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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. We're very excited to be
Speaker 2: joined by Robert Francis Kennedy Junior. He is a author,
Speaker 2: an activist, and a presidential candidate. Sir, thank you so
Speaker 2: much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thanks for
Speaker 2: having me absolutely pleasure. So one of our goals here, sir,
Speaker 2: is we know you've been doing quite a bit of interviews.
Speaker 2: We would like to treat you seriously as a presidential candidate.
Speaker 2: We want to get to some things which we haven't
Speaker 2: seen you touch on before. We know some of the
Speaker 2: issues that animate you the most. We will leave those
Speaker 2: to decide. We want to make sure that we get
Speaker 2: as much ground as possible. So our first question is
Speaker 2: actually a very basic one. Why do you think that
Speaker 2: you should be president?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I'm running because I'm disturbed about the
Speaker 4: direction our country is going in not only our country,
Speaker 4: but are my political party.
Speaker 5: And it really culminated during the.
Speaker 4: My unease with what's happening culminated during the pandemic when
Speaker 4: I saw all of this kind of almost like an
Speaker 4: orchestrated assault on the Bill of Rights, that suddenly it
Speaker 4: was okay to sensor speech, particularly criticism of the government,
Speaker 4: which has always been the purview of American citizenship. And
Speaker 4: then they went after freedom of worship. They closed every
Speaker 4: church in our country for a year with no scientific excitation,
Speaker 4: oh democratic process, no notice in comment, rulemaking. They went
Speaker 4: after jury trials so that we can no longer which
Speaker 4: are guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment in any case or
Speaker 4: controversy exceeding twenty five dollars. Americans are entitled to jury
Speaker 4: trials if somebody arms you. But suddenly you couldn't see
Speaker 4: vaccine companies or pharmaceutical companies or any kind of medical provider,
Speaker 4: no matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless
Speaker 4: their conduct, no matter how grievous your injury. They went
Speaker 4: after property rights. They closed there's a Fifth Amendment right
Speaker 4: to due process and just compensation. They closed three point
Speaker 4: three million businesses with no due process, no just compensation.
Speaker 4: They went after the Fourth Amendment, you know, the Fourth
Speaker 4: Amendment right to our prohibition and warrantless surges and seizures
Speaker 4: was just left by the wayside as we encountered all
Speaker 4: of these kind of intrusive government mandates where you couldn't
Speaker 4: essentially leave your home without showing your private medical records, etc.
Speaker 4: And you know, I personally was subject to a lot
Speaker 4: of this csorship, but more disturbing mothers who had injured children,
Speaker 4: people who who said they suffered or felt that they
Speaker 4: had suffered injuries from the vaccines, Doctors who wanted to
Speaker 4: provide medical advice on early treatments. We're all banished from
Speaker 4: the internet. And you know, it started becoming a country
Speaker 4: that I didn't recognize. My own political party was at
Speaker 4: the forefront of that, the spirit tip of those moves,
Speaker 4: and our parties suddenly became the party of censorship, the
Speaker 4: Party of pharmaceutical companies, the Party of fear, and now
Speaker 4: the Party of war.
Speaker 1: So let me let me ask you a little bit
Speaker 1: about that, because we both watched a lot of interviews
Speaker 1: of you and you know, both on a general interest
Speaker 1: but also to prepare for this interview and sitting down
Speaker 1: with you. And I think some of the key issues
Speaker 1: that you tend to focus on our COVID, the Ukraine War,
Speaker 1: and censorship. Those are all issues where you seem to
Speaker 1: be in basic agreement with the former president Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So I'd love for you to lay out what do
Speaker 1: you see as some of the most critical differences you
Speaker 1: have with the former president.
Speaker 4: Well, I have a lot of not only issues differences,
Speaker 4: but stylistic just did differences. I think my approach to
Speaker 4: people in politics is very different, I'd say, you know,
Speaker 4: in terms of the issues, probably the biggest departure is.
Speaker 5: On the environment.
Speaker 4: And in fact, you know, my first encounter with Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is that I sued him twice, you know, in
Speaker 4: the years before he was president.
Speaker 5: To block his.
Speaker 4: Construction of golf courses to golf courses, which I successfully
Speaker 4: did in the New York City Watershed. But on all
Speaker 4: of the you know, environmental issues, I think my worldview
Speaker 4: is very different than the president's. You know, I'm happy
Speaker 4: to talk about any of the other issues.
Speaker 3: What about the current president.
Speaker 2: So, when you obviously are running against an incumbent president.
Speaker 2: I was thinking a little bit about your father. He
Speaker 2: decided to run in nineteen sixty eighty. So you wanted
Speaker 2: to save the party from LBJ from the chaos of Vietnam.
Speaker 2: You're running against an incumbent president as well. Is there
Speaker 2: a similarity there? Like, what do you want to save
Speaker 2: America from Joe Biden from what exactly was?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, the Forever Wars, you know, which which
Speaker 4: was a really kind of a Republican issue, and it's
Speaker 4: it's flipped. You know, there are many I think there
Speaker 4: are many more Republicans who are skeptical about this war.
Speaker 4: We should be making peace around the world. We should
Speaker 4: be projecting economic power rather than military power, the same
Speaker 4: way that the Chinese and you know, instead we you know,
Speaker 4: the war is now our major industry, and weapons are
Speaker 4: one of our largest exports. And that's you know, I mean,
Speaker 4: that's the that's the inverse of everything that America was
Speaker 4: supposed to represent the world. My uncle, President Kennedy said
Speaker 4: when he was asked by one of his best friends,
Speaker 4: one of his two best friends, Ben Bradley, who is
Speaker 4: the publisher of The Washington Post, asked him what he
Speaker 4: wanted on his gravestone, and he said he kept the peace.
Speaker 4: And when he when Bradley asked him about that, he said,
Speaker 4: he said he felt that the principal job of a
Speaker 4: president was to keep the country out of war. My
Speaker 4: uncle had been in World War Two, He lost his
Speaker 4: brother in World War two. His father was adamantly against,
Speaker 4: had opposed World War One as ambassador in England. He
Speaker 4: had tried to keep the country out of a war.
Speaker 4: And this is before we knew about Hitler's atrocities. You know,
Speaker 4: the final solution didn't begin until forty three. But my
Speaker 4: you know, my grandfather believed that the best strategy for
Speaker 4: the United States. There's a famous historian called Paul Kennedy
Speaker 4: who's no relationship to me. He's a Yale history and
Speaker 4: he did this very influence and show a book on
Speaker 4: the declines of Empires. And he went through all of
Speaker 4: the empires in the last five hundred years and shows
Speaker 4: that each one of them destroyed itself, cannibalized itself by
Speaker 4: overextending its military abroad. And my grandfather knew that my
Speaker 4: grandfather nine kids, he could not bear. He could not
Speaker 4: conceive of an issue that would be worth the sacrifice
Speaker 4: of his child, now my own son thought in the
Speaker 4: in the Ukraine War, in the Kurgave Offensive, he joined,
Speaker 4: he joined without telling us. He went over to the Ukraine,
Speaker 4: joined the Foreign Legion, and he fought as a machine
Speaker 4: gunner for a special forces unit.
Speaker 5: But I can't.
Speaker 4: Conceive the you know, the the grief that I would
Speaker 4: feel if I lost my son in that conflict. And
Speaker 4: there are three hundred thousand Ukrainian parents who have lost
Speaker 4: their children, and maybe as many as seventy or eighty
Speaker 4: thousand Russian parents, which is something that I don't think
Speaker 4: we should be happy about that we should be celebrating.
Speaker 4: And the war is bad for us from a geopolitical standpoint.
Speaker 4: We shouldn't be pushing Russia and China together.
Speaker 5: And it's.
Speaker 4: You know, and we went to that war for the
Speaker 4: right reasons, out of compassion for the you know, the
Speaker 4: best of American character and virtues, and compassion for the
Speaker 4: Ukrainian people who were victimized by any illegal and brutal
Speaker 4: war invasion by the Russians. But it's ceased at some
Speaker 4: point being a humanitarian mission, and it became an agenda,
Speaker 4: a geopolitical agenda to exhaust Russia to do regime change
Speaker 4: with Vladimir Putin, which is the opposite of humanitarian impuls.
Speaker 1: And they've been out out front, you know, up front
Speaker 1: of about that. At times they've admitted that it's the goal.
Speaker 1: One quibal with you. I just I've seen you mentioned
Speaker 1: this three hundred thousand Ukrainian deaths number a couple of
Speaker 1: times and I wasn't able to find Can you tell
Speaker 1: us where's that number come from?
Speaker 4: That was I forget the name of that. It's the
Speaker 4: commander of the Ukrainian Forest and it was in his
Speaker 4: conversation with the NATO commander, okay, which was publicized because
Speaker 4: in the leak documents it was alway, that's correct, okay,
Speaker 4: but I will I will provide you with as sid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd love to see because we looked beforehand and
Speaker 1: wasn't weren't able to see that the different numbers in
Speaker 1: the league documents. We just want to be accurate.
Speaker 5: Well, let me know, I'll get I'll get you that today.
Speaker 1: That'd be great, sure. So Day one agenda, what are
Speaker 1: the priorities?
Speaker 4: The priorities on A one will be partnering Julian Assange
Speaker 4: and UH and and then starting to fix an IH FDA, CDC,
Speaker 4: you know, get them off of the you know, their
Speaker 4: subsistence relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and unraveling that agency capture,
Speaker 4: putting the right people in that agency who know how
Speaker 4: to do that.
Speaker 1: And is that just a matter of different personnel or
Speaker 1: do you need to have a public option for pharmaceutical companies?
Speaker 1: Do you need to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry? What does
Speaker 1: that Actually?
Speaker 5: No, I don't think that's the right thing.
Speaker 4: I think we need to get pharmaceutical money out of
Speaker 4: the regulatory agencies. An IH personnel should not be able
Speaker 4: to collect royalties on pharmaceutical products that they worked on,
Speaker 4: which they can do today. An ihe has evolved from
Speaker 4: being a from being a research agency that's supposed to
Speaker 4: be improving American health and instead it's become an incubator
Speaker 4: for pharmaceutical product. So they a developed you know, initial
Speaker 4: pharmaceutical products in their lab and then they farm that
Speaker 4: product out to a university and they give the universities
Speaker 4: hundreds of millions of dollars and to go through phase
Speaker 4: one and phase two trials, and then they bring in
Speaker 4: a pharmaceutical company if they if the drug works, which
Speaker 4: they almost always do because they can make them look
Speaker 4: like they work. And then they bring in a pharmaceutical
Speaker 4: company to do the phase three, which is very very expensive,
Speaker 4: may cost a billion dollars. And along the way, everybody
Speaker 4: gets a piece of the patent, so ANIH gets a
Speaker 4: piece of pattern. For example, NIH owns half the MODERNA patten.
Speaker 4: And you know, there's been billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 4: maybe one hundred billion so far on that platform and
Speaker 4: on that mRNA platform that NIH develop and NIH stands
Speaker 4: to collect half of that money. Not only that, but
Speaker 4: individuals within NIH, you know, the deputies of Anthony Fauci
Speaker 4: have margin rights on that patent, so they can collect
Speaker 4: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year for life,
Speaker 4: and then their children and so on as long as
Speaker 4: that product's being sold. And what that means is that
Speaker 4: the regulatory function of the agency is subsumed by these,
Speaker 4: you know, the mercantile ambitions of these regulators who are
Speaker 4: no longer regulators.
Speaker 1: Isn't the isn't the profit motive though at the core
Speaker 1: of that problem, because the problem you're describing isn't unique
Speaker 1: to FDA and IH, et cetera. You can go down.
Speaker 1: I know you would talk about the EPA, you probably
Speaker 1: have direct experience there as an environmental lawyer. But you
Speaker 1: can go down the list of these agencies and you
Speaker 1: see the way the revolving door works. You see the
Speaker 1: way that there's a lot of industry capture because ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, we have a health insurance industry and a
Speaker 1: hospital industry and a pharmaceutical industry that has the bottom
Speaker 1: line is the bottom line? Isn't that really the root
Speaker 1: of the problem here?
Speaker 5: Well, me and him in nature.
Speaker 1: I mean the profit motive, I mean putting the product motive.
Speaker 5: Of the problem.
Speaker 4: The private motive is human nature. So you know, in
Speaker 4: a democracy, the challenge is how do you insulate public
Speaker 4: institutions right from the human impulse for greed and acquisition,
Speaker 4: you know, acquisitiveness. And that's really to me, that's the
Speaker 4: solution is you get the money. You know, half of
Speaker 4: it of FDA's budget, almost half of FDAH budget comes
Speaker 4: from pharma, and so you know, they're not really working
Speaker 4: for the public interests, they're working for the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 4: CDC buys about five billion dollars worth of vaccines a
Speaker 4: year from pharmaceutical industries and secret deals with you know,
Speaker 4: that are sweetheart deals that benefit those companies. A product
Speaker 4: that CDC has has previously approved and mandated effectively, and
Speaker 4: then CDC then is under a you know, under pressure
Speaker 4: and to make sure everybody takes those products and to
Speaker 4: not find problems with those products. If problems arise, you
Speaker 4: want the regulator to be the first.
Speaker 5: One to notice.
Speaker 4: And so we have we have a system that is
Speaker 4: that is being corroded by conflicts of interest.
Speaker 1: Yes, and some of these issues.
Speaker 4: We want to remove those conflicts of interests as much
Speaker 4: as you can. You'll never get of all of them,
Speaker 4: but you want to movement as much. And it's it's
Speaker 4: really like agency capture on steroids. And because the conflicts
Speaker 4: are so rife and pervasive.
Speaker 1: And the US healthcare system is uniquely good in certain
Speaker 1: respects in terms of advanced treatments, et cetera, but uniquely
Speaker 1: bad in a lot of other respects in terms of
Speaker 1: you know, chronic illnesses and the expense. And we pay
Speaker 1: way more for health care than other developed nations and
Speaker 1: we get way less. As you know, every other developed
Speaker 1: nation in the world has universal health care. Do you
Speaker 1: support universal health care through a medicare for all program
Speaker 1: or something so man, my.
Speaker 5: You know, my my.
Speaker 4: I would say my highest ambition would be to have
Speaker 4: a single pair program, which you know with a people
Speaker 4: who want to have private programs can go ahead and
Speaker 4: do that, but to have a single program that is
Speaker 4: available to everybody. I don't know how politically realistic that is,
Speaker 4: but you know, if you ask me if I were
Speaker 4: designing the system from the beginning, that's what I would do.
Speaker 4: You're right, the system now is broken. We take you know,
Speaker 4: we pay the most health care in the world. I
Speaker 4: think we're seventy ninth. We're behind like cost the Reek
Speaker 4: and Cuba in terms of health outcomes. We have the
Speaker 4: highest level of chronic disease in the world of any country.
Speaker 4: You know that means neurological diseases, autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases
Speaker 4: like peanut allergies, food allergies, eggs, anaphylaxis, asthma, and and
Speaker 4: we we pay more than anybody else. We also consume
Speaker 4: consume more pharmaceutical products.
Speaker 5: I think we take more.
Speaker 4: I think we take three to four times as many
Speaker 4: drugs per capita than Europeans do, and they're not making
Speaker 4: us healthier. The third largest cause of death in this
Speaker 4: country after cancer and art attacks and now pharmaceutical drugs.
Speaker 4: Americans are the sickest country in the world. Is that
Speaker 4: the sickest generation we've ever had. And we spend four
Speaker 4: point three trillion dollars on health care every year. Eighty
Speaker 4: percent of that goes to treating chronic disease. And to me,
Speaker 4: the worst, you know, the most alarming metric. When I
Speaker 4: was a boy, six percent of Americans said chronic disease.
Speaker 5: Today, by two thousand and six.
Speaker 4: Fifty four percent, and you know, I'm sure it's going
Speaker 4: up since then. I means, have our children aren't debilitated
Speaker 4: for life from a chronic disease. And you know, the
Speaker 4: pharmaceutical industry is making a lot of money on that,
Speaker 4: selling us the EpiPens, the albuterol and hilers that any
Speaker 4: seizure medication, the insulin shots and all that, and they're
Speaker 4: making a killing. They make, you know, half a trillion
Speaker 4: dollars a year. But it's not good for our country.
Speaker 4: And what we need is public health agencies that are
Speaker 4: actually focused on public health of rather than advancing the
Speaker 4: pharmaceutical paradigm or profits for these pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 2: It's interesting to me. I heard you talk a lot
Speaker 2: about corruption. We were talking here about the profit motive.
Speaker 2: I was surprised though he did the interview with the
Speaker 2: all In podcast. I knew that you were against nuclear power,
Speaker 2: but he's talking with something interesting, saying that we should
Speaker 2: have effectively a completely free market energy system. And I
Speaker 2: guess I wanted to talk to, you know, with somebody
Speaker 2: who's father and uncle famously supported major public initiatives which
Speaker 2: didn't necessarily pay out, which would yielded massive dividends in
Speaker 2: the future. Why should nuclear, solar, wind, or any power
Speaker 2: honestly float outside of public support systems if the overall
Speaker 2: social benefit of it unlocks economic potential. I'm just curious
Speaker 2: for the cost.
Speaker 4: You know, I think the market is the but I mean,
Speaker 4: here's the thing is in it. We don't have free
Speaker 4: market capitalism.
Speaker 3: Let me just say free market energy.
Speaker 4: No, that's right, you know, we have the energy. The
Speaker 4: rules that come in the energy industry are written by
Speaker 4: the incumbents to you know, to UH, to benefit. The
Speaker 4: dirty is filthy, is most poisonous, most toxic, most warmongering
Speaker 4: feels from hell rather than the cheap, clean, green, wholesome
Speaker 4: and UH and you know, efficient feels from habit in.
Speaker 5: A true free market. True free market promotes efficiency.
Speaker 4: Efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution is waste.
Speaker 4: In true a true free market would require us to
Speaker 4: properly value our natural resources, and it is the undervaluation
Speaker 4: of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully.
Speaker 4: In a true free market, you can't make yourself rich
Speaker 4: without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.
Speaker 4: But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by
Speaker 4: making everybody else poor. Certainly, they raised standards of living
Speaker 4: for themselves by lowering quality of life for the rest
Speaker 4: of us. And they do that by escaping the discipline
Speaker 4: of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll
Speaker 4: show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat
Speaker 4: using political clout to escape the discipline of the free
Speaker 4: market and force the public to pay his production.
Speaker 5: Cause that's what all pollution is.
Speaker 4: When the general la when I you know, when a
Speaker 4: coal company burns coal at you know, and sells, for example,
Speaker 4: in North Carolina, sixteen cents of killowhite hour, we have
Speaker 4: the or two cents in the evening. We have this
Speaker 4: sense that we're getting the cheapest energy possible, but that
Speaker 4: coal generation is poisoning every freshwater fish in America with mercury.
Speaker 4: So they're externalizing that cost, which is a cost on
Speaker 4: all Americans. They have sterilized every lake on the high
Speaker 4: peaks of the Appellation from Georgia northern Quebec. That's the
Speaker 4: cause of coal that they don't tell you about. There's
Speaker 4: half a trillion dollars here an asthma, TA, expulmonary and
Speaker 4: respiratory illnesses associated with those on particulars from that those emissions.
Speaker 4: That's a cost that they should be forced to internalize.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any debate here. I'm more focusing
Speaker 2: on nuclear thinking. I agree with all your criticisms, which
Speaker 2: is why you know I will believe very much in
Speaker 2: a nuclear power future. And that's where I was surprised
Speaker 2: to hear you say that we shouldn't pursue a nuclear
Speaker 2: future instead go in the direction of wind and solar,
Speaker 2: where we don't seem to have the same level of
Speaker 2: renewable energy.
Speaker 3: Production and actual efficiency.
Speaker 2: If we look at the way the amount of power
Speaker 2: that we can get out of these out of these
Speaker 2: systems when they are properly constructed. I will concede a
Speaker 2: lot of the problems of the prises.
Speaker 5: Let me see it, yeah said.
Speaker 4: The problem with with variable power power like like wind
Speaker 4: and solar, is not that we don't have the generation.
Speaker 4: We have enough generation just from wind just in Montana,
Speaker 4: Texas and North Dakota lone of the North American energy grid,
Speaker 4: and we could power all of North America with a
Speaker 4: by putting panels PVC panels on an area seventy five
Speaker 4: miles by seventy five miles in the desert southwest. The
Speaker 4: problem is we can't transport the energy.
Speaker 3: We don't have mind, we don't have battery.
Speaker 4: Well, let me just get to the new Newke issue.
Speaker 4: First of all, I don't I think we should continue
Speaker 4: to explore nuclear power. Okay, but and I'm all for
Speaker 4: nuclear power. If you can never make it safe, and
Speaker 4: if vision is not safe, and if it were safe,
Speaker 4: they wouldn't if they would get an insurance policy, they can't.
Speaker 4: It's not you know, it's there is not a bunch
Speaker 4: of hippies and tight T shirts that's saying it's not safe.
Speaker 4: It's guys in ties and suits from the AIG and
Speaker 4: Lloyd's of London that says, who are saying, your industry
Speaker 4: is so risky that we will not even consider writing
Speaker 4: you an insurance policy. So the nuclear industry had to
Speaker 4: go to you know, to Washington, to the capitol in
Speaker 4: the in this sleazy legislative maneuver in the middle of
Speaker 4: the night and pass the Price Anderson Act, which immunized
Speaker 4: all these plans from their own accountability. So if the
Speaker 4: Indian Point power plan blows up and irradiates all of
Speaker 4: the homes in Westchester County, New York and Connecticut and
Speaker 4: everybody in New York City, makes New York City unpopulated,
Speaker 4: unpopulable for the next fifty or sixty.
Speaker 5: Years, who pays for that?
Speaker 4: It's not you know, con Edison, It's not the people
Speaker 4: who run the plant.
Speaker 5: The plant is insight.
Speaker 4: It's just like the vaccine companies do not have to
Speaker 4: pay for the you know, the the consequences of their recklessness.
Speaker 4: So the company has no real incentive to make it
Speaker 4: safe because they're not liable for you know, for injuries
Speaker 4: they caught. So and by the way, if you look
Speaker 4: at the costs from Fukushima, an Indian Point is still
Speaker 4: leaking trittium every day into the Hudson River, Fukushima. If
Speaker 4: you look at Fukushima, there are you know, anybody can
Speaker 4: go and google the water waste water tanks at Fukushima.
Speaker 4: There's so much radiation going into the Pacific that they
Speaker 4: now the only way of dealing with it is building
Speaker 4: water tank after water tank, and they go all the
Speaker 4: way to the horizon, and you know, and you look
Speaker 4: at what happened at Chernobyl. So but ultimately the ultimate
Speaker 4: arbiter of risk is the insurance industry, and the insurance
Speaker 4: industry is saying that in the nuclear industry is to
Speaker 4: do is too risky for us to ensure? Now is
Speaker 4: it economic?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: The last I think two plants built. One of them
Speaker 4: caused nine nine billion dollars per giguad, the other causes
Speaker 4: sixteen billion per gaguay. The solar plant caused one billion
Speaker 4: a gigawa and then you get free fuel forever, so
Speaker 4: the wind in the sund are free. A wind plant
Speaker 4: costs about one point one two billion a gigaway, So
Speaker 4: a NWD plant is fifteen times.
Speaker 5: What a wind solar planta.
Speaker 4: And the new plant people say, well, it's variable out,
Speaker 4: it very very powerable power.
Speaker 5: You're not getting the power all the time. The same
Speaker 5: with a nude plant. The NW plant have outages all
Speaker 5: the time.
Speaker 3: Well, they want to run ninety one.
Speaker 2: I don't want to spend too much time here necessarily
Speaker 2: going through this because okay, well but I.
Speaker 3: Understand, I understand your objection.
Speaker 4: Let me just say one other cause. What the big
Speaker 4: cause is storing the waste, which has to be stored
Speaker 4: for thirty thousand years, which is five times the length
Speaker 4: of recorded human history. If you at the internally and
Speaker 4: there's no utility on Earth today, will build a nuclear
Speaker 4: power plant unless it essentially is fully subsidized as subsidation.
Speaker 4: And I don't think that's you know, good to allocate
Speaker 4: public resources.
Speaker 1: One says, part of part of the argument in favor
Speaker 1: of nuclear energy that even a lot of environmental activists
Speaker 1: have come around to at this moment is that the
Speaker 1: potential consequences of climate change are so dire that even
Speaker 1: though they recognize some of the risks and the problems,
Speaker 1: especially the you know, what do you do with the
Speaker 1: waste issue that you're pointing to here, the thought is, okay,
Speaker 1: but this is the tech we have, and climate change
Speaker 1: has these dire consequences already we're already living through. So
Speaker 1: what I want to hear from you is, you know,
Speaker 1: what is your view of the climate crisis, and what
Speaker 1: is your view of Joe Biden's reaction to that crisis.
Speaker 1: Do you think he's done too much, too little, or
Speaker 1: he's been about right now?
Speaker 4: Well, let me you know, let me just comment on
Speaker 4: your first question. If I'm not saying that we shouldn't
Speaker 4: spend money to a you know, climate or you know,
Speaker 4: to have a cleaner air, why wouldn't you take the
Speaker 4: cheapest way of doing that?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 4: And so how do energy promised us at the outset
Speaker 4: that they were going to be too cheap to meet
Speaker 4: or this is what they've been saying for sixty years, right,
Speaker 4: and instead they've given us the most expensive way to
Speaker 4: boil a pot of water that has ever been devised
Speaker 4: by humanity.
Speaker 5: Why would you have.
Speaker 4: The most expensive solution when there's cheaper solutions for our
Speaker 4: cheaper solution?
Speaker 1: What do you think of Joe Biden with the so
Speaker 1: called Inflation Reduction Act. There have been a lot of
Speaker 1: subsidies put into the solar and wind in particular to
Speaker 1: try to move towards the clean energy future. Do you
Speaker 1: think he's done enough. Do you think he's done too much?
Speaker 1: What do you make of it?
Speaker 4: You know, the problem is I think that you know,
Speaker 4: energy ought to be able to stand on its own.
Speaker 4: It's okay for a nation to subsidize a new end
Speaker 4: industry for national security reasons or to or to to
Speaker 4: greenhouse and industry that you want to you know that
Speaker 4: you want to have become self sufficient with.
Speaker 5: So I think there are there are really good reasons.
Speaker 4: To subsidize industries, particularly in their nacent stages, but it
Speaker 4: gets more difficult when you're subsidizing mature industries.
Speaker 5: The problem with the market is that.
Speaker 4: The carbon industry is so heavily subsidized. I think that
Speaker 4: I am for the World Bank estimates that these subsidies
Speaker 4: to the carbon industry are about five point two trillion
Speaker 4: a year globally and uh and so that distorts, That
Speaker 4: sends a signal out that distorts the whole market place.
Speaker 4: So instead of choosing the cheapest energy, we're now having
Speaker 4: to subsidize the competitors to bring them up to.
Speaker 1: The don't disagree with you there, but just I'm trying
Speaker 1: to get a sense of I mean, what is your
Speaker 1: view of the climate crisis and what level of investment
Speaker 1: is worth, you know, putting in to deal with it.
Speaker 1: Do you see it as an existential threat? What is
Speaker 1: your view there?
Speaker 4: I believe that climate is an existential threat there, but
Speaker 4: I don't insist other people believe that. And one of
Speaker 4: the problems with the climate crisis, and let me tell
Speaker 4: you because on the areas of vaccines and public health
Speaker 4: and a lot of environmental issues, I you know, have
Speaker 4: made myself an expert the way that attorneys always do
Speaker 4: when they're arguing a case. I understand the science. I
Speaker 4: can read the science critically. I cannot do that with
Speaker 4: climate science. So I'm left kind of taking other people's word,
Speaker 4: and I say, most people are in the same situation.
Speaker 4: We're all, you know, basically saying, okay, ninety nine percent
Speaker 4: of scientists are saying and the public science are saying,
Speaker 4: this is, you know, the climate crisis existential and it
Speaker 4: is being created by anthropogenic carbon production. I can't independently
Speaker 4: verify that. But the reason I believe it because and
Speaker 4: I also know, in particularly the past three years, people,
Speaker 4: you know, we've seen how science, particularly federally funded science,
Speaker 4: can be corrupted. And this is what the critics of
Speaker 4: you know, the sort of the Republican right is saying,
Speaker 4: we don't believe anything that federal science says anymore. And
Speaker 4: I can't go to them like I can with vaccines
Speaker 4: or pharmaceuticals or other environmental issues and say you're wrong,
Speaker 4: and I can explain to you exactly why you're wrong.
Speaker 4: I can't do that, but I have seen in the
Speaker 4: nineteenth you know, these documents in nineteen seventy were Exon's
Speaker 4: own science. Exon had scientists working for them that prided
Speaker 4: themselves on knowing more about the fate of the carbon
Speaker 4: molecule and the environment than anybody else, And during that
Speaker 4: time in the seventies, they were saying to their bosses
Speaker 4: in the Exxon management, if we continue to burn carbon
Speaker 4: the way that we are going to warm the globe,
Speaker 4: and that actually is going to be a bad thing
Speaker 4: for humanity, but it's going to be a great thing
Speaker 4: for our company, because we're going to melt the Arctic,
Speaker 4: and there's a tremendous amount of oil under the Arctic
Speaker 4: and we're.
Speaker 5: Going to be able to exploit it.
Speaker 4: So you had people who were on the industry side
Speaker 4: back in the seventies who were saying this is real.
Speaker 4: Now in my campaign, I'm not going to be talking
Speaker 4: a lot about climate. Why is that because climate has
Speaker 4: become a crisis like COVID that the Davos Group and
Speaker 4: other totalitarian elements in our society have you to have
Speaker 4: used as a pretext for clamping down totalitarian controls.
Speaker 1: But isn't that even more of a justification if you
Speaker 1: if you think that is not even more of a
Speaker 1: justification for you to argue in favor of an approach
Speaker 1: that doesn't result in the totalitarian.
Speaker 4: Exactly so, And I've always said I've always been cautious
Speaker 4: about leaning on scientific evidence for climate because the reason
Speaker 4: is it's not persuasive to people who don't want to
Speaker 4: believe it. I work for commercial fishermen on the Hudson
Speaker 4: River for most of my career and all across the country.
Speaker 4: They love the environment. Republicans, most Republicans.
Speaker 5: Love the environment.
Speaker 4: If you tell them you're you know, you're going to
Speaker 4: protect this place, this sacred place, your backyard, the water
Speaker 4: for your children, You're gonna protect again, toxicity, they're all in.
Speaker 5: Should not be a divice issue. The environment should not be.
Speaker 3: A device vision.
Speaker 4: But it's hard to persuade people that lines on a
Speaker 4: graph that say that sometime in the future you're going
Speaker 4: to suffer take my word for it, and I want
Speaker 4: you to give up these things in your life. It's
Speaker 4: just all that's going to do is polarize people more.
Speaker 4: But what the argument I've always made is that all
Speaker 4: of the things that we need to do, whether you
Speaker 4: believe in climate change or not, you don't have to
Speaker 4: and I'm not going to argue with you if you
Speaker 4: don't believe in it. But all the things we need
Speaker 4: to do to avert climate change we ought to be
Speaker 4: doing any way to avert war. You know, the oil
Speaker 4: words that have cost US eight trillion dollars since two
Speaker 4: thousand and two, the poisoning of every fish in America,
Speaker 4: the toxicity to our children, the asthma attacks, the ozone
Speaker 4: A particular, it's the sterilizing of the lakes on the Appellachi.
Speaker 5: These are all.
Speaker 4: Things that everybody's concerned about it and those are the
Speaker 4: things I think we can get a consensus on rather
Speaker 4: than and we're not going to get a consensus on
Speaker 4: climate and climate using you know, the the approach that
Speaker 4: we've been using up until now has stalled and if
Speaker 4: you you know the solutions which are to get everybody
Speaker 4: to sign treaties and have unenforceable milestones that they have
Speaker 4: to meet that nobody can enforce, that everybody can lie about,
Speaker 4: and that that that become an excuse for clamping down.
Speaker 4: Totalitarian controls on people are things that are going to
Speaker 4: get a lot of pushback. You know, if you talk
Speaker 4: to people about pollution and let's switch to something more efficient,
Speaker 4: that's going to provide jobs, that's going to give us
Speaker 4: a new industry and economic growth. That's something that I think,
Speaker 4: you know, we can unite people on rather than divide.
Speaker 2: We've only got ten minutes left forore and we got
Speaker 2: to get out of here. One something we will we
Speaker 2: talked about is the border, the current site situation down there.
Speaker 2: How would you handle the current border situation? Would you
Speaker 2: preserve and keep the remain in Mexico policy? What does
Speaker 2: an ideal asylum and immigration system look like under your presidency?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I'm going down to the border
Speaker 4: in the next couple of weeks, you know, to talk
Speaker 4: to every the stakeholders, the border patrol, the people on
Speaker 4: both sides of the border, and try to better understand it.
Speaker 4: And better hone my policies develop a solution that, first
Speaker 4: of all, Number one, makes the border imprevious. We cannot
Speaker 4: have people coming over, millions or hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 4: people coming over illegally. It's not good for our country.
Speaker 4: It's a humanitarian crisis on the border, and we need
Speaker 4: to end that. There are ways I know of doing it.
Speaker 4: I've heard many, many different ways, but I don't know myself.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know that Israel as not a wall,
Speaker 4: but it has he has fencing systems, and they have
Speaker 4: the same issue that we do with African immigration, and
Speaker 4: they've been able to stop and stop the humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 4: We need to look at this as a humanitarian crisis,
Speaker 4: and we also need to be honest about the US
Speaker 4: involvement in the policies that created these huge migrations of people.
Speaker 4: The decades of austerity programs that we've been imposing in
Speaker 4: Central America, of wars, of supporting dictators and oppressive regimes,
Speaker 4: of supporting genocides, of funding death squads in those countries,
Speaker 4: of trade agreements that were terribly imbalanced that have created
Speaker 4: this migration. You look at the one country in Central
Speaker 4: America that we've never invaded is Costa Rica, and you
Speaker 4: don't see Costa Rican immigrants flooding to the border in
Speaker 4: the kind of numbers that we're seeing other people. Costa
Speaker 4: Rica day is the wealthiest country per capita in Central America.
Speaker 4: It's the only country that we have not tampered with.
Speaker 5: And all of.
Speaker 4: These other countries we funded these wars and de squads
Speaker 4: and everything else, and we need to change our policies.
Speaker 1: So would you commit to lifting sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela.
Speaker 1: I mean, Venezuela is a source of a lot of
Speaker 1: migrants right now.
Speaker 4: I would not have sanctions against Cuba or Venezuela. You know,
Speaker 4: I think we ought to be encouraging those countries and
Speaker 4: not bullying them. And you know, people need to be
Speaker 4: able to choose their own governments. If they're killing people,
Speaker 4: if they're committing genocide, and I think we should be
Speaker 4: doing sanctions. If they're doing something that threatens the United States,
Speaker 4: we should do that. But otherwise we should try to
Speaker 4: work with these countries and de escalate tensions and be
Speaker 4: a good neighbor and a good leader, not a bully.
Speaker 4: People all around the world want American leadership. They don't
Speaker 4: want bullying and they know the difference.
Speaker 2: So I also want to ask you about abortion very quickly.
Speaker 2: Would you codify Roe versus Wade? What is your view
Speaker 2: on abortion in terms of national policy should you become president.
Speaker 4: I mean, listen, there's nobody that's fought harder in this country.
Speaker 4: And I have for bodily autonomy and for medical freedom,
Speaker 4: and you know, I think every abortion is a tragedy
Speaker 4: and most of the people who experience abortion feel that way,
Speaker 4: and we don't need to compound that by bringing in
Speaker 4: government and telling people what to do with their bodies.
Speaker 4: I just think that's you know that there is no
Speaker 4: good option, but the only option we have is to
Speaker 4: let the woman make that choice.
Speaker 1: So you'd codify roversus way go beyond that potential?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know if you can codify it, but
Speaker 4: you know, yeah, I think people ought to have.
Speaker 2: You encourage the Senate and the House to pass that law,
Speaker 2: Like what is the ideal of framework?
Speaker 4: In my view, people should have there right. Government should
Speaker 4: not be interfering.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you about vaccines. This is anaria
Speaker 1: where you and I have significant differences, and you know,
Speaker 1: just to level with you on this, like a lot
Speaker 1: of what you say I really respond to. I think
Speaker 1: you're a very genuine person. But the across the board,
Speaker 1: whether you want to call it vaccine skepticism or anti
Speaker 1: vax advocacy, which has been a central part of what
Speaker 1: you've been up to for the past number of years,
Speaker 1: For me personally, it's a it's an issue, and it's
Speaker 1: a it's a real sort of red line. And I
Speaker 1: know not alone in that, especially running in a democratic primary.
Speaker 1: There are going to be other millions of people like
Speaker 1: me who have similar concerns. So how how do you
Speaker 1: win them over? What's your message to people who think
Speaker 1: like I do?
Speaker 5: Would just tell me? Tell me where you think I
Speaker 5: got it wrong?
Speaker 1: Well, I think you get it wrong when you draw
Speaker 1: a correlation between the rise of of things like autism
Speaker 1: and the introduction of vaccines when there isn't hard scientific
Speaker 1: evidence tying those things together.
Speaker 4: How do you let me ask you this, How do
Speaker 4: you know there's not a hard scientific evidence?
Speaker 1: Well, because the one major study that purported to show
Speaker 1: that was retracted and the scientist who conducted it was
Speaker 1: you know, what you're doing basically fraudulently created.
Speaker 5: I don't know, but I.
Speaker 1: Don't want to get I don't want to get in
Speaker 1: a debate with you about this, because you've spent your
Speaker 1: life pulling out this. I will tell you. Let me
Speaker 1: just tell you. Let me just tell you. I've listened
Speaker 1: to hours of interviews with you with an open mind,
Speaker 1: and I'm not persuaded. Now, maybe I'm wrong. That's possible.
Speaker 1: I'll hold it out there. People can watch. I thought
Speaker 1: Megan Kelly did a phenomenal interview with you that went
Speaker 1: through all these claims, piece by piece by piece. I
Speaker 1: really encourage people to watch that whole exchange because we
Speaker 1: won't be able to do it justice here in the
Speaker 1: five minutes we have left. But there are going to
Speaker 1: be people like me who aren't persuaded and who see
Speaker 1: this as an issue. And the fact that it's been
Speaker 1: such a central part of your advocacy means I can't
Speaker 1: just sort of put it to the side and say, oh,
Speaker 1: we'll just ignore you know this piece that's been really
Speaker 1: important to you in your life. So you're running in
Speaker 1: a Democratic primary, you have a lot of people who
Speaker 1: feel even more strongly than me, who think that, you know,
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci is a hero in all of these things.
Speaker 1: How are you going to persuade them. How are you
Speaker 1: going to reach them and what is your message to them?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I'm not leading with you know,
Speaker 4: my opinions about vaccines.
Speaker 5: What I say to people is show me where I
Speaker 5: got it wrong, Show me where I got my signs wrong.
Speaker 5: I've written books about this, you know.
Speaker 4: I wrote a book about a link between dimerizoon and
Speaker 4: autism that has I think four hundred and fifty distilled
Speaker 4: scientific studies that confirm and validate that hypothesis as and
Speaker 4: fourteen hundred references.
Speaker 5: And if I got something wrong, show me where it is.
Speaker 1: But I think people have shown you where things are,
Speaker 1: but you don't want to hear it is because I've seen,
Speaker 1: you know, numerous fact checks. Doctor Vane Prosad, who we
Speaker 1: you know, really respect on the COVID vaccine. He went
Speaker 1: through your interview with all Inn. He did a fact check.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not people.
Speaker 5: Have a fact check and I and you should read that.
Speaker 1: I will take a look at it, but I don't
Speaker 1: think that it's fair to say nobody has ever pointed
Speaker 1: out anything that's been that's been wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, here's why people complain about what I say. And again,
Speaker 4: I'm not leading on this issue.
Speaker 5: People can either take it or leave it.
Speaker 4: But if you want to, you know, I what you
Speaker 4: just said about me, that I'm sort of hardheaded and stubborn,
Speaker 4: it just won't give in. You're wrong about that. If
Speaker 4: somebody shows me where I'm wrong.
Speaker 5: I'm going to correct it.
Speaker 4: And you know, we have the most probably the most
Speaker 4: robust fact checking operation now in North America. I have
Speaker 4: three hundred and fifty PhD scientists and empty physicians on
Speaker 4: you know, HD's advisory board, including until recently Luke my
Speaker 4: Here won the Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus.
Speaker 4: Chris Portier was the head of the National Toxicity Program
Speaker 4: at and I AGE formerly that probably the top toxic
Speaker 4: coologist in America. And if I were saying things that
Speaker 4: were scientifically unsound, those people would not stay with us.
Speaker 4: What I would say to you is show me where
Speaker 4: I got it wrong. Show me a study at where
Speaker 4: I got wrong, and I will change my position. You know,
Speaker 4: science is fluid. It's not an embarrassment to me. If
Speaker 4: there's a new scientific study that I haven't seen that
Speaker 4: comes out and says I'm wrong, that's what you're supposed
Speaker 4: to do with science. But what I'm saying to you,
Speaker 4: nobody has done that. You know, if in a prisad
Speaker 4: when he did his piece, if he showed me science
Speaker 4: that was valid, I would say I would change my position.
Speaker 5: But we go together, you might my response to him.
Speaker 1: So you say, this isn't what you're leading. But I
Speaker 1: just have to say, as someone who you know is
Speaker 1: watching your candidacy closely and is aware of the advocacy
Speaker 1: you've been doing, and you know the organization that you
Speaker 1: are involved with, it's hard for me to believe this
Speaker 1: won't be an important part of how you govern. So
Speaker 1: I think that's the most important piece for people to
Speaker 1: get who you have to accept there are going to
Speaker 1: be people like me who just don't agree with you
Speaker 1: on this. You you know, certainly understand that there are
Speaker 1: many who do think that the vaccines that we have
Speaker 1: are more beneficial than harmful that you know got their
Speaker 1: kids vaccinated and are happy for that decision. So how
Speaker 1: is this going to impact the way that you govern?
Speaker 1: Or does it not at all?
Speaker 4: I mean, I'm going to govern according to you know
Speaker 4: what the evidence based medicine.
Speaker 5: Oh that's you know, that's Let.
Speaker 1: Me let me give a specific question if there's another
Speaker 1: pandemic in the last pandemic. Former President Trump something we
Speaker 1: gave him a lot of credit for. He launched Operation
Speaker 1: Warp Speed. They had a whole of government approach, use
Speaker 1: the mRNA technology that was developed, using you know, US
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars to get a vaccine out to the population
Speaker 1: as quickly as possible. How would your approach have differed?
Speaker 4: My approach would have been a science based approach, which
Speaker 4: means what which means, and a medicine based approach, the
Speaker 4: approach that has been used for you know, and approved
Speaker 4: for decades. You look first at therapeutics that are off
Speaker 4: the shelf, and you look at the efficacy of those.
Speaker 4: I mean what I would have done if I was
Speaker 4: empower then I would have created an information grid because
Speaker 4: now we have this Internet that is supposed to benefit us,
Speaker 4: and it has become incident and instrument for her, you know,
Speaker 4: totalitarian control. But let's use it for something good. Let's
Speaker 4: link all fifteen million science doctors, frontline physicians all over
Speaker 4: the world and find out what they're doing to treat
Speaker 4: this new respiratory virus and find out what they're saying
Speaker 4: is working and not working. Then test that science and
Speaker 4: and may turn it into instantaneously into protocols and recommendations
Speaker 4: for other scientists.
Speaker 1: So what a vaccinating development?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I don't think the vaccine worked. I
Speaker 4: think you know if you think it worked, and try
Speaker 4: to explain to me, are the countries that were unvaccinated
Speaker 4: much better than than are many of.
Speaker 1: Those countries because there are a lot of different factors
Speaker 1: in various countries. So a lot of those countries that
Speaker 1: you pointed out.
Speaker 4: Before, are we Why do we have the highest death
Speaker 4: rate came in the world by far?
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of factors that may
Speaker 1: go into that. One of them is the fact that
Speaker 1: we are disproportionately obese as a society. We have the
Speaker 1: negative health out themes that you've been talking about. We
Speaker 1: don't go outside as much as countries, say in Africa,
Speaker 1: I mean we have There are a lot of different
Speaker 1: factors that may play into that. But I will I
Speaker 1: will say, did the vaccines work in the way they
Speaker 1: were initially promised to prevent spread? No? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: especially once you got to later variants. But we have
Speaker 1: a lot of data that shows that in terms of
Speaker 1: reducing severe hospitalization and the vaccines were really important and
Speaker 1: maybe there was a benefit.
Speaker 5: Now I want to see that data. That's what the
Speaker 5: industry there is.
Speaker 1: There is lots of doubt, and not just from here,
Speaker 1: from around the world, but shows the vaccine doses, and
Speaker 1: not just our vaccines, but ones that were created all
Speaker 1: around the world reduced severe hospitalization and death. So in
Speaker 1: that way, yes, I do very much believe that they were.
Speaker 5: Let me tell you something.
Speaker 4: What I believe you're doing now is you're parroting what
Speaker 4: the public health agencies have been saying, but they do
Speaker 4: not have a scientific basis for that. And I have
Speaker 4: another book out that you should look at All Died
Speaker 4: Suddenly that goes through all the Johns Hopkins data, which
Speaker 4: is the dashboard data that everybody used, and shows exactly
Speaker 4: what happened when the first of all, even the vaccine,
Speaker 4: the case Western study that is probably the largest most
Speaker 4: reason shows that at most the vaccine gives you a
Speaker 4: very very small amount of protection and that after seven
Speaker 4: months you go into negative efficacy. So you are if
Speaker 4: you got vaccinated, you're more likely to get sick, you're
Speaker 4: more likely to get severe illness, and you're more likely
Speaker 4: to die than if you were on vaccinated.
Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I have seen the study
Speaker 1: at your study that shows the opposite. Listen, I don't
Speaker 1: want to get bogged down in this because I don't
Speaker 1: think we're going to see eye to eye here, and
Speaker 1: we have some other questions we want to get to
Speaker 1: in your time is short, but we'll put in posts.
Speaker 1: You know, please send us what you're looking at. We'll
Speaker 1: put what I'm looking at, and people can can judge
Speaker 1: for themselves. Sager, go ahead.
Speaker 2: I just think the fin I know you got to
Speaker 2: get out of here, So I mean the final one
Speaker 2: is you know, the idea is you're sitting here your
Speaker 2: entire career.
Speaker 3: One of the things that we have.
Speaker 2: Fought a lot about on this show against is corruption
Speaker 2: and also the idea of political dynasties.
Speaker 3: So with you with the famous last.
Speaker 2: Name, your father and your uncle, literal American heroes and
Speaker 2: people that we think about in terms of central to
Speaker 2: our history, do you think we should have royal dynasties
Speaker 2: in politics?
Speaker 3: As somebody who's.
Speaker 4: Last time, I don't think we should have, well, because
Speaker 4: I don't think we do, but we clearly have clearly
Speaker 4: name recognition and you know the other things that you know,
Speaker 4: give it advantage to people whose families have already been
Speaker 4: in politics, who have infrastructure, who have name recognition, who
Speaker 4: have a trust that goes with that name, have have
Speaker 4: an advantage. And I don't know how you know whether
Speaker 4: that's something that you want to get rid of.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I would acknowledge that that's a truth.
Speaker 1: And my final question for you is, you know, do
Speaker 1: you plan to support whoever the Democratic nominee is? And
Speaker 1: do you have any intention of running third party? If
Speaker 1: you're running the Democratic primary?
Speaker 4: I plan on winning the Democratic primary, Okay, but Democratic combination.
Speaker 1: You know they're they're rigging things. They're not going to
Speaker 1: allow debates. It's going to make it very difficult for you.
Speaker 1: So if something happens and you don't succeed, well, I
Speaker 1: do not have a plan B. No plan B. And
Speaker 1: do you plan to endorse if Joe Biden is the
Speaker 1: nominee or Mary and Williams? Do you plan to endorse
Speaker 1: the virtual No?
Speaker 4: I doubt if I would endorse anybody who's supporting the war.
Speaker 5: I think that's what my You.
Speaker 1: Know, so you could endorse Trump, then.
Speaker 5: I don't see that happening.
Speaker 3: You would never endorse president Trump.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 4: I think we have so many differences in style and
Speaker 4: approach that that I probably would never end up there.
Speaker 3: All right, well, sir, we appreciate your time.
Speaker 5: Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chrystal. It's my pleasure, absolutely,