whatsoever for the impeachment. Well, there's no basis to call John Bolton. So what brought all this up? You know, Ted was very proud. I'm a practical guy. Lisa mccowski is independent from Alaska. We're Republicans from Texas and South Carolina. A little different politics. And here's the problem. They could have called John Bolton and others, but they chose not to because they wanted to impeach the president before Christmas. The president would declared executive privilege. It 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 bidens looking at interference by the Ukraine. That was different. The defense team of the President said there is no evidence and 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 and explained, well, why didn't you call any witnesses? And here's the point. If we call John Bolton. Now want the president raise executive privilege? Because if he doesn't, he forfeits that for future presidence. Do we as senators destroy the privilege? To be the first impeachment in history where there was no court access, we would have to decide executive privilege. And I think that made Lamar feel uncomfortable. So walk me through that just a little bit more, because this is now not an argument. 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 asked to go to court, the logic is the court of impeachment de sized not Article three courts. It may be the first time in history a president was impeached without ever being able to avail the courts. Right, So what's the answer this assuming for a moment arguendo podcast, people look up, Okay, you showed off your Latin and the episode so arguing, I am like it is a lawyer word. You put it in race all the time where you say assume arguendo, 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. Yeah, that's right in South Carolina. What if he said it is assuming arguendo, would it matter? So why I assume for a moment for arguendo, for the sake of argument, that if John Bolton did, if he was told by the President, I want to suspend AID until I find more about what the Bidens did. He had every reason in the world because if you're in charge, Ted, if I put you in charge of fixing corruption in the Ukraine and I find out that your son, who's you know, until I'm told that job pays a million bucks here, Okay, so it's better than 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 energy sector, and everybody said, well, why is your son on the border breeze by making a million 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 UH didn't like Trump and like Clinton at least parts of it. So the president had a legitimate public purpose. And that gets back to Dershowitz. He says, if there's a mixed motive, the reason it's impeachment sucks so much. We got to get into Trump's brain and find out how much of it was personal and how much it was public and what. And I said, you know, they said, there's not a sentilla of evidence that the Biden said anything wrong. I said, no, there's not. There's a herd of zendillas. You know, if you find one of these little suckers rumming around, 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 was a legitimate public purpose to suspend the AID and this is not an impeachable fence. 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. But this is this is a real trick, a real political trick here, because you've got Senator Alexander, who you say cares about the institutions. He's a wonderful man of credibility. Absolutely, and you've got Senator Murkowski, who's independent, she's gonna go back home. Had real problems. So they have separate problems. And I understood maybe differently than others. And now I 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 Lisa 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. Wouldn't it still fall short of the impeachment? Is this really what they meant to throw a president out? That you suspend 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. So one of the things that I think was really potent is Lindsay is a trial lawyer. I'm an a pellet lawyer. Those are different worlds, those are different arenas. I say shit show and he says stuff. So that's the difference between a trial lawyer and at lawyer. Look, look, trial lawyers talk to jury's a pellet lawyers talk to judges. Those are different ways of framing, framing things. But he and I teamed up very close. 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 and Lisa, trying to move them, but trying to also give them. You know, we talked on this podcast a lot of times about framing the narrative and choosing, choosing the terrain on which you fight, if the whole fight. Early on the White House spent hours an hour saying there's no quid pro quo, there's no quid pro quote. Well, you know what if that's their argument, The fact that the New York Time says John Bolton says there is a quid pro quo that suddenly makes if someone they even handed. If that's the central dispute, it's really hard to say, well, God, 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 quo or not. That's not the issue. So I'm start to interrupt. There were these competing strategies. Were these 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 gonna 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 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 ippeachable offense for Bolton to say what he's going to say, and the answer is clearly 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 a fifty fifty this is a big one here. The Democrats were trying to go after the US Supreme Court because if it had been fifty fifty, and we talked about this on the show last time, it's completely unclear if 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 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 two, where they lose faith in every institution of government, that that's a real problem. And Michael, I think we've got a clip here that will give an example of the Democrat's strategy. 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, and the Constitution. Now that is an insulting question. Now, Michael, I'm going to tell you something surprising. Yeah, Elizabeth Warren helped defeat the impeachment of the President of the United States. That little stunt she pulled was a campaign stunt. That was a fundraising stunt that was designed to thrill the left wing activist in the Iowa caucus. There ain't nothing else going on than that. But I'll tell you what. That stunt helped deliver the votes of Lisa and Lamar. It did because it made clear this is a political game and if John Roberts doesn't vote the way Elizabeth Warren wants, she's going to call him a political hack and throw him into politics. And it suddenly raised the price of their voting and making it fifty fifty. Because you don't want to see the court thrown into that political swamp? Do you agree with that? All you gotta do is look at her statement, she said, a fair trial and the sentence impossible because of them. This is Lisa, 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 fifties enormous. If it's fifty to fifty, then you put the Chief Justice in the crosshairs 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. 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 wouldn't matter, and the truth is, it wouldn't be. A left wing attack group today put out an attack ad with John Robert Farr and a Maga Hath Yeah, and that ticked off Republican senators that helped produce the vote we had today. 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, 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 good people thinking it through, and Ted bringing to the table and expertise that very few people have, quite frankly, and I just try to say, listen, I try to be fair. I supported the Mueller investigation. I actually co sponsored legislation that would prevent Mueller from being fired without causing Yeah, what the thin, Well, just to tell Trump, what the hell are you thinking? If you fire this guy, you're dead. And I thought Mueller 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 impeach, but no due process, and we need to end it the right way. Do not make it worse. And what would make it worse is to do what d said, put the court in the crossairs of history in the wrong way. And what would make it worse is 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 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 who are voted. And look, we're elected to make policy decisions and political decisions and also to apply the constitutional standards, and that's what we did. In some way, it feels like we dodged a bullet if it were you have no idea. No, you dodged a candid 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. Is going to be a nightmare for the country. You have all kind of issues decided by the Senate should be decided by the courts, and you would set a president that I think would make impeachment of every president in future almost a certainty. And it seemed actually in some of the arguments we heard during the trial that there was a threat there or an acknowledgement that if we continue down this path. We're going to impeach every president from now on. Well, and that remains a real risk that we've opened the door to. So how do you stop that if the House loses? And one of the reasons they lost just because they've gone crazy. Donald Trump's changed the Republican Party, but he's driven the Democratic Party completely nuts. So what would happen if President Trump gets reelected? That's exoneration. 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. So now why is that Republicans impeach? And actually Lindsay was manager, you don't reve this at home, okay, And it backfired. It it hurt Republicans, it got Bill hunt and reelected. It didn't work, and a lot of Republicans took that message. Hey, wait a second, being seen being two partisan, too aggressive of 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 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 in lindsay, you're right, I 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 this impeaching business. And by the way, the Republicans will too. Well. You know, we still remember. Lamar asked a question, what's the partisan difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump? A lot, a little nun a lot of bipartisanship for Nixon. Yeah, that's the kind of thing the founders had in mind. You know, this is a constitutional death penalty for a politician. 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, hid evidence, perjury, you name it. You can't have the most spowerful person in the country to story a private citizen's right to have their day in court. Now Here we are with Trump bipartisan rejection of the articles of impeachment, and I think that bothered Lamar, that it was the way it was done and the outcome in the House. We don't want to be joined with Lamar on a question exactly. Lamar really rose to the occasion because what you're saying is there was a bipartisan rejection of 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. Yeah, and I hope it's the last c 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. Now, I want to know, obviously, the impeachment hearings have been so dreary and tedious, and it's gonna be kidding me. It's you. I know, you'll admit if you're watching this podcast, you're loving this. Well, the podcast maybe c SPAN. I don't know. Well, actually people listen to this because they can't watch c SPAN for thirteen hours and it makes their eyes and ears bleed. But this way, this is somewhere between c SPAN and the trial. Was there any moment that was that had some levity to it? The some voibles? I think the funniest moment was last night, the very last of the question, sixteen hours of questions, Amy Klobuchar submits the last question ends the card down number. Once she sends the wrong card down, so the chief doesn't read it. She realizes that she screwed up. She has to run down and write her name on the car. So that starts off cracking up at that. And it's not that hard. You literally write your name on it, you know, kindergart okay, and I didn't screw up, you know, put your name on the top block letters. I think she was thinking about Iowa. Maybe she wasn't saying attention, So Phil, this is a good one. Keep going. So her question was with the house managers give a closing argument. So Adam Schiff stands up. You seem kind of puff at his chest. He starts walking forward and Jerry Nadler was sitting like four seats behind him, runs behind him, push a shift out of the leg and goes to the microphone, and and Schiff is literally going, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. And he stands there behind Adler, I mean glaring. He wanted to punch or strangle him. These are the two how stamach right, impeachment manager that they're the leads. And Nadler just went and gave his closing arguments, and Ship 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 Robert twenty five years. You saw a slight smile, which for him is cracking up because they almost had a fist. This band has never smiled in his luck. So he's actually wickedly fun I know, John, You're right, he's a bring Mitch McConnell's funny in his own way. So so here's the deal. Jerry's wife is sick it. Yeah, she's got she got pinkeran it cancer. Now 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 Nadler's out running, you need to get in better shape. So but the deal is, it was just shocking and we were all pulling for Nadler to win the race. We'd heard enough of shifts, so Shift started good. But after about thirty hours or shift, you're ready to turn the channel. You know, it's bad when people want to hear Nadler, not not Shift. So the bottom line, here's the classic story. And I know we gotta go because y'all gotta do whatever you do in a podcast, wolf drink and drive. So here's the deal. Flipflowing shut Chumber trying to be clever. Sometimes he is. Sometimes we all fall short in this business. He invites uh, he gives his ticket to be a spectator at the trial to part us. This is crooked at Snake Guy in the Ukraine has said that I'm in on it. Lindsay Graham knew it all. And they said, have you ever talked to Lindsay Graham? No, but I heard he knew it all, so so I don't know at 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 mate this one up. That is you know, I almost wish the humors guess can't come into the drial couse he's got an ankle brace that's par for the course. Well, you know State of the Union. I heard Schumer's bringing Charles Manson. That'd be good. I'd be inter as anything guy's did so. Um, anyway, I've never done this before. If you're number two in the podcast world, you need to up your game because this is uber were number one. I know that. I'll take that as a compliment. Maybe, you know, speaking up, We've got to get you out of here because the senators are off. You get a couple of days off. Now, weird Union. I'm headed to Texas, Heading to Texas. Senator Graham, you're done this one in 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. It would love Texas heroes. God blessed Texas. But Henry I was giving us the take the hill boys. We're gonna go over the Senate. We're gonna stand for truth, justice in the American way. You know 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 that's something I ignored. But it's a good point. But he did say we're still talking about him did this day? It's true. In a final point wrapping up, there will be another bomb show. There will be an all Seen now and Havin all times too. Do you think i'mis you? Something else is coming between now and and and the verdict on impeachment that will be voted on on Wednesday. There'll be another bomb show in the New York Times probably, but something else is going 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. You're saying, oh, we both were on Kavanagh and you ask 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 interest. Why didn't you do something about it. We're going to get to the bottom of the FISA warrant abuse. We're going to do all that stuff. But by the way, this is breaking news. Yeah, we cannot live in a country. So you're because a lot of questions in the mailback people are asking now, trust me, not because I actually like Joe Budden. I 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 gotta have a country where the rules matter for everybody, not just President Trump. I mean not for Democrats. President Trump from the day he took office and 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 doubt about Bison. But we're going to find out how could you an issue a warrant four times against an American citizen. Here's the world if Trump goes to a Russian restaurant to have dinner. He's a Russian. Yeah, you know, and you know you can have three million dollars paid to your son in the Ukraine and nobody cares. 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 of Jim Rash's Chairman of Foreign Relations community. The first witness I want to call is John Carey's chiefest staff. When you were told that there was a conflict of interest by John Carey steps on, who is their business partner? Why don't you do something about it? And last I checked, both you and I are on foreign relations. Last time I checked, we're on judiciary and we're on foreign relations. This is the beginning of a day of reckoning. 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 at 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 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 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 three democrat jumping to go to Iowa. Did you talk to any of your colleagues? 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. Tuesdays the State of the Union. Bottom line is, this is the best Mitch could do. And I think Mitch McConnell did a brilliant job handle of this. I really do bets on the Super Bowl before we go. Look, I'm rooting for the Chiefs just because they beat the Texans and so on that principle. If they go on to win it all, I get to say the Texans the second best in in my reckond puem for the Falcons. 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 out. 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. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.