Speaker 1: All right, guys, very excited to welcome back to the program.
Speaker 2: RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: He, of course, is presidential candidate, activist, and author.
Speaker 2: Great Cazar.
Speaker 3: Good Cazar, thanks for having me back. It's wonderful to
Speaker 3: be back with you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, truly, it's truly our pleasure.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get off the top of your reaction
Speaker 1: to breaking news. Of course, we have new charges filed
Speaker 1: against former President Trump with regards to his handling of
Speaker 1: classified documents and alleged obstruction. Just wanted to get your
Speaker 1: reaction to those indictments.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know enough about him. I mean,
Speaker 3: I would say this, and you know I'm not giving
Speaker 3: you anything special or any kind of special insight, information
Speaker 3: or insight. I thought the New York case was a
Speaker 3: very weak case, and if I had been a prosecutor,
Speaker 3: I would not have brought it, mainly because it's the
Speaker 3: president of the United States, and so you have to
Speaker 3: kind of tiptoe through the minefields of your prosecutor because
Speaker 3: you want to avoid the optics that this is a
Speaker 3: political prosecution. In the United States, We've always tried to
Speaker 3: avoid those optics. But this case looks much stronger, and
Speaker 3: the reason to me it's surprising is because the judge
Speaker 3: penetrated the attorney client privilege, which almost never happens. And
Speaker 3: you know, normally the conversations between between an attorney and
Speaker 3: a client are privileged and no court can look at those.
Speaker 3: But in this case, the exception is if the attorney
Speaker 3: and the client are plotting a crime together or involved
Speaker 3: in sort of some kind of criminal conspiracy, then the
Speaker 3: courts will allow that to be penetrated. And once the
Speaker 3: determination is made and that threshold is passed, where the
Speaker 3: court says, okay, you can now look at conversations between
Speaker 3: the client and its attorney, it is it is really really,
Speaker 3: it'll be mayhem the client because a client was was
Speaker 3: having those conversations assuming nobody would ever see them, and
Speaker 3: that he could he could say anything he wanted. I
Speaker 3: think that that, you know that that makes this case
Speaker 3: look very real and I think very dangerous for President Trump.
Speaker 4: Sir, would you ever consider a pardon for President Trump?
Speaker 3: I wouldn't even talk about that at this point. Got it?
Speaker 2: Gotcha?
Speaker 1: We wanted to ask you too a little bit about
Speaker 1: your views of current President Biden. So one of the
Speaker 1: concerns among the general public and among Democratic primary voters
Speaker 1: as well, is about his age and his just ability
Speaker 1: to perform the job that is entailed as president of
Speaker 1: the United States. Do you personally think that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is fit to serve as president for another four years?
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know. I don't have any idea.
Speaker 3: I think people around him should be giving him good
Speaker 3: advice on that if they think that there's a lack
Speaker 3: of mental acuity, or lack of capacity to deal with crises,
Speaker 3: or lack of independent and you know, an ability to
Speaker 3: exercise the independent and very good judgment. I think that
Speaker 3: they have. His family and his counselors have a have
Speaker 3: an obligation to our country to, you know, to tell
Speaker 3: him to step down. But I don't have any kind
Speaker 3: of insight. And you know, I see some of the films.
Speaker 2: And stuff, right, and you know him, don't you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I haven't seen him in years. And when
Speaker 3: I you know, when I had interactions with him, he
Speaker 3: was always very sharp, and so I don't know what
Speaker 3: he's like now behind the scene, I mean always we
Speaker 3: see them in these kind of bubbles and and so
Speaker 3: I have no idea how to assess that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's why it'd be good to have debates
Speaker 1: so that the American people could assess for themselves.
Speaker 4: I agree, sir.
Speaker 5: One of the interesting things in primary differences between yourself
Speaker 5: and President Bien eve Ben talking about is the way
Speaker 5: that you would approach the war in Ukraine. So I'm
Speaker 5: curious right now we see recent polling have in front
Speaker 5: of me about seventy nine percent of Democrats saying, according
Speaker 5: to Axios IPSO, say that they support continuing military aid
Speaker 5: to Ukraine. Since you are a Democratic candidate, how do
Speaker 5: you plan on changing some of people's minds within the
Speaker 5: Democratic base about the US approach to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: I mean, my only way of doing that is to
Speaker 3: continue talking about it and continuing to sort of get
Speaker 3: people too. You know, I don't think you even have
Speaker 3: to change people's minds about the war. You know, about
Speaker 3: what there. I mean, you know clearly Putin is you know,
Speaker 3: I broke the law. He's a gangster. You know, this
Speaker 3: was a brutal invasion that could have been avoided. So
Speaker 3: and I don't think you need to change people's minds
Speaker 3: about that. I think we all want peace. And you
Speaker 3: know the number of Ukrainians who have now died, some
Speaker 3: estimates are over three hundred and fifty thousand the kids
Speaker 3: Ukrainian kids on the front lines, and then fourteen or
Speaker 3: fifteen thousand civilians, and that's not good for anybody, and
Speaker 3: then one hundred dollars thirty to eighty thousand Russians, and
Speaker 3: you know, nobody, it's just not good for anybody. We
Speaker 3: should we should be looking for paths to piece. And
Speaker 3: I think most America, if you frame the polling question,
Speaker 3: should we be looking for paths to piece? I think
Speaker 3: most people will agree that we should be. That this
Speaker 3: is not good for anybody. And it's definitely not good
Speaker 3: from a geopolitical strategy for US because it's you know,
Speaker 3: we said, well, we're going to bankrupt Russia, but we
Speaker 3: really destroying the economy in Europe and pushing Russia into
Speaker 3: the embrace with China, which is the worst geopolitical outcome
Speaker 3: that we could possibly have. So I don't think this
Speaker 3: is good for us. It's not good for America certainly.
Speaker 3: And the cost of the war is enormous, one hundred
Speaker 3: and thirteen billions so far that you know, the entire
Speaker 3: budget of EPA is twelve billion dollars a year. The
Speaker 3: budget for CDC is twelve billion we have. We have
Speaker 3: fifty seven percent of Americans who cannot put their hands
Speaker 3: on one thousand dollars if they have an emergency. We've
Speaker 3: just cut food stamps, the SNAP program, the thirty million
Speaker 3: Americans by ninety percent. Oh you know, I have a
Speaker 3: friend who is a commercial fisherman, worked his whole life
Speaker 3: building his business, but he doesn't benefit and he's now
Speaker 3: on disability and he's been surviving on two hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty dollars with the food stamps a month. He got
Speaker 3: a call on March first that that was cut to
Speaker 3: twenty five dollars a month. And try to feed yourself
Speaker 3: on ninety cents a day. And meanwhile, because of them,
Speaker 3: we're paying for all these wars and sixteen billion dollars
Speaker 3: for the lockdowns. We have spiraling inflation which has driven
Speaker 3: the cost of primary food stuffs seventy six percent in
Speaker 3: two years. So he's dealing with, you know, this rising
Speaker 3: cost of food and his food stamps getting cut to
Speaker 3: twenty five dollars. That same month, we topped off Ukrainian
Speaker 3: eate at one hundred and thirteen billion and we pin
Speaker 3: at printed three hundred billion more for the silicon. But
Speaker 3: Tabilla at the Silicon Valley banks, and so we got
Speaker 3: lots in the ridge and for the war machine. And
Speaker 3: yet Americans are really in a place of terrible, terrible hardship.
Speaker 3: If we took money that we're giving to the Ukraine,
Speaker 3: we could pay for all of the food stamps for
Speaker 3: every American without any cuts at all. And so those
Speaker 3: the choices we're making are you know, we're going to
Speaker 3: starve people in our country. And in order to do
Speaker 3: something that I think we also need to look behind
Speaker 3: the sort of comic book depictions of this war that
Speaker 3: it's a black and white war, which is the same
Speaker 3: kind of comic book depictions that they give us to
Speaker 3: justify every war. And we need to look at the
Speaker 3: US role in the series of US provocations that without
Speaker 3: which this war would probably never have happened.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you a little bit more.
Speaker 3: It doesn't excuse Vladimir Putin, it doesn't exclude vatamt ter Pot,
Speaker 3: but we, the neocons and the White House, bear a
Speaker 3: lot of responsibility for this conflict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wanted to ask you a little bit more about. Okay,
Speaker 1: so if you're president, you're going to cut back the
Speaker 1: military aid, You're going to seek a diplomatic solution in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: What would you do.
Speaker 1: To bolster the economic prospects of the American people? For example,
Speaker 1: do you support things like federal jobs guarantee, do you
Speaker 1: support a universal basic income? What would your economic platform
Speaker 1: be to help working class Americans?
Speaker 3: I mean, my primary platform is to cut the costs
Speaker 3: on the military, you know, to get what we were
Speaker 3: told was a peace dividenda after the collapse that the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union in the end of the Cold War in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety two, we were going to cut our military
Speaker 3: budget from about six hundred billion a year to two
Speaker 3: hundred billion a year, and that instead of making you know,
Speaker 3: a billion dollar stealth bomber it can't fly in the rain,
Speaker 3: we were going to take that money and invested in
Speaker 3: the schools, in infrastructure, and in rebuilding America. And instead,
Speaker 3: you know, we've had the military and complex running our
Speaker 3: foreign policy and the neocons, and instead of going down
Speaker 3: to two hundred billion, we're now at one point three
Speaker 3: trillion if you look at all the costs associated with
Speaker 3: the military, and we need to cut that back to
Speaker 3: the levels that we were promised somewhere around those levels.
Speaker 3: Of course, we need to protect our country. But we
Speaker 3: can do that by building fortress of America, arming ourselves
Speaker 3: to the teeth at home, and then spending that money
Speaker 3: to rebuild the industrial base in this country and rebuild
Speaker 3: the middle class. I mean, my job is going to
Speaker 3: rebuild the American middle class. We had a period in
Speaker 3: this country that I was lucky enough to grow up
Speaker 3: at the height of beginning at the end of World
Speaker 3: War two to about nineteen eighty that's called economists called
Speaker 3: the Great Great Prosperity. It was the largest economic growth
Speaker 3: in the history of the world. We had the biggest
Speaker 3: and most robust middle class. We had. The middle class
Speaker 3: was an economic engine that generated half the wealth on
Speaker 3: the face of the earth from the American middle class.
Speaker 3: And people wanted our products. People, you know, loved our
Speaker 3: country by the way we were. We were really worshiped
Speaker 3: around the globe and looked to for a moral authority
Speaker 3: and leadership and uh, you know, and I would like
Speaker 3: to get back to that kind of America where we
Speaker 3: focus on building our economy at home rather than wars abroad.
Speaker 1: And does that just to clarify, do you support either
Speaker 1: a federal jobs guarantee or a universal basic income as
Speaker 1: part of that program.
Speaker 3: I don't know about that. I need to look at
Speaker 3: those things, you know, and see, and I need to
Speaker 3: talk to a lot of economists and talk about the
Speaker 3: ups and downs of those issues. You know. I can
Speaker 3: see a lot of problems with those issues, which I
Speaker 3: think are obvious to anybody. And it's a real departure
Speaker 3: from American free market capitalism. I'd like to try to
Speaker 3: give this system a chance to work.
Speaker 4: What do you think the minimum WAG should be, sir?
Speaker 3: And let me say something about that. I A You know,
Speaker 3: the reason I wouldn't just say an outright no to
Speaker 3: the universal basic income and I guarantee his jobs program
Speaker 3: is because I don't really understand what AI is going
Speaker 3: to do to our country and what self driving I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, even with self driving ch cars. And I
Speaker 3: talked to this to Elon Musk about this a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago. I read an article and I don't
Speaker 3: know if this is true or not, that over forty
Speaker 3: percent of American jobs include driving. So if you cut
Speaker 3: away all the driving cars, which is what the intention
Speaker 3: and aspiration of this, you know, of this new technology is,
Speaker 3: I do not know what that's going to do to
Speaker 3: the American economy. I mean, we've had big dis locations before,
Speaker 3: you know, the end of the of slavery, for example,
Speaker 3: in our country, and we had to do these big
Speaker 3: economic readjustments. And then the invention of the automobile around
Speaker 3: at the beginning of the nineteen hundreds, when you had
Speaker 3: a you know, if you were a buget buggy whip manufacturer,
Speaker 3: that job disappeared, or if you or you know, a
Speaker 3: buggy manufacturer, whatever, a stable. Those jobs disappeared in a
Speaker 3: couple of years, but they were replaced by new jobs,
Speaker 3: and in most cases they were better jobs. They were
Speaker 3: manufacturing jobs in factories, they were and if those were
Speaker 3: very high paying, and that's what supported the growth of
Speaker 3: the American middle class. Oh, I do not know, And
Speaker 3: you know, I'm talking to people right now about this.
Speaker 3: I had a long talk with Jack Dorsey this morning,
Speaker 3: and I'm talking with a lot of people in the
Speaker 3: tech sector about how we're going to prepare ourselves for
Speaker 3: a for the AI economy when a lot of human jobs,
Speaker 3: even the writers in Hollywood. You know, one of the
Speaker 3: reasons for this right now is that you know, they
Speaker 3: have chat g GBT right which which can write a
Speaker 3: script for you in seconds. And you know a lot
Speaker 3: of people, even you know, high level white collar jobs
Speaker 3: maybe on the chopping block and may disappear, and we
Speaker 3: may have we may face massive, massive unemployment over the
Speaker 3: next few years. And I think we really need the
Speaker 3: best minds in the world to come together and figure
Speaker 3: out how to protect ourselves against this. And so that's
Speaker 3: why I wouldn't instantaneously rule out, you know, some kind
Speaker 3: of universal incomer guaranteed jobs, which normally I would be
Speaker 3: I would have a lot of antipathy for that because
Speaker 3: I'm like a free market capitalism guy. But so I
Speaker 3: don't you know, So that's why I'm edging on that.
Speaker 5: Sure, Just a return to the minimum wage question, assuming
Speaker 5: you know nothing does change. Do you have a specific
Speaker 5: number that you think the minimum wage should be.
Speaker 3: I don't have a specific number, but I think people
Speaker 3: should have a living wage in this country. You know,
Speaker 3: people shouldn't be able to feed themselves right now, is
Speaker 3: that thirty five Americans could not do not are not
Speaker 3: making enough money to pay for basic human needs. And
Speaker 3: that means food, transportation, and housing, And that means those
Speaker 3: Americans are sitting on the precipice of you know, of
Speaker 3: a cliff that they're inches away from or on top
Speaker 3: of becoming homeless, and that is you know, that's the
Speaker 3: catastrophe for our country. So we have to figure out
Speaker 3: ways if raising the minimum wage is one of the
Speaker 3: ways that we insulate them or you know, or or
Speaker 3: improve those to mitigate those outcomes. We ought to be
Speaker 3: doing that.
Speaker 1: To your point about you know, when we had a
Speaker 1: growing middle class, when we had shared prosperity, part of
Speaker 1: that picture was much higher union density. And I know
Speaker 1: you've been a vocal supporter of you know, the writers
Speaker 1: are on strike right now, vocal supporter of labor unions
Speaker 1: in general. I wanted to get more specifics for you
Speaker 1: on what you would do to help rebuild union density
Speaker 1: and union membership. As you know, right now, the system
Speaker 1: is so rigged against workers, are so difficult for them
Speaker 1: to even exercise their rights to collectively bargain, exercise their
Speaker 1: rights to form a union. Do you support things like
Speaker 1: the Proact? Are you at all interested in like the
Speaker 1: sectoral bargaining that Gavin Newsom has been experimenting with in
Speaker 1: California that other countries do as well.
Speaker 2: What's your what are your views there?
Speaker 3: I mean, we need to build rebuild unions in this
Speaker 3: country because it's one of the key ways we can
Speaker 3: counterbalance is, you know, the the domination of our government
Speaker 3: by corporate power. The unions have always when I was
Speaker 3: a kid, forty five percent of the labor for US
Speaker 3: was unionized. Today it's less than right and that was
Speaker 3: a counterbalance to, you know, to corporate power at the
Speaker 3: national level, and now that is kind of has gone.
Speaker 3: Even the unions that are active are not participating in
Speaker 3: the way that they used to in in politics and
Speaker 3: the political system, which they need to get it be
Speaker 3: involved in. I you know, I want, we need to
Speaker 3: we need to protect collective bargaining. I don't, you know,
Speaker 3: the right to work well laws are are damaging to that.
Speaker 3: I oppose those and I support, you know, any way
Speaker 3: that makes sense of growing the strength of of you know,
Speaker 3: worker solidarity.
Speaker 4: Sir.
Speaker 5: I've noticed, though, you've gotten quite a bit of support
Speaker 5: recently for Tremath Polyhopotilla David Sachs. So you had the
Speaker 5: Twitter spaces with Elon Musk and they're at least some
Speaker 5: of these people are supporting your campaign. Given your support
Speaker 5: amongst them, how are you going to approach technology companies
Speaker 5: and whether they should be broken up or not.
Speaker 3: Well, oddly enough, you know, like the conversation I had
Speaker 3: with Jack Torrisy this morning was exactly along those lines.
Speaker 3: And you know, I'm impressed. And I know a lot
Speaker 3: of people don't feel this way about Elon Mosk and
Speaker 3: Jack Dorrisy, but I really find them incredibly patriotic and
Speaker 3: incredibly committed the democracy. And you know, I didn't a
Speaker 3: lot of those activities and their behavior was kind of
Speaker 3: obscure to me while I was on the I've been
Speaker 3: on the other end of the censorship, but I did
Speaker 3: take note very early on in the pandemic when the
Speaker 3: White House and Adam Schiff were asking the tech companies
Speaker 3: to sensor people like me who were challenging you know,
Speaker 3: a lot of the orthodoxies, that the one company that
Speaker 3: stood up was Twitter. And I also, you know, although
Speaker 3: Elon Musk is now vilified from the laft by the left,
Speaker 3: which he shouldn't be, he should be. You know, to me,
Speaker 3: he's a hero. He's a guy who who came in
Speaker 3: and restored a free expression on Twitter. And you know
Speaker 3: that I think the left sees that and they say, well,
Speaker 3: you're you're letting Donald Trump talk now, but that was
Speaker 3: not his intention. His intention was to let everybody talk,
Speaker 3: you know. Because he made that choice, he lost billions
Speaker 3: of dollars. And you know, he said to me in
Speaker 3: our conversation when I asked him about that, he said,
Speaker 3: It's worth every penny that I lose because we need
Speaker 3: free speech in America. Because if we don't have free
Speaker 3: speech in America, we don't have democracy in America. And
Speaker 3: if we don't have democracy in America, it's the end
Speaker 3: of the world. And I feel like he feels that way,
Speaker 3: and that he's going to be a good ally for
Speaker 3: me when I'm in office, and that dors He is too,
Speaker 3: because they have this very, very natal commitment to free speech.
Speaker 3: And I think they saw these you know, I mean,
Speaker 3: you guys, remember, we were all promised that the you know,
Speaker 3: at the outset of the when the social media was
Speaker 3: selling itself to us, that it was it was going
Speaker 3: to become the instrument it was going to democratize communications
Speaker 3: around the world, and instead they become the instrument for
Speaker 3: totalitarian control. And it's very ironic, but I do think
Speaker 3: that you know, some of these guys, at least the
Speaker 3: ones that I'm talking to, including David's Acts, are absolutely
Speaker 3: committed to, you know, to figuring out how to make
Speaker 3: censorship proof on social media sites, and they're doing that
Speaker 3: with Noster. You know, Noster, I think is the first one,
Speaker 3: and I think that's really promising. And some of this
Speaker 3: blockchain technology that's coming out of Bitcoin will be very,
Speaker 3: very useful. And by the way, you know, I understand
Speaker 3: that some of my fellow liberals unlike Elon Muss because
Speaker 3: they think he's giving a voice to Donald Trump and
Speaker 3: to some of the you know, Donald Trump's supporters.
Speaker 2: Well let me speak to that a little bit.
Speaker 3: I just want to remember to remind you this. In
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy seven, there was a march by Nazi by
Speaker 3: the Nazi American Nazi Party in Skoki, Illinois, through a
Speaker 3: Jewish neighborhood, and the liberal infrastructure, including the ac LU
Speaker 3: and everybody else turned out to support their right to
Speaker 3: march right, and nobody is agreeing with what they're saying.
Speaker 3: What they're saying is appalling and repulsive and repellent. But
Speaker 3: you know, we need to be willing to die in
Speaker 3: our country for their right to say those things, because
Speaker 3: if somebody can sens to them, they can sensor the
Speaker 3: rest of us do, and that's just going to end
Speaker 3: up benefiting the oligarchy and the military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: Well it's we actually interviewed Jack Dorsey yesterday, so this
Speaker 1: is really relevant. And you know, I'm on the left
Speaker 1: and I support free speech and anti censorship as well.
Speaker 1: I supported bringing Donald Trump back on to Twitter. What
Speaker 1: has concerned me about Elon Musk's leadership is the places
Speaker 1: where he hasn't met his free speech commitments. And I'll
Speaker 1: give you a few specific examples when he censored journalists
Speaker 1: who were critical of him, when he bent to demands
Speaker 1: from the Turkish government ahead of a critical election there
Speaker 1: to censor journalists who were digging into you know what
Speaker 1: the the what Erdawan was up to, also bending to
Speaker 1: requests from the Modi government in India as well. So
Speaker 1: what do you say to those critiques of Elon Musk
Speaker 1: that he actually hasn't lived up to his commitment and
Speaker 1: his stated principle that he is in favor of free
Speaker 1: speech absolutism.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I'm not gonna you know, my job
Speaker 3: is not defending els. I would bet you this is
Speaker 3: crystal that if you asked him those questions that he
Speaker 3: would have a pretty good answer for them, and I
Speaker 3: can guess that part of it. You know, I don't
Speaker 3: know why he censored the people who are criticizing him.
Speaker 3: I know that he did respond to that, but I
Speaker 3: don't recall what his response was. But one of the
Speaker 3: things that Dorisy talked to me about this morning was
Speaker 3: the difficulty of operating in foreign countries and now all
Speaker 3: across Europe where they're demanding censorship, right, and so you
Speaker 3: have to make a choice in some of these countries.
Speaker 3: And you know, Turkey is is not a freedom of
Speaker 3: speech country. You have to make a choice. Am I
Speaker 3: going to continue to operate this institution in this country
Speaker 3: and bring some of the benefits that it does and
Speaker 3: the revenue to you know, my shareholders in my company,
Speaker 3: or I'm going to you know, make us stand here
Speaker 3: and die on this hill and and and you know,
Speaker 3: report the truth and then be shut down the next day. So, I,
Speaker 3: you know, I don't know what he would say, but
Speaker 3: I can imagine that those are some of the really
Speaker 3: difficult choices he was forced to make.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that is actually what he did say in response,
Speaker 1: is that his commitment to free speech goes as far
Speaker 1: as the laws of a certain country provide, which raises
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. Is actually what Jack Dorsey brought
Speaker 1: up with us yesterday is that when Dorsey was head
Speaker 1: of Twitter, he tried to take a more global approach.
Speaker 1: This is in his words, So he received requests from
Speaker 1: the Indian government. They either threatened or actually did rate
Speaker 1: his offices. According to him, they pulled staff from the
Speaker 1: country and were concerned about operating there, but they didn't
Speaker 1: accede to the demands. So what is your view of
Speaker 1: the way that those things should be handled, Because you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at any sort of totalitarian government, they're
Speaker 1: going to have egregious anti free speech laws on the books.
Speaker 1: Is the responsibility of someone who claims to be a
Speaker 1: free speech advocate to stand up to those governments or
Speaker 1: just to abide by whatever the law is and whatever
Speaker 1: that authoritarian government.
Speaker 3: Demands, Ystal. I think that's a really good, good question,
Speaker 3: and it's a really troubling issue. And I think the
Speaker 3: you know, right now, it's becoming more and more difficult
Speaker 3: because there are competitors within those countries that have the
Speaker 3: ability to completely replace you know, institutionals like Twitter, where
Speaker 3: we're the Twitter, and you know, some of these other
Speaker 3: social media companies are now no longer all powerful. If
Speaker 3: you go to China there they got each one of
Speaker 3: them has competitors there. And if you drive the American
Speaker 3: companies out, you know, is the country going to be
Speaker 3: and is free speech I'm more likely to be protected
Speaker 3: or not? I don't know. I think all of the
Speaker 3: I don't think at this point there's probably any hard
Speaker 3: and fast answer. And I suspect, although I'm not an
Speaker 3: expert on this, that Jack Dorsey it was an easier
Speaker 3: decision when he made it than it probably is for
Speaker 3: ELI today because of the change landscapes of social media
Speaker 3: and in the growth of indigenous cut companies within those
Speaker 3: within those, you know, i'd say tyrannical systems, sir.
Speaker 5: Just to last questions for you, I'm curious what your
Speaker 5: view is of corporations like bud Light getting involved in
Speaker 5: Pride Month and in trans issues.
Speaker 3: I would say those are those are strategy choices for them,
Speaker 3: And my understanding of bud Light is that they probably
Speaker 3: regret having made that choice because there was such a
Speaker 3: strong consumer reaction, and that's probably the best way to
Speaker 3: work things, rather than you know, for them to make,
Speaker 3: you know, their own decisions about about how to operate
Speaker 3: and you know, how to keep their consumers going. I mean, listen,
Speaker 3: I would love companies to do the right thing on
Speaker 3: the environment, even if it's against their economic interests, you know,
Speaker 3: And I'd love it if we had laws. But it's
Speaker 3: not it's not a reliable Uh, it's it's not a
Speaker 3: reliable way to change policy is to you know, you
Speaker 3: need you need laws that are actually enforceable, that that
Speaker 3: do what you know what laws and the democracy are
Speaker 3: supposed to do, which is to encourage support and reward
Speaker 3: good behavior and then to punish bad behavior. Sure, and
Speaker 3: then if we want to do it in a reliable way,
Speaker 3: we needed to do it through legislation rather than to
Speaker 3: rely on on you know, corporate goodwill. If corporations act
Speaker 3: in ways that are sociable, you know, I commend them, but.
Speaker 2: I can't rely on that, certainly, Tagan.
Speaker 5: Last question on my pet issue that I know a
Speaker 5: lot of people want to know, will you declassify all
Speaker 5: UFO related documents as.
Speaker 3: Pres Yeah, let me ask you something. Oh please, did
Speaker 3: you see this article last week about the guy about Yes.
Speaker 4: We've covered it extensively here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And do you think that that was a psyop
Speaker 3: or do you think that that was real?
Speaker 5: I believe it was real based upon a lot of
Speaker 5: credible people who I know, who have spoken with him
Speaker 5: and have vetted him.
Speaker 3: Why don't you tell people what we're talking about?
Speaker 4: Sure? Sure, yeah. For those who don't know.
Speaker 5: Dave Grush, who's an intel whistleblower, came forward through the
Speaker 5: intelligence community process. He says that multiple alien spacecraft are
Speaker 5: in the possession of the United States government. The Inspector
Speaker 5: General of the Intelligence Community says that he is highly
Speaker 5: credible and as bringing forward urgent information. And actually several
Speaker 5: representatives in Congress were asked about it just thirty minutes
Speaker 5: or so before you and I spoke, and many of them,
Speaker 5: including Senator Jill Brand, Senator Holly Bipartisanship, if you will,
Speaker 5: all said that they were credible in that they had
Speaker 5: asked the they had asked the intelligence community about that,
Speaker 5: and were quote unquote rang true at least in some cases.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, I can't wait to be bresident of the United
Speaker 3: States and and dig into that one. That's really that
Speaker 3: is fascinating.
Speaker 5: And what is your what is your view of the
Speaker 5: UFO phenomena just your personal.
Speaker 3: I don't really, I mean, I don't know anything about
Speaker 3: it other than I'm very very good friends with with
Speaker 3: dan Ackroight, who's kind of devoted his life to studying
Speaker 3: that phenomenon. Is you know, very very convincedive. But I've
Speaker 3: never seen a UFO. And but you know, I also
Speaker 3: the stuff that I've read, you know of people, you know,
Speaker 3: the particularly the navy pilots who have you know, who
Speaker 3: have recorded these encounters seem you know, I'm not I'm
Speaker 3: certainly not going to dismiss it. It seems like it's real,
Speaker 3: but I don't have I don't have a good, uh
Speaker 3: a good grasp on it. But I mean, and that
Speaker 3: article you were talking about was fascinating because it was
Speaker 3: just exactly what men in blacks that is actually happening.
Speaker 3: That you know, they gave us a velcrow and all
Speaker 3: of this.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I always say, I mean, I try to
Speaker 1: keep the skeptic hat on and say, it's hard for
Speaker 1: me imagine that they'd be able to have this cover
Speaker 1: up across multiple governments, across multiple decades, administrations, all these years.
Speaker 1: But I have a feeling you might dispute the possibility
Speaker 1: of such a cover up occurring.
Speaker 4: Exactly, especially what happened to your own family.
Speaker 5: Sir. I know your staff says you got to get
Speaker 5: out of here, so I just want to say thank
Speaker 5: you very much for joining us. It was really a
Speaker 5: pleasure to speak with you again, and you were welcome
Speaker 5: back on the show anytime.
Speaker 2: Love talking to you. Thank you, y I love coming.
Speaker 3: On the show, So thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 4: Thank you for our pleasure.