Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Very pleased to bring you all today in interview with
Speaker 1: independent presidential candidate the one and only RFKJ and you're
Speaker 1: welcome back.
Speaker 3: Great to see us, Sarth, Thanks for having Thank you course, sir.
Speaker 2: Well, you're probably the foremost independent candidate that we've seen
Speaker 2: in this country for quite a long time. And one
Speaker 2: of the things that we really want to do in
Speaker 2: this interview is to take you seriously. So one of
Speaker 2: the things that you've talked about is gaining baland access.
Speaker 2: So can you guarantee that you're going to be on
Speaker 2: the ballot in all fifty states?
Speaker 3: We just saw an Axios report.
Speaker 2: You've got about fifteen million dollars appropriate You're going to
Speaker 2: be on the ballot in eight states. You're targeting but
Speaker 2: can you guarantee you're going to be on all fifty
Speaker 2: of these ballots?
Speaker 4: Oh, we'll be on the ballot in all the fifty
Speaker 4: states in the district.
Speaker 2: Okay, And what's the plan for that, because as I
Speaker 2: understand it, you don't you're not on the ballot yet
Speaker 2: in a single state. I mean, you successfully were able
Speaker 2: to challenge the law in Utah, But do you have
Speaker 2: the ground.
Speaker 4: Operations every single wow fully submitted and approved in Utah? Okay,
Speaker 4: that's our first date. But we have Yeah, we have
Speaker 4: two hundred and fifty thousand volunteers and we have you know,
Speaker 4: surinary Yeah, we have many more than any other campaign,
Speaker 4: and we're very confident that we can get it. You know,
Speaker 4: most of the states is pretty it's pretty basic. There's
Speaker 4: a handful of states that make it very very difficult.
Speaker 4: New York is one, California is another, Texas another, And
Speaker 4: you know, you have to pay attention to the rules
Speaker 4: and we'll probably have to do so litigation and they're
Speaker 4: going to litigate against us. But we're shooting forgetting I
Speaker 4: think sixty percent cushion, So we're going to get what
Speaker 4: we need plus sixty percent more so they knock out
Speaker 4: some signatures. We should have a cushion enough to.
Speaker 2: Be You made an interesting comment I think it was
Speaker 2: on the theo Von podcast. You said that when you
Speaker 2: go independent that you were going to take more votes
Speaker 2: away from Trump. So now you've been doing this now
Speaker 2: for a couple of months. What are your internal polling
Speaker 2: show in terms of the support who you're drawing. Is
Speaker 2: it Biden, is it Trump? Is it non voters?
Speaker 3: What do you see?
Speaker 4: We're drawing pretty evenly and we're you know that we're
Speaker 4: getting a lot from people from non voters. The reason
Speaker 4: what you know, the Politico did a piece on us
Speaker 4: that showed where they did it really meticulous breakdown of
Speaker 4: our donor base, and they said in that a shocking
Speaker 4: number of our donors where people who never done to
Speaker 4: a political campaign before. And that's what we're finding. But
Speaker 4: you know, we're when I just anecdotally, the people coming
Speaker 4: to our rallies are from all across the board. I
Speaker 4: think the early polling showed me pulling more from Trump,
Speaker 4: but I don't you know, you would the big poles
Speaker 4: are probably you know, the big poles like Quinnipiac and
Speaker 4: Herbert Harris, New York. Cianna that are looking at three
Speaker 4: three thousand, four thousand people are probably even more accurate
Speaker 4: than our internal polls. So you know, you know, as
Speaker 4: much as I got it.
Speaker 2: I think it's pretty But do you think you're going
Speaker 2: to be on the debate stage with Biden and Trump
Speaker 2: if you had a plan with the Commission on present?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Do you think Biden is going to debate?
Speaker 2: Oh, well, that's a great question for you. You know him,
Speaker 2: you know him better than we know.
Speaker 4: But I don't know. I haven't seen him in years,
Speaker 4: and I don't I have not seen him do an
Speaker 4: unscripted event in I think a year at least, So
Speaker 4: I don't know what they're going to do. But the
Speaker 4: rules are they have three debates scheduled, and I have
Speaker 4: them on my personal schedule, So oh, I have at
Speaker 4: least that much confidence that they'll let me on. But
Speaker 4: on the rule is the rule that they've adopted is
Speaker 4: if you have fifteen percent of the vote, you're on,
Speaker 4: And I'm way above that.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's actually a quick thing on that. So you
Speaker 2: mentioned about Biden not debating last time that we spoke.
Speaker 2: You didn't want to get into Biden's mental status. Is
Speaker 2: fitness for president. You're independent now you're not running in
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary. Just made that comment about him debating.
Speaker 2: Do you want to go into that? I mean I
Speaker 2: was asking you, yeah, oh, youth, Okay.
Speaker 4: I think it's it's an issue that he is now
Speaker 4: publicly debated and publicly discussed, which is, you know, his
Speaker 4: mental acuity. And I think it's fair, you know, to say,
Speaker 4: are you are you able to debate? Are you? I mean,
Speaker 4: you know this. It takes a tremendous amount of energy
Speaker 4: and vigor to run this country and are you up
Speaker 4: to that, particularly at this point in history. So I
Speaker 4: think it's fair, you know, for people to ask that,
Speaker 4: not in the mean spirited way, right. You know, we've
Speaker 4: seen I think yesterday he did a press conference in
Speaker 4: which the answers appeared to have been written out for
Speaker 4: him in advance. And that's you know, I think the
Speaker 4: president ought to be evident debate and ought to be
Speaker 4: able to have unscripted conversations with people.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: One of the things we've been trying to look at
Speaker 2: is gaming out how things are going to go. So
Speaker 2: if you're going to be pulling your meek getting twenty
Speaker 2: seven to thirty percent, possibly of the vote, and we
Speaker 2: are in a scenario we've got multiple different candidates, there's
Speaker 2: no electoral college victory.
Speaker 3: Have you thought about what that's going to look like?
Speaker 2: What is your endgame if there is no electoral college
Speaker 2: victory for the House of Representatives, and how would the
Speaker 2: election play out? I think a lot of people have
Speaker 2: been asking that question with respect to your.
Speaker 4: Run if that happens, If there's a contingent elect the
Speaker 4: Senate and chooses the vice president, and the House chooses
Speaker 4: the president, and they get one vote per state. So
Speaker 4: if you look in an electro map, there's nine more
Speaker 4: Republican states than there art Democratic states, and so you
Speaker 4: would assume that Trump would run. But if you look
Speaker 4: at the individual congressional delegations, neither candidate can get twenty
Speaker 4: six votes because a lot of the delegates the delegations
Speaker 4: are split from it, you know, just as they have
Speaker 4: on Minnesota is split fifty to fifty. So the Republicans
Speaker 4: are never going to vote for Trump because their careers
Speaker 4: will be ruined. And I mean the Republicans are to
Speaker 4: vote for yea. Democrats are not going to vote for Trump,
Speaker 4: so they would have to find a compromise candidate. And
Speaker 4: in that case, I'm probably in good shape because my
Speaker 4: polling are you know, all the public polling shows my
Speaker 4: favorability ratings ahead of anybody. So with that, what would
Speaker 4: mean is that I'm the second choice or people are
Speaker 4: voting for Trump and you know a lot of people
Speaker 4: are voting for Biden. So you know that's one scenario.
Speaker 4: But this is all speculation, and you know, nobody and
Speaker 4: spin and all of that, which I don't like to
Speaker 4: do ins but you know we have booked at it.
Speaker 2: You have to think about it. Yeah, we have to
Speaker 2: think about so I guess it could continue down on
Speaker 2: this road. Let's say we're in a scenario you are
Speaker 2: in one, we have a minority of.
Speaker 3: Electoral College votes.
Speaker 2: Would you release your electors to Biden or to Trump
Speaker 2: after the first round or would you consist on being
Speaker 2: to compromise candidate.
Speaker 4: Oh, I have no idea. I haven't had. It's yeah,
Speaker 4: I would, I mean I would not even like I
Speaker 4: would make no comment or prediction. I you know, I
Speaker 4: intend to win. I think if I'm I'm not a
Speaker 4: betting person. My wife that's a lot. But if I
Speaker 4: had to, and I don't, I also don't like to
Speaker 4: make predictions or like to make spen. But if I
Speaker 4: had to put money on a candidate right now, I
Speaker 4: would put it on me.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Well, my last question kind of for this section is
Speaker 2: we watched a lot of people conservative media figures out
Speaker 2: with Sean Hannity, a lot of large conservative Twitter accounts.
Speaker 2: They built you up when you were winning the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: I watched them kind of turn a little bit on you.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty much immediately whenever.
Speaker 3: You decided to run, definitely turned on. He did watch
Speaker 3: a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we might have covered it here. I can't read it.
Speaker 4: What is a lot of drama proceeding? Tell us about it? Well,
Speaker 4: I don't want to go into it, but it was
Speaker 4: I had a long relationship was shot because during the
Speaker 4: you know, and I I had this weird relationship with
Speaker 4: Roger L's who was the founder of Fox News, and
Speaker 4: when I was nineteen years old, I spent three months
Speaker 4: in a tent with him half again and uh, and
Speaker 4: then I had this weird relationship because he was like
Speaker 4: Darth Vader to me, and you know, and we were
Speaker 4: absolutely anesthetical politically, but he was a very loyal friend
Speaker 4: and he would when I wanted to talk about the
Speaker 4: environment on issues he would make the Fox House or
Speaker 4: urge them to like Neil Cabuda, like Bill Riley, and
Speaker 4: like Sean have me on. So I assumed he was
Speaker 4: twisting their arm, but maybe they wanted me. I don't know.
Speaker 4: But I would talk about the environment on it and
Speaker 4: I had a lot of run ins wish on. You know,
Speaker 4: we were like oil and water all that time. And
Speaker 4: then he kind of ambushed me once early on the
Speaker 4: campaign and I just said, okay, you know that I
Speaker 4: learned my lesson from that. But then he called me
Speaker 4: and he asked to call me on a weekend and
Speaker 4: U and he called me and he said he wanted
Speaker 4: he wanted to talk to me for about forty minutes,
Speaker 4: and so I had a very pleasant conversation. He said,
Speaker 4: I want you to come back, and you know, I'm
Speaker 4: going to treat you fairly this time. I was like okay,
Speaker 4: and I went back and I had a great time
Speaker 4: on the show. And then he did a town hall
Speaker 4: and it was wonderful. And then as soon as Trump
Speaker 4: announced it, I know, I got bushwhacked well, and I
Speaker 4: just sat there and took it for you know, twenty minutes.
Speaker 4: So you know, it's just part of the partament part.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It was kind of amazing to watch out quickly though, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: literally a little bit on a dime.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Some people even were openly.
Speaker 3: Like, yes, actually we have covered here before.
Speaker 2: There was a conservative influencer he's got over a million follows, said, look,
Speaker 2: I built up RFK when he was a threat to Biden.
Speaker 2: He's like, but now we have to highlight all the
Speaker 2: things that he believes. But you have no problem with that.
Speaker 3: It is what it is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is what it is.
Speaker 1: Let's turn out a little bit.
Speaker 4: I'm grateful for them letting me on when they did.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to a little bit of policy and specifically
Speaker 1: of the topic of Israel. Obviously very much in the
Speaker 1: news right now. So President Biden's administration. They have said
Speaker 1: that they have no red lines for the State of
Speaker 1: Israel and their conduct in this war. Do you have
Speaker 1: any red lines for Israel?
Speaker 4: Well, you know the red lines are they? You know,
Speaker 4: you don't deliver. You do everything you can, which I
Speaker 4: think Israel is doing right now to avoid civilian casually.
Speaker 4: You know, there's collateral damage in every war, and they're
Speaker 4: fighting an implacable enemy. I mean, I don't think there's
Speaker 4: any country in the world that would go as far
Speaker 4: as Israel has gone to not invade gods. I mean,
Speaker 4: Israel was being bombed by Ama. Amas took over God.
Speaker 4: Israel walked out of God. There's no occupation of gods though. Well,
Speaker 4: there's a black hat because because God, because Hamas declared
Speaker 4: war on Israel and said suicide bombers off. So they
Speaker 4: put up a fence so that it's there. You know,
Speaker 4: that's like, that's like the guy who kills his father,
Speaker 4: his parents and then throws himself on the mercy the
Speaker 4: court because he is an orphan. You know, for them
Speaker 4: to say that they're black hated, they're black. Yeah, they're black.
Speaker 4: And it's not just Israel, it's blocking is Egypt. Everybody
Speaker 4: has a problem with a moss you know. In fact,
Speaker 4: after the seventy three war, after the sixty seven war,
Speaker 4: Israel tried to give a moss back the Egypt and
Speaker 4: Egypt didn't want to take it because i mean, God, sorry,
Speaker 4: gos it back to Egypt. Egypt didn't want to take
Speaker 4: it because of the you know, the high level of
Speaker 4: religious militant is on that is that Egypt considered a
Speaker 4: threat to its own government, but then let me do
Speaker 4: his finish. Israel Amas took over in two thousand and six, right,
Speaker 4: and they immediately started shelling Israel. So they send they
Speaker 4: sent on average two thousand rockets a year on civilian populations.
Speaker 4: And they're their charter and their public statements a day
Speaker 4: after day are they don't it's it is it's against
Speaker 4: Islamic law for them to even negotiate with Israel except
Speaker 4: as a ruse. It says that in their charter they
Speaker 4: the only satisfaction if for them, the only goal is
Speaker 4: to annihilate Israel and kill every Jew, not just in
Speaker 4: Israel but all around the world. So Israel instead of
Speaker 4: going in and attacking You know, if if Mexico elected
Speaker 4: a communist government and the communist government began sending shells
Speaker 4: on the civilian populations at San Antonio on Houston and
Speaker 4: say we're, you know, we're going to retake Texas, which
Speaker 4: they have a legitimate claim to. We're going to retake it.
Speaker 4: How long would it take us to go in there.
Speaker 4: It wouldn't take us very long. We would go in
Speaker 4: and we would do whatever it took to take out
Speaker 4: the people who are sending these tells, and Israel instead
Speaker 4: of doing that, Israel did something extraordinary, which is it
Speaker 4: invested in an iron dome, which is to defend itself again,
Speaker 4: just to live with missiles. There's there's thousands, tens of
Speaker 4: thousands of Israelis that on that part of Israel that
Speaker 4: have been raised in bomb shelters. Who would put up
Speaker 4: with that?
Speaker 1: No one, no one here is excusing the actions of
Speaker 1: hum Us. But I think you would agree that one
Speaker 1: atrocity does not justify another. So how can you hold on?
Speaker 1: How can you say though, how can you say I
Speaker 1: haven't finished my question? How can you say that Israel
Speaker 1: is doing everything they can to avoid civilian death when
Speaker 1: the civilian death toll, even by Israeli estimates, and this
Speaker 1: is the low, this is the the best possible number
Speaker 1: you could put on it is sixty one percent innocent civilians,
Speaker 1: thousands of children, thousands of women. That's worse than the
Speaker 1: combination of every twentieth century conflict combined. So how can
Speaker 1: you look at that and combine with the complete siege
Speaker 1: of two point two million people and say that they
Speaker 1: are doing everything they can to protect civilian life.
Speaker 4: First of all, what you said, it's not trum we killed.
Speaker 4: We killed the seven hundred and fifty thousand civilians in Iraq.
Speaker 3: She's percentage one percent.
Speaker 4: The percentage of the average kill right in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan,
Speaker 4: most soul in those battles in modern warfare is about
Speaker 4: eight or nine to one civilians to military.
Speaker 1: And you think that's fine. Eighty percent civilian death.
Speaker 4: Your pin right. I don't think a single civilian is fine.
Speaker 4: I'm not a single But when we went into Germany
Speaker 4: to get out the Nazis, we killed to Germans. We
Speaker 4: bombed Dresden, which is why.
Speaker 1: And actually there's an analysis that just came out that
Speaker 1: showed the bombing of northern Gaza has been more devastating
Speaker 1: and more destructive than our bombing of Dresden. I would
Speaker 1: also say, after World War Two, that's why we put
Speaker 1: in place things like the Geneva Conventions to make sure
Speaker 1: that we did as much as we could to protect
Speaker 1: civilian life. So when you say, let me give you
Speaker 1: a specific report that you can respond to the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: we can put this up on the screen, guys. This
Speaker 1: is the second element.
Speaker 4: Two.
Speaker 1: The Washington Post just reported that Israel dropped us supplied
Speaker 1: white phosphorus in an attack in Lebanon in a way
Speaker 1: that is inconsistent with the laws of war, directly impacting
Speaker 1: a civilian population. Are these now you might say, look,
Speaker 1: with maybe the reports in dispute, maybe we need to
Speaker 1: go and investigate. But is this or any other of
Speaker 1: Israeli conduct in this war. Is this something that you
Speaker 1: think should be investigated for potential violations of international law?
Speaker 4: If Israel dropped white fosphs on civilian populations illegally, then
Speaker 4: they should be prosecuted for war crimes. Yeah, but I
Speaker 4: don't think there's strong evidence that they've done that, and
Speaker 4: Israel absolutely denies that there is a legal There are
Speaker 4: legal ways to use white phosphorus because it's good in war,
Speaker 4: which is as a concealant, and Israel says that's what's doing.
Speaker 4: Here's what Israel has done. Israel has made calls people
Speaker 4: before they bomb. Nobody else in the world does that.
Speaker 4: It's made twenty thousand live calls. So somebody, an Arab
Speaker 4: speaking IDF member who calls the landlord. They have the
Speaker 4: telephone numbers of everybody in Gossa. There's a lot of
Speaker 4: connectivity problems, so they can't let me finish, they've made
Speaker 4: twenty thousand live calls with people telling you here's what's
Speaker 4: going to happen. You need to move out in your
Speaker 4: neighborhood on your building. They've sent one point two million
Speaker 4: robo calls. They've sent one point two million pamphlets. The
Speaker 4: pamphlets are color coded for date and for time, so
Speaker 4: that you don't see an old pamphlet and say, oh,
Speaker 4: this won't applied. It made so people know when they're
Speaker 4: when that building is going to get bombed. And they
Speaker 4: do something nobody else in the world does because they
Speaker 4: invented it, which is they send in roof knockers, which
Speaker 4: is a projectile that hits the roof two hours before
Speaker 4: they bomb the building to warn the people in that
Speaker 4: building to get out because they're going to bomb it.
Speaker 4: In warning the civilians, they're also warning Hamas and so
Speaker 4: it makes it much more difficult. And you know the
Speaker 4: fact there's many many nations in the world that would
Speaker 4: just go and flatten the whole place, because which is
Speaker 4: real could do it doesn't have to go in there
Speaker 4: and put id of soldiers at risk in a hand
Speaker 4: to hand combat. This is Amas is you know, Amas
Speaker 4: has made a stand they're putting civilians in the way.
Speaker 4: What is Israel supposed to do? It can't leave us
Speaker 4: in there.
Speaker 1: But Bobby, I don't think we should accept that from
Speaker 1: any state or any other. And I mean they have rendered,
Speaker 1: they've rendered Gaza city uninhabitable at this point, and there's
Speaker 1: been reports documenting that some of the procedures that you're
Speaker 1: talking about that they used in previous wars, they're not
Speaker 1: using this time. They've emphasized this attack on quote unquote
Speaker 1: power targets, which are things like civilian infrastructure and high
Speaker 1: rise apartments buildings, not to get hamas, but to create
Speaker 1: a quote shock in the civilian population. In addition, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned before, you have a collective punishment of two
Speaker 1: point two million people who are having their access to water, food, fuel,
Speaker 1: medicine blocked right now by Israel. This also appears to
Speaker 1: be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Do you think
Speaker 1: that it's acceptable to impose a siege on the entire
Speaker 1: civilian population in Gaza if.
Speaker 4: There's a violat first of all, I don't think that's happening.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's happening. Let me explain, can if
Speaker 4: it violates the Geneva Convention or if they're deliberately and
Speaker 4: at any point anybody is deliberately targeting civilians, they should
Speaker 4: be prosecuted and they should be jailed and the key
Speaker 4: should be thrown away. You know, people say this, but
Speaker 4: you know, I don't see any proof of that right now,
Speaker 4: that people are deliberately deliberately targeting civilians.
Speaker 1: But the government announced they were doing a complete siege
Speaker 1: on the two point two Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay, you're talking about the you know the yeah, the siege.
Speaker 4: Now we did for ten years. We did collective punishment
Speaker 4: of Iraq. We actually killed.
Speaker 1: To justify that either here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but why are we just going after the Jews?
Speaker 4: Why why is it only on Israel?
Speaker 1: Let me, tax dollars are going to fund what's going
Speaker 1: on and the visuals of these children being killed and
Speaker 1: losing their parents, and the rubble and you know, the
Speaker 1: total destruction.
Speaker 4: This is something I have friends. I have friends and guys. Okay,
Speaker 4: I have a friend who is a father of five kids,
Speaker 4: and what he's living through right now is I have many,
Speaker 4: many Palestinian friends. I've been to West Bank and met
Speaker 4: with the Palestinian leaders I have. I love the Palestinian
Speaker 4: people have. It's excruciating. What's watching what's happened. But why
Speaker 4: are we blaming Israel?
Speaker 1: Why aren't we blaming the bombs they have with the dollars.
Speaker 4: They have to get it. I'm as they have to
Speaker 4: destroy us, and i'm us unfortunately build tunnels for themselves,
Speaker 4: but they did not build bomb shelters for their people.
Speaker 4: And they you know, Israel has old people moved to
Speaker 4: the south. There's food trucks there, there's medicine there, there's
Speaker 4: but it's only it's only not there.
Speaker 1: Go to is an area that is the size of
Speaker 1: Lax Airport. It is a desert wasteland. There are no
Speaker 1: UN flight facilities. In fact, if you ask the Secretary
Speaker 1: General of the UN, he'll tell you there are no
Speaker 1: safe places in Gaza. You already have one point eight
Speaker 1: million people who have been displaced from their homes. So
Speaker 1: you know, at what point do you say, okay, it's enough,
Speaker 1: Because the other piece of this, even if you say,
Speaker 1: and I know you're not saying this, I'm not putting,
Speaker 1: but even if you say, I don't care about the
Speaker 1: Palicinyan lives, they got to do what they got to do.
Speaker 3: It's the cost of.
Speaker 1: War, What are you going to do? There's also a
Speaker 1: lot of evidence that what they're actually doing is fomenting
Speaker 1: increasing support for Hamas, because if you think about it,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a kid, your parents get blown up,
Speaker 1: what kind of politics do you think you're going to
Speaker 1: have when you grow up? Isn't that going to be
Speaker 1: tremendously radicalizing and incredibly compromising to the security of Israelis alike?
Speaker 4: Oh, how would you get rid of Hamas well? If
Speaker 4: here is real?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not running for president the United States number one,
Speaker 1: but number two. I think we have a model for
Speaker 1: this in a sense from the way we went in
Speaker 1: and approached Bin Laden, so it was a targeted rate.
Speaker 1: If you're actually going to do this, you do a
Speaker 1: counter terror operation where you go in a targeted way,
Speaker 1: you create a wedge between Hamas and the civilian population.
Speaker 1: And we see how this works in the past, because
Speaker 1: previously in Israeli society, when there were pathways to peace
Speaker 1: that were on the table, where the palaest you need,
Speaker 1: civilian population felt that they had a chance at negotiating
Speaker 1: some sort of a peaceful outcome. Guess what support for
Speaker 1: Hamas falls off a cliff it's almost.
Speaker 4: One one relationship with the more brutal.
Speaker 1: Response from what is really the more support for radicalism
Speaker 1: that there is. You can Philip Buster, I'm not philibustering.
Speaker 1: You asked me a question. I'm trying to answer it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think you're a feller bustering. You're not answering
Speaker 4: the question. You're saying, I drive a wedge. Well, of
Speaker 4: course Israel is trying to drive a.
Speaker 1: Wedge by offering some other path that's not it is
Speaker 1: that vibot to two state solution or some sort of
Speaker 1: a justin Welston.
Speaker 4: Peace and the Palestinians not only have rejected that, but
Speaker 4: Amas it's a whole purpose. Was the reason that OZ
Speaker 4: was able to get all this popular support and take
Speaker 4: over was because of its its opposition to any negotiation.
Speaker 1: Hamas just came out and said that they support Israel's
Speaker 1: PLO and recognize Israel's right to exist. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: you have the Ash the UK saying we will just
Speaker 1: absolutely to two state solutions.
Speaker 4: I just cannot, like you tell that it's just not true.
Speaker 4: Isma was on TV Al Jazeira yesterday saying We're going
Speaker 4: to do this again and again and again. We will
Speaker 4: never negotiate, which we.
Speaker 1: Covered and which is disgusting. But there's no about the
Speaker 1: hold on what about the facts that what about the
Speaker 1: fact that Yahoo and his government have said absolutely no,
Speaker 1: they built up hamas to try to thwart any sort
Speaker 1: of Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 4: But I'm not defending and I don't coast you know what,
Speaker 4: netaniaha and look good though Israel is a divided country.
Speaker 4: In eighty or twenty percent of the population around the
Speaker 4: street demonstrating against Natania Ilo. What I'm saying is the
Speaker 4: Israeli US is a criminal enterprise. Sure see the Palestinian
Speaker 4: and you you talk about solutions for the Palaestinian people.
Speaker 4: The Palatinian people are arguably the most pampered people by
Speaker 4: international aid organizations the history of this war.
Speaker 1: Seventy percent of people in God they had, you know,
Speaker 1: not enough food to eat?
Speaker 4: Right? And why is that? Why are you blame me?
Speaker 1: Well, in part it's Moss and in part it's the
Speaker 1: fact that Israel imposed a blockade and talked about putting
Speaker 1: them on a diet.
Speaker 4: If you're if your neighbor. First of all, Israel has
Speaker 4: no obligation. The Israel built three thousand hot houses and
Speaker 4: gave them for greenhouses. I would have made Gods a
Speaker 4: completely food self sufficient, gave it to them as a gift,
Speaker 4: offered to rebuild the port of Gods that to make
Speaker 4: get to Singapore of the West. AMAS and no, we
Speaker 4: don't want you money, We don't want you ideas. And
Speaker 4: what do they do with the international aid agencies have given.
Speaker 4: AMAS have given Gaza more than ten times the per
Speaker 4: capita what we gave to rebuild all of Europe after
Speaker 4: the Marshall Plan. They've gotten eight three hundred dollars per
Speaker 4: capita every person in Gaza. We rebuilt Europe with six
Speaker 4: hundred and twenty one dollars per capita in Europe and
Speaker 4: we rebuilt it. What do they do with that money
Speaker 4: instead of using it to make this? You know, Agaza
Speaker 4: is this beautiful country, waite sand beaches. It should be
Speaker 4: a paradise. Amasaid, we don't want that. They take virtually
Speaker 4: all that money and they steal it. So the top
Speaker 4: five guys, the top five leaders of AMAS are billionaires.
Speaker 4: Ismael Heine has five billion dollars according to Forbes. Wait,
Speaker 4: let me just finish it, because you made us. We
Speaker 4: know you are making a statement that is just wrong.
Speaker 4: It's not Israel's fault. Is poverty strict and gazis is.
Speaker 4: It should be one of the wealthy estates on the on.
Speaker 1: The men control over their own territory.
Speaker 4: Of course, if you go to Warwick, if you.
Speaker 1: Get everything that comes in and goes out.
Speaker 4: If you go to war No Crystal Bristol. Why are
Speaker 4: you blaming? Why do you insist on blaming Israel and
Speaker 4: then blaming of us.
Speaker 1: I do blame has But you know what we are.
Speaker 1: Tax dollars do not go to Hamas, they go to
Speaker 1: the net New Hall and and you know what bombs
Speaker 1: bombed dram right.
Speaker 4: You know what most of our tax got dollars have
Speaker 4: gone for for the iron done, which is a way
Speaker 4: of not blame, of not invading God. Our country and
Speaker 4: the Israel for sixteen years have expended this huge amount
Speaker 4: of money to try not to go into God. Well,
Speaker 4: God that sent two thousand rockets a year suicide bombers.
Speaker 1: And of course let me Israel come in and quote
Speaker 1: unquote mode the lawn.
Speaker 4: They've gone in five times, and every time they've signed
Speaker 4: a piece agreement with Hamasa, every time they violated that
Speaker 4: piece agreement. Let me let me tell you Israel. Also,
Speaker 4: hold on, if Mexico attacked us and we built a fence,
Speaker 4: would you blame us for cage in Mexico? Well, you're
Speaker 4: you know, I don't know what it is, but everything
Speaker 4: in your mind is telling you to blame Israel instead
Speaker 4: of blaming him.
Speaker 1: Bobby, hold on, hold on, let me just let me,
Speaker 1: let me because I want to get to the end game.
Speaker 1: Then Soccer has some questions for you on free speech
Speaker 1: that I want to make sure we get to because
Speaker 1: I think this is important as well. What who has
Speaker 1: said and what he's tasked his senior advisory.
Speaker 4: But he's let me answer your question.
Speaker 1: Haven't you even asked the question?
Speaker 4: Let me finish answer your last question?
Speaker 1: Can we put this element up on the screen now?
Speaker 1: Who has said that he wants to quote unquote fin
Speaker 1: out the population of Gaza to a minimum. There is
Speaker 1: simultaneously a proposal that is being shopped here in DC
Speaker 1: with some bipartisan support, that would use r A dollars
Speaker 1: to countries in the region to pressure them to accept
Speaker 1: Palestinian refugees out of Gaza to enable Netanyahu's plan of
Speaker 1: quote unquote finding out the population. I'm sure you know
Speaker 1: he has been very cagy about what he wants the
Speaker 1: future of Gaza to look like. What do you want
Speaker 1: the future of Gaza to look like? And is there
Speaker 1: any circumstance where you would support pushing neighboring countries to
Speaker 1: resettle Palestinians.
Speaker 4: No, I don't, As I said, I don't go sign
Speaker 4: anything for net or for the good.
Speaker 1: But he's so, I know, but he's a deal with
Speaker 1: How would you deal with it? What would be your
Speaker 1: plan for the future of Gaza?
Speaker 4: If I'm right now, you know I'm all years is
Speaker 4: how do you get rid of Hamas? I think you
Speaker 4: have to get rid of amas Ama is a criminal
Speaker 4: organization that is making built the lead. The five leaders
Speaker 4: of it are all billionaires. By the way, yas Or
Speaker 4: Rafat died a billionaire, a mood A bas A billionaire.
Speaker 4: His two kids who run West Bank are have seven
Speaker 4: hundred and fifty million dollars. It is a criminal enterprise
Speaker 4: where they are stealing everything from the people of Gaza
Speaker 4: and then they raise them from kindergarten to kill Jews.
Speaker 4: You know, I saw the forty three minute film of
Speaker 4: the goat pros and the body camps and the things
Speaker 4: that I saw on there, you know, the rape, the
Speaker 4: burning people alive. No matter what happened to you for
Speaker 4: the rest of your life, no matter how abused you were,
Speaker 4: no matter how you could never act that way. These
Speaker 4: kids are being raised as serial killers.
Speaker 1: They're being raised inmate targets.
Speaker 2: Well, the terror, yes, I'm talking about the.
Speaker 4: No, that's not what I'm saying, Crystal. What I'm saying
Speaker 4: is amas Is is oppressing it's own people. It's stealing
Speaker 4: from and it's turning them into it's taking away their
Speaker 4: childhood instead of you know, just distributing this huge amount
Speaker 4: of money that they've gotten, building a wonderful culture and
Speaker 4: society and economic prosperity for them. Instead, it has one purpose,
Speaker 4: which is to annihilate Jews and kids. Their schools are
Speaker 4: named after Jew killers, their streets are named after Jew killers.
Speaker 4: You know they they are paid bounties to.
Speaker 1: Kill jewelry Palsenians in Gaza support a two state solution.
Speaker 4: Well, the polls I've seen right now, I'm full for
Speaker 4: two state solutions. Show me how it happens. The last
Speaker 4: time that Arafat was offered that which was in you know,
Speaker 4: by Clinton and Ahood Iraq in two thousand and one,
Speaker 4: he was offered to everything that the Palestinians had asked for,
Speaker 4: everything and except for three percent of the West Bank,
Speaker 4: and they said, we'll give you three percent of it.
Speaker 4: Israel knows the suburbs around me, major Israeli cities that
Speaker 4: are settled. Oh and an Arafat walked out of that
Speaker 4: negotiation without a counteroffer. Any later explained to Prince Ben
Speaker 4: if I made a deal, anybody who makes a deal
Speaker 4: with the Israelis, they will be killed by our own people.
Speaker 4: Just you know, they've been offered to two states.
Speaker 3: About your endgame? So I just want to get a
Speaker 3: definitive answer on that.
Speaker 2: She asked you about your endgame, which is, let's say
Speaker 2: we Israel and we agreed there's no justification of hamas
Speaker 2: criminal enterprise. It's gone. What does the two states look like?
Speaker 2: Two states solutions look like? Under the Kennedy administration, the
Speaker 2: Blide administration is pushing the palest and authority says no,
Speaker 2: So is that something that you envisioned if.
Speaker 4: I first of all, that rather the United States cannot
Speaker 4: decree that you know there's going to be a two
Speaker 4: state solution. What we can do is we can pressure Israel.
Speaker 4: But more importantly, we can use our influence. I think
Speaker 4: what we need to be doing is to is to
Speaker 4: encouraging the Solomon Accords, encouraging peace in the region, encouraging
Speaker 4: ultimately piece is going to come from prosperity.
Speaker 1: Would you condition AID to try to secure a two
Speaker 1: state solution or at least to end the.
Speaker 4: I would encourage it, But as I said, more importantly,
Speaker 4: I would encourage the other nations. I would be talking
Speaker 4: on the phone right now with President z with President Putin,
Speaker 4: with all the leaders of the Arab world and trying
Speaker 4: to get some kind of collaboration because I think ultimately
Speaker 4: that's what's going to happen. But until that, but you know,
Speaker 4: one of the problems, one of the dilemmas for Israel
Speaker 4: right now is you can say to Israel, you know,
Speaker 4: let's turn this over to the UN. The UN has
Speaker 4: never the blue helmets always left as soon as the
Speaker 4: shooting starts, and the UN will not even condemn Amas.
Speaker 4: So how you know, and then the other Arab states
Speaker 4: have solidified of all well, you know, expresssolidarity in supportive Hamas.
Speaker 4: So how is Israel to you know, expecting out to
Speaker 4: turn its fate it's destiny, its duty to protect its
Speaker 4: own people from danger. Over to people who say, we
Speaker 4: don't think there's anything wrong with what Amas did, so.
Speaker 3: Let's move on to free speech. Just something we want
Speaker 3: to get into here.
Speaker 2: So I'm sure you saw the clip presidence of MIT,
Speaker 2: University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University.
Speaker 3: There's been a campaign billionaire Bill Ackman.
Speaker 2: I believe he actually is a supporter of yours to
Speaker 2: try and fire those university presidents. So do you think
Speaker 2: that they should be fired for their answers in saying
Speaker 2: that calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute
Speaker 2: harassment and in a call in and of itself as
Speaker 2: a supporter of free speech, I'm curious.
Speaker 4: Me ask you something. Sure, if they had called for
Speaker 4: or death to all black people.
Speaker 3: We all know what the answer would be.
Speaker 4: I agree with the answer.
Speaker 3: They would say immediately absolutely, Okay, Yeah, what's the difference? Well,
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not necessarily sure though that in him
Speaker 3: call for any I.
Speaker 4: Mean, I think, by the way I understand what the
Speaker 4: difficulty is here is you want free speeches, so we
Speaker 4: want to maximize free speech. At one point, are there
Speaker 4: different rules on the college campuses? You know that there's
Speaker 4: all these rules now that I don't really understand or
Speaker 4: ascribe to about keep keeping people safe from bad information.
Speaker 4: But when something becomes when it's in, when it appears
Speaker 4: to be inciting violence, which I think you could read
Speaker 4: you know, deathhol a, black people or genocidologies as incitement
Speaker 4: of violence, I think then that's uh, yeah, that that
Speaker 4: should be decided.
Speaker 2: I don't swear that with a free speech absolute because
Speaker 2: there is there is no like Hitler was right exception
Speaker 2: to the first man.
Speaker 4: I mean, you're right, I think. I mean the line
Speaker 4: that we have right now, if he looks at the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court rulings, is that you can't you can't incite violence.
Speaker 4: Oh if words that you use are if a jury found, yeah,
Speaker 4: that was inciting violence, that person was inciting violence, then
Speaker 4: it's no longer protected by the.
Speaker 3: First Actually a bit worried about that.
Speaker 2: I mean, people have been saying that you're encouraging like
Speaker 2: mass death for a lot of their comments on vaccine.
Speaker 3: They certainly would have used that provision against you.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to try that in court, Okay, all right, Oh,
Speaker 4: I'm happy to try it in front of a jury.
Speaker 2: So next question here, do you think this is for
Speaker 2: per congressional resolution? Do you think that being anti Zionist
Speaker 2: is anti Semitic?
Speaker 4: Uh? How would you remember?
Speaker 2: How so there was there was a measure of that
Speaker 2: before Congress. If you were in Congress, how would you
Speaker 2: vote on that? Oh?
Speaker 4: What do you what do you define as Zionism? Well,
Speaker 4: the right to for Israel to exist?
Speaker 2: No, Well, I think Zionism's political ideology predates the state
Speaker 2: of Isa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah, but it was about having the Jews have.
Speaker 3: Their own, have a homeland.
Speaker 4: Yes, And so are you saying that Jews should.
Speaker 3: Not have their own I'm not saying anything.
Speaker 4: I mean, listen, listen. There's forty one countries in the
Speaker 4: world that have an official religion. Israel is not among them.
Speaker 4: There is no official religion in Israel. There's freedom of religion.
Speaker 4: There's twenty of Arab states that have official religions, yes,
Speaker 4: and in fact rules that require Shuri law, which includes
Speaker 4: bigoted provisions against Jews. There are many like the West
Speaker 4: Bank and Kaza and Jordan apply the death penalty to
Speaker 4: anybody who sells land to a Jew. So those countries
Speaker 4: are genuinely apartheid states or single religion states. Israel's aren't
Speaker 4: one of them. So what you're saying, you know, the
Speaker 4: Vatican is a Catholic state. England is an Anglican state.
Speaker 4: My aunt Kit Kennedy had to change religion in order
Speaker 4: to marry a member of the Aristotra.
Speaker 3: I remember reading that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so you know, there are many states around the world.
Speaker 4: I think there's four Buddhist states, There's two Hindu states.
Speaker 4: There are twenty seven Muslim states. There are many many
Speaker 4: countries that have official religions, but the Israel doesn't. But
Speaker 4: Israel is officially a Jewish state. It's a homeland for Jews.
Speaker 4: It's original charter reflects the idealism of Zionism. Oh, if
Speaker 4: you're saying Jews alone should not have their own state,
Speaker 4: that is you know, if that's what any Zionism is,
Speaker 4: then I would say, that's like George Wallace. It's like
Speaker 4: to finish, It's like George Wallace saying I'm a segregationist,
Speaker 4: but I'm not a racists.
Speaker 1: Surely, Bobby, you're aware that there is a long tradition
Speaker 1: of Jews who are opposed to Zionism, who have a
Speaker 1: critique of Zionism. Not to all about there are into
Speaker 1: your Zionists. There are jew science, so shouldn't there be
Speaker 1: shouldn't there be an there there are? What I'm saying,
Speaker 1: should there be an ability to critique a political ideology
Speaker 1: without being you.
Speaker 4: Know, you should be Well, that's why the definition of
Speaker 4: what Zionism is. If you're saying that Zionism, what Zionism
Speaker 4: is the belief that Jews can have their own state,
Speaker 4: and you're.
Speaker 1: Against that criticizing you know, Saudi Arabia which has in
Speaker 1: Islamic Xuria based government, does that make you as lamophobic?
Speaker 2: Or the Republic of Pakistan Kashmir? Yeah, does that make
Speaker 2: it lamh Kushmir? If we're going to say, well.
Speaker 4: It depends, I suppose if you're if you're saying that
Speaker 4: it's okay for all those other countries. I have a
Speaker 4: religious government, but but Israel Loan should not have it.
Speaker 4: And I think, yeah, there's something there's something so bigoted
Speaker 4: about that.
Speaker 2: Governor DeSantis had banned the organization Students for Justice and
Speaker 2: Palace on a Camp.
Speaker 3: I'm curious.
Speaker 2: There have been calls Republican legislators as well to use
Speaker 2: a federal government to investigate these types of student groups.
Speaker 3: Is that something that you would do under Kennedy administration.
Speaker 4: I don't know what that group is, whether they advocating
Speaker 4: violence or whatever, but I don't think I think if
Speaker 4: you know somebody's advocating violence against Jews, that they should
Speaker 4: be banned and they should be investigated. If if it's
Speaker 4: a if it's just a pro Palestine group, no, of
Speaker 4: course not. I have freedom of speech.
Speaker 3: What about the anti BDS laws.
Speaker 2: There are a number of states that have ANTIBDS provisions
Speaker 2: that basically say that if you're a state employee and
Speaker 2: you advocate for BDS, that that's a fireable efense for
Speaker 2: boycott divestent sanction, which is often It was originally used
Speaker 2: against apartheid South Africa, has been adopted i think by
Speaker 2: the social justice left, largely in relation to Israel as
Speaker 2: a result of the Settlement policy. Whether we agree or not,
Speaker 2: this is a state laws that are on the books
Speaker 2: in multiple across the United States. I think goes violate
Speaker 2: the law say that if you embrace or advocate for beating. So,
Speaker 2: for example, Abby Martin, you might be familiar with her.
Speaker 2: She's a prominent political commentator. I guess she's done a
Speaker 2: lot of work on Gaza as well. She successfully challenged
Speaker 2: one of these laws in the state of Georgia because
Speaker 2: she's an advocate of BDS and she wanted to make
Speaker 2: her well the lasses you can't you cannot be paid
Speaker 2: by the state, and you cannot be go ahead, Crystal.
Speaker 1: So in her instance, in her instance, she was invited
Speaker 1: to speak to a public university in Georgia, and as
Speaker 1: a condition of her speaking gig, she had to sign
Speaker 1: a pledge saying that she would not participate in the boycott,
Speaker 1: divestment and sanctioned movement. She successfully challenged that in court
Speaker 1: on First Amendment grounds, And in Texas they have a laws.
Speaker 1: A lot of states have these laws that say, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're going to be an employee of the state,
Speaker 1: you have to sign this pledge that you won't boycott
Speaker 1: the state of Israel se alone among our nature. So
Speaker 1: you're able to boycott the US or your own government,
Speaker 1: but not the Israeli government.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, my feeling about that is that if
Speaker 4: you're if you're doing it on your own time and
Speaker 4: not representing the state, it's a free speech issue, you know, listen,
Speaker 4: I was, you know, support the right of the Nazis
Speaker 4: to march and scope Gillan. Yeah, I think we also think,
Speaker 4: you know, we're you know that the more that the
Speaker 4: remedy for bad speech, very hate speech, for unpleasant speech
Speaker 4: is not censorship, it's more speech shop.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you more political questions.
Speaker 2: So something I know you tweeted about this we highlighted
Speaker 2: here on our show.
Speaker 3: I actually think you tweeted out the clip of us.
Speaker 2: Talking about it about you leading amongst voters under the
Speaker 2: age of forty five, specifically young voters, probably one of
Speaker 2: the most popular candidates amongst that group. At the same time,
Speaker 2: we've seen a significant optic I think in pro Palestinian sentiment,
Speaker 2: you could say that amongst people who were young, you
Speaker 2: can co sign that for a variety of reasons. Could
Speaker 2: be TikTok, could be anything. So I'm curious politically, I
Speaker 2: can see emotionally you're very you're very animated about the
Speaker 2: Israel issue. How do you plan to win those people
Speaker 2: over when? And from what we can see at least
Speaker 2: right now on the polling, there's a little bit of
Speaker 2: distance in the way that they think about the conflict
Speaker 2: and the way that you're talking about the conflict.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean people are going to vote for who
Speaker 4: they want to vote for it, and some people are
Speaker 4: going to be single issue voters and I'll lose some
Speaker 4: of those. I mean, you know, I can't Siger. I
Speaker 4: can't do anything except be true to my own heart.
Speaker 4: And you know, do what I if somebody, if somebody
Speaker 4: has a argument with me and convinces me that I'm
Speaker 4: wrong about something, and I'm going to change my mind
Speaker 4: if you show me facts that you know that demonstrate
Speaker 4: I'm wrong. I'm going to listen to everybody. Yes, I
Speaker 4: just listen to Crystal Pilot on me right. You know
Speaker 4: this is what we should be doing.
Speaker 3: Well, we agree, this is your third round here. You
Speaker 3: know you're getting into.
Speaker 4: We should be have open, you know, spirited, congenial, respectful debate,
Speaker 4: you know, and about this stuff. And if people don't
Speaker 4: like where I end up on things, and you know,
Speaker 4: I'm going to tell you why I end up. I'm
Speaker 4: going to show you that I've been thoughtful about it,
Speaker 4: that I'm not you know, I'm not acting in a
Speaker 4: knee jerk way to take or a political way. I'm
Speaker 4: not doing anything from ideology. I'm free of that. I
Speaker 4: may still end up in a different place than you,
Speaker 4: and in that case, you of your joys about whether
Speaker 4: you want the whole package, you know, which is somebody
Speaker 4: who's who I'm going to fight harder for this generation
Speaker 4: the people who between twenty and thirty five there that's
Speaker 4: I'm narrowly focused on making sure they can get homes,
Speaker 4: that they can, you know, have a decent economy, that
Speaker 4: the American dream is real for them. And I'm going
Speaker 4: to work every day in my presidency on that. And
Speaker 4: I may fall on different parts, you know, place there's
Speaker 4: people who support the Ukraine War, which I'm as you know,
Speaker 4: adamantly yes you have, but they also support me. There's
Speaker 4: people who you know who support you know, I have
Speaker 4: to support from people who are vaccinated unvaccinated. I have
Speaker 4: support from people who are pro life and pro choice,
Speaker 4: and you know. But if you have just one issue
Speaker 4: and I'm wrong on it, I get it and I
Speaker 4: respect you for that, and that's how it was supposed to.
Speaker 3: Work, right.
Speaker 1: I have one last wrap up free speech question for you,
Speaker 1: and we'll move on to some other issues. But on
Speaker 1: x formerly Twitter, Elon Musk decided to ban the word
Speaker 1: decolonization and also the phrase from the river to the
Speaker 1: sea in the whole flap about the university presidents. There
Speaker 1: wasn't actually any example, at least not one offer of
Speaker 1: people saying genocide the Jews. They were talking about a
Speaker 1: chant from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
Speaker 1: And they also brought up a call for globalizing the Intafada.
Speaker 1: Do you think that those things are incitements to violence?
Speaker 1: Do you support their banning on Twitter? Do you support
Speaker 1: their banning on college campuses? You and just on those specifics, spent.
Speaker 4: A lot of billions dollars and he's lost a lot
Speaker 4: of sense. And I utterly respect him for what he's done,
Speaker 4: for standing up for speech. But it's his platform he has,
Speaker 4: you know, just like you don't. You don't have to
Speaker 4: allow me on here or anybody else. It's up to you.
Speaker 1: Is not a question of whether he can, it's a
Speaker 1: question of whether it only become censorship.
Speaker 4: It only becomes censorship when the government is ordering. I mean,
Speaker 4: it only implicates the First Amendment when the government is
Speaker 4: telling you to do that. Otherwise, if you own a
Speaker 4: printing press, you can print who you want, and you
Speaker 4: can deny who you want. You know, and he owns
Speaker 4: the big printing press.
Speaker 2: I got to stick with this, though, because I don't understand.
Speaker 2: I mean, you were at one point probably one of
Speaker 2: the most censored men in America, and you often talked Instagram.
Speaker 3: I remember your band from Instagram at certain.
Speaker 2: Points on YouTube and tremendously difficult to even feature any
Speaker 2: of your videos. It's even what I remember having to
Speaker 2: do research. I had to go on Rumble or somewhere
Speaker 2: else in order to listen to what you said. How
Speaker 2: do you square that position? I mean, given the way
Speaker 2: that you know during the COVID vaccine debate, the way
Speaker 2: that your views were censored throughout all of this, how
Speaker 2: do you square the idea that you know corporations can
Speaker 2: be able to do whatever they want.
Speaker 4: Well, there's two. There's there's a couple of issues. One
Speaker 4: is if if the government isn't in the censorship, which
Speaker 4: they were involved in my censorship. Biden administration was, and
Speaker 4: then members of the Trump administration, although not directly the White House,
Speaker 4: we're collaborating with the social media and media sites to
Speaker 4: censor me. So that's first Amendment, that's a straight violation.
Speaker 4: There There's another kind of censorship, which is corporate censorships,
Speaker 4: so that you know, you probably get pharmaceut.
Speaker 3: Altimtizing, well, we do not actually know.
Speaker 4: Okay, well that's good, right, but CNN does, and you know,
Speaker 4: ABC and NBC get it. Roger Hills told me that
Speaker 4: for Fox the Evening News, it was seventy percent of
Speaker 4: the revenues for evening News. And so they, the pharmaceutical
Speaker 4: industry actually controls content on those platforms, and it is
Speaker 4: telling you, you know, it is forcing those announcers edit
Speaker 4: what they say and not tell the public things that
Speaker 4: might affect their mercantile ambition. And they're commercial, you know, companies.
Speaker 4: So that is a corporate censorship. And I would argue
Speaker 4: that that's illegal when it happens on a public airwave,
Speaker 4: because the networks do not own the airwaves. The networks
Speaker 4: are licensed to use them, but they're owned by the
Speaker 4: American public, and they have to use them for a
Speaker 4: public purpose. If you have on your own printing pat
Speaker 4: present your basement, or if you're the Sulzburger family and
Speaker 4: you own The New York Times, or if you're Elon
Speaker 4: Musk and you don't you know, and you're willing to say,
Speaker 4: you know, I'm not. I don't care what advertisers say,
Speaker 4: and you have a right to have on your platform
Speaker 4: who you want and who you don't. The thing I
Speaker 4: complain complained about was was commercial censorship, where I was
Speaker 4: being censored on the government owned airwaves because of pharmaceutical advertising.
Speaker 4: And number two, government diplicated censorship.
Speaker 1: So you're you're okay with if on Twitter or on Instagram,
Speaker 1: the Zuckerberg or Musker, who for the billionaire that owns
Speaker 1: the platform is wants to censor certain views.
Speaker 3: They're entitled to their behest.
Speaker 4: I think if the government's not involved, sadly, that is
Speaker 4: that's the way the world works, all right, all right,
Speaker 4: And you know I was there's a The alternative to
Speaker 4: that is to declare Twitter or Instagram at public utility.
Speaker 4: I don't think it would work because I think the
Speaker 4: reason that those platforms work is because of the commercial incentives.
Speaker 4: What about that because you constantly have to upgrade the
Speaker 4: performance to compete with all the other people, and that's
Speaker 4: why their success.
Speaker 2: What about a standard if we say that all censorship
Speaker 2: has to abide within the First Amendment at all social
Speaker 2: media come.
Speaker 3: You can operate however you want. It's just that in
Speaker 3: terms of censorship removal of content.
Speaker 4: Well, here's what I would do as president. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 4: the day and I'll do this the day that I
Speaker 4: go in is I will issue an executive order saying
Speaker 4: that no utterly paid official can collaborate with any media
Speaker 4: or social media company in cessoring political speech.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, Exscell, I wanted to ask you about your
Speaker 1: position on abortion. You got to ask a question on
Speaker 1: the on the trail. I think it was Ali Vitality
Speaker 1: of NBC News if you would sign a fifteen week
Speaker 1: abortion man you seem to indicate you did in the campaign,
Speaker 1: said you misunderstood the question. So I just wanted to
Speaker 1: clarify your stance. Is there any national restriction on abortion
Speaker 1: that you would support as president of the United States
Speaker 1: if that ended up on your death?
Speaker 4: No, I you know, I think listen, I think every
Speaker 4: abortion is a tragedy. I've spent I probably thought as
Speaker 4: hard as anybody in this country for medical freedom and
Speaker 4: for people to have autonomy over their own bodies. And
Speaker 4: I understand also the you know that there's a countervailing interest,
Speaker 4: the interest that you know, the unborn baby get a
Speaker 4: cruise at some rate, or you know, in some people's views. Immediately, Yes,
Speaker 4: I respect people who believe that and I don't think
Speaker 4: anything as a satisfactory's illusion. But I think ultimately we
Speaker 4: have to trust the moms. We have to trust women.
Speaker 4: Oh and that, but you know, I will you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not gonna I'm not going to ride or you know,
Speaker 4: or ridicule people who believe that life starts with that
Speaker 4: inception and you know, have devoted their lives to protecting that,
Speaker 4: and I think they should be heard. I have people
Speaker 4: in my family and I grew up with that who
Speaker 4: I was very close to, had that you know notion.
Speaker 4: I understand it, and they we all can respect each other.
Speaker 1: So let's go and put this next element up on
Speaker 1: the screen. You mentioned, you know, medical freedom being something
Speaker 1: that's always been very important to you, at least you know,
Speaker 1: and for the past number of years, I'm sure you
Speaker 1: saw probably this story which was in the news everywhere,
Speaker 1: this mom of two who the Texas Supreme Court ruled
Speaker 1: she could not seek an abortion even though her fetus
Speaker 1: was diagnosed with you know condition that means that it
Speaker 1: cannot live outside of the womb. It's causing serious health
Speaker 1: problems for her. She had to leave the state in
Speaker 1: order to seek the abortion for her health condition, and
Speaker 1: so Obviously, there's already been a huge rollback in terms
Speaker 1: of women's rights after the overturning of Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 1: Is there anything you would do under Kenny administration to
Speaker 1: try to restore those rights in the states where the
Speaker 1: procedure has been all the banned.
Speaker 4: I don't mean, what's President Biden doing nothing?
Speaker 1: Nothing, That's why you're going to be different, that's the question. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, one idea is to try to eliminate the
Speaker 1: filibuster in order to secure you know, enthrining Roe versus
Speaker 1: Wade as the law of the land, which is something
Speaker 1: that's been floated for a lot of years.
Speaker 4: I would not end the filibuzzer. I think those kind
Speaker 4: of procedure tampering with the Democrats, these long standing democratic
Speaker 4: institutions in Congress, then yet get turned against you on
Speaker 4: the next term.
Speaker 1: Would you want to if you had a you know,
Speaker 1: sixty vote majority in order.
Speaker 4: To think.
Speaker 1: So, you would support it at the federal level?
Speaker 4: Exactly? I think women, you know, I think we have
Speaker 4: to trust the moms.
Speaker 3: I have a question on housing. I know this is
Speaker 3: something that you reference to.
Speaker 2: This is actually one of the areas that I've seen
Speaker 2: you get a lot of attention on this plan.
Speaker 3: I believe it is to give.
Speaker 2: All homeowners or the first time home buyers a three
Speaker 2: percent mortgage.
Speaker 3: Could you lay that out?
Speaker 2: We see a tremendous amount of interests from our audience
Speaker 2: on housing about the ability to buy and just your
Speaker 2: views both on the housing market and your plan in
Speaker 2: order to make it more affordable.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're looking at a whole lot of different issues.
Speaker 4: I'm very focused on making sure this generation that you know,
Speaker 4: the twenties and thirty year olds can get into home.
Speaker 4: So you know, one of the one of the ways
Speaker 4: that my uncle did it and I actually was in
Speaker 4: an apartment building and in uh a couple of days ago.
Speaker 4: That's one of his buildings and it's a special class
Speaker 4: of mortgages that he created a three percent interest and
Speaker 4: funded with with Treasury bills that were sold at three percent,
Speaker 4: but with with tax reductions, so he was able to
Speaker 4: finance that with the market. And this this apartment building,
Speaker 4: as I think it had eighty three apartments in it
Speaker 4: that are being rented by the highest one is about
Speaker 4: two hundred and seventy dollars a month, and then even
Speaker 4: lower if you can't afford it. And it's you know,
Speaker 4: this is sixty years later. Oh, that's one of the issues.
Speaker 4: I'm also you know, there's a number of other things
Speaker 4: we can do. There's one hundred billion dollars surplus that's
Speaker 4: supposed to be used for housing, uh in Fanny man
Speaker 4: Freddie Mac one hundred and ten billion, and I'm going
Speaker 4: to unleash that and create housing stock.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 4: I have a panel of economic advice. There's a wide range,
Speaker 4: and they're all focused on this. Removing tax benefits to
Speaker 4: corporations that are using federal loans to buy houses, home
Speaker 4: equity loans and those kind of loans. And also UH
Speaker 4: supporting or creating legislation that will make it impossible or
Speaker 4: make it a penalize with tax treatment, the accumulation of
Speaker 4: single family homes by large investment houses and hedge funds.
Speaker 1: Quickly, you got a VP shortlist.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't talk about it. I enjoy you.
Speaker 1: You're looking at what Sean fain of u a W
Speaker 1: I put him at the top of my list.
Speaker 3: I don't know, be interesting, I would comment.
Speaker 1: No comment is that? I mean, is that a serious
Speaker 1: like someone your float?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: I just like.
Speaker 2: Him, But there are other people you like like that
Speaker 2: flavor Tana White. You know, he's bombastic, He's got the
Speaker 2: few attitude. Is that something you're looking for? Like, what
Speaker 2: do you know?
Speaker 4: I'm looking for somebody? Maybe it was a little bit
Speaker 4: more healing.
Speaker 3: Okay, now all right, okay, So I do have a
Speaker 3: question here. I wanted to wrap on.
Speaker 2: You talked to this got a lot of attention about
Speaker 2: flying on Epstein's plane twice. I know you clarified that
Speaker 2: that was a point in which you've since said you
Speaker 2: believe that he was trying to curry favor with your family.
Speaker 2: So do you I don't remember saying I saw it
Speaker 2: on your Twitter. So you followed up and said it's
Speaker 2: possible that he was tall.
Speaker 4: That on my Yeah, Oh yeah, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 4: I can tell you exactly what my relationship was with
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Absain. I flew his my wife Mary Richardson, who
Speaker 4: his girlfriend. I didn't know there was. I thought it
Speaker 4: was his wife at the time, but gilln Maxwell, Yeah,
Speaker 4: and she got a ride. Glenn offered her a ride
Speaker 4: for our family to go to Palm Beach, where I
Speaker 4: wanted to visit my mother over Eastern Oh. I flew
Speaker 4: down with Mary and my two kids with the two
Speaker 4: oldest kids, Mary was pregnant with Connor at the time,
Speaker 4: and then another time that was in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 4: So nobody knew about Jeffrey Epstein's nefarious activities. The first
Speaker 4: hint the public was.
Speaker 3: Two thousand and six, Yes, a first conviction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, so nobody knew about it. He was just
Speaker 4: another you know, wealthy guy in New York. And then
Speaker 4: I flew again sometime maybe I know, you know, probably
Speaker 4: about nineteen ninety five or nineteen ninety six, I flew
Speaker 4: to to South Dakota again with all my kids and
Speaker 4: Mary to do a fossil hunting trip with them. Now,
Speaker 4: I probably ran into Epstein at fund raisers and stuff,
Speaker 4: but I didn't know him socially, you know, I didn't
Speaker 4: he was He was not my friend.
Speaker 2: Okay, My question is about the well, I guess I
Speaker 2: don't know if your staff put it out, but one
Speaker 2: of the things you'd surmise was about him currying favor.
Speaker 2: And there's been quite a few questions about whether he
Speaker 2: was a foreign intelligence asset, either for Israel for the
Speaker 2: United States. Is that something like what do you think
Speaker 2: about that?
Speaker 4: I have no idea yeah, I just I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean I've read that he was, you know, an
Speaker 4: agent from a sad Yeah, I don't know. You know,
Speaker 4: I really haven't followed him that much. My kids, two
Speaker 4: of my kids or one of my kids follows him
Speaker 4: and said to me, you know, it's that it's highly
Speaker 4: likely that he was murdered. But I wouldn't want to,
Speaker 4: you know, I don't want to get involved in other
Speaker 4: conspiracy theory because.
Speaker 3: The Epstein.
Speaker 4: Oh, I think everything Look, everybody in his black looks
Speaker 4: should be you know, we shouldn't know those names. We
Speaker 4: should know you know, de class by everything, so being
Speaker 4: everything lay it out because you know he was in
Speaker 4: fought that I saw the documentary on him and you
Speaker 4: know what they were doing was it was just horrific.
Speaker 4: But I mean that that was thirteen years after I
Speaker 4: took that fight, and everybody I have to say that,
Speaker 4: well I knew. I mean I I saw Harvey Weinstein,
Speaker 4: I Bill Cosby came to my house, and O Jake
Speaker 4: Simpson came to my house the cable lot, but nobody
Speaker 4: knew that they were you know, rapers and killers like
Speaker 4: they were. There were just well known people and you
Speaker 4: know if you're living in New York.
Speaker 3: And I need to hang out of your house so
Speaker 3: I can meet some interesting people.
Speaker 4: Because when I was a kid, you know, my people
Speaker 4: came to my my you know, my mom's house when
Speaker 4: you know, but you don't know who these people aren't
Speaker 4: turn to get.
Speaker 1: Arrest until you find out.
Speaker 3: You got to go, sir, all.
Speaker 1: You tell people where they can follow your campaign and
Speaker 1: support you.
Speaker 4: Thank please, yeah, thank you for thank you for that,
Speaker 4: because I got in trouble Kennedy twenty four dot com.
Speaker 4: And you know if you're if you're in a state
Speaker 4: that there's about fifteen states now where we can sign uh,
Speaker 4: where we can sign where you can sign a petition
Speaker 4: to get me on the ballot. I need to get
Speaker 4: a million signatures. So if your state is not open yet,
Speaker 4: you can pledge there and then we'll contact you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, you and I have our differences of opinion,
Speaker 1: but I really encourage people to do that if you
Speaker 1: just believe in democracy, whether or not you intend on
Speaker 1: supporting your candidacy. So thank you, We appreciate the time, appreciate.
Speaker 4: That endorsement, Crystal.
Speaker 3: Thank you for joining us about that.
Speaker 4: Always pleasure and we.
Speaker 3: Look forward to see you again. I appreciate you and
Speaker 3: we will see you all later.