Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: We spoke with Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, who
Speaker 2: chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and also serves on
Speaker 2: the Foreign Relations Committee, tried to pursue some of these
Speaker 2: questions we discussed with. Wendy asked him about the legality
Speaker 2: of the Pentagon's actions in Venezuela and whether he thinks
Speaker 2: they amount to a prelude to war.
Speaker 1: I'm very fearful that these boat strikes and the positioning
Speaker 1: of our ships and our troops right off the coast
Speaker 1: of Venezuela as a prelude to war. I think that
Speaker 1: there is a real question of legality under the military
Speaker 1: jo justice. Under the Code of Military Justice, it says
Speaker 1: that when someone has been incapacitated or shipwrecked or they're
Speaker 1: clinging to the wreckage of a boat, that they're out
Speaker 1: of combat and they're no longer subject to be killed.
Speaker 3: And so there is a real question who.
Speaker 1: Gave the order and why would they give the order
Speaker 1: to kill someone who is out of combat. Now the weekend,
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Defense was saying, well, I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about it. I don't know anything about a second attack.
Speaker 1: But today when he was interviewed, he said, well, yes,
Speaker 1: I left the room for a while, the second attack occurred,
Speaker 1: and I learned about it when he came back.
Speaker 3: But why was he telling us this weekend.
Speaker 1: He didn't know anything about a second attack, and he
Speaker 1: had never authorized it. But now that it's come to light,
Speaker 1: he says, oh, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it.
Speaker 1: The admiral did it. So they're all pin and blame
Speaker 1: on the military guide. But I'm one who tends to
Speaker 1: give a lot of leeway to the military guy and
Speaker 1: not so much leeway to.
Speaker 3: The person who gave him the orders. These orders came from.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of Defense, and ultimately he's gonna have to
Speaker 1: accept responsibility. But to my mind, there's a question about
Speaker 1: whether or not killing people in the first place, who
Speaker 1: you have no proof that they're armed, you have presented
Speaker 1: no proof that they're carrying drugs, and that you simply
Speaker 1: kill them. I think that's outrageous. But now not only
Speaker 1: do we kill them, our government is following up by
Speaker 1: killing them when they're wounded and stranded and of no
Speaker 1: threat whatsoever, which is, according to our own laws illegal.
Speaker 2: Well, you've illustrated that carefully, Senator, it's Admiral Frank Bradley
Speaker 2: we're talking about. He's been named by the administration. I
Speaker 2: don't know if you think it's appropriate that his name
Speaker 2: is made public before he testifies before the Armed Services
Speaker 2: Committee on Thursday. But I guess the question now is raised,
Speaker 2: where does the buck stop? Is it with the admiral,
Speaker 2: the Defense Secretary or the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: I think it's to me amazing that anybody in the
Speaker 1: public accepts the idea that we would make an acca accusation.
Speaker 1: We will simply accuse someone and then they are found
Speaker 1: guilty without any kind of process. We asked the Coast
Speaker 1: Guard for specific statistics off the coast of Venezuela, and
Speaker 1: they said, of boats that have been interceded off of
Speaker 1: the coast before we came up with this blow them
Speaker 1: to smith a 'reens policy, we used to interdict them,
Speaker 1: and of the boats that we interdicted off the coast
Speaker 1: of Venezuela, about one in four twenty one percent, to
Speaker 1: be exact, we're not caring drugs. That would mean if
Speaker 1: you're going to blow up all of the boats off
Speaker 1: the coast that look like drug boats, or that you're
Speaker 1: suspicious For twenty one percent of the time, you'd be
Speaker 1: killing innocent people. So I think it's outrageous that anybody
Speaker 1: would countenance this kind of activity, And I'm surprised that
Speaker 1: I seem to be one of the few people who
Speaker 1: seem to be.
Speaker 3: Alarmed at this. But I think it's unconscionable.
Speaker 1: It's wrong on any level to kill people with no
Speaker 1: proof that they are engaged in combat at all with
Speaker 1: your country.
Speaker 2: Well, so should Pete hagsth be fired?
Speaker 1: There has to be an investigation, and I am glad
Speaker 1: that for a change, there is a bipartisan push from
Speaker 1: the Armed Services Committee to get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 1: So to be an investigation, I think he needs to
Speaker 1: be asked under oath, did you give the order to
Speaker 1: kill any survivors? And if you didn't give the order,
Speaker 1: what was the order? Why did the admiral think that
Speaker 1: he was supposed to kill people clinging to wreckage? The
Speaker 1: idea that these people were still a threat. It's a
Speaker 1: debate whether they were ever a threat. They're on a
Speaker 1: motor boat two thousand miles from our coast. If you
Speaker 1: want to take that motor boat to the closest point
Speaker 1: of entry, in Miami. You probably have to fill it
Speaker 1: up twenty times. These motorboats can't go two thousand miles
Speaker 1: on a tank of gas. If there was drugs on board.
Speaker 1: They may be going to other countries, but probably not
Speaker 1: to the US.
Speaker 3: So the whole thing is.
Speaker 1: Just remarkable that in our country we would allow this
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 4: Senator Senator Schumer has asked for footage of these strikes
Speaker 4: to be released.
Speaker 1: Is that something that you would support. Yes, we need
Speaker 1: to see the footage, We need to hear the audio.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of Defenses now said that he left the room.
Speaker 1: That's fine, But the whole idea is the Admiral's not
Speaker 1: just making these decisions.
Speaker 3: Without an order.
Speaker 1: The order came from the Secretary of Defense. And then
Speaker 1: I hear some of my colleagues in the hallway just saying, oh, no.
Speaker 3: Big too.
Speaker 1: We do this all the t Whenever we bomb people,
Speaker 1: we just do a second tap on them.
Speaker 3: Man, if they're moving, we go back and hit them again.
Speaker 1: Well, if it's soldiers with guns shooting our soldiers, I'm
Speaker 1: fine with that, but this is a pretense of a war.
Speaker 1: They've just said, oh, we call these people in these
Speaker 1: boats Narco terrace, So we can kill them without any
Speaker 1: kind of proof, without any kind of just fashi gup
Speaker 1: because we say so, because we say it's a war.
Speaker 1: This is insane, This isn't a war. These people don't
Speaker 1: We don't even know if they're armed or we've killed
Speaker 1: eighty people, Are any of them armed? What are their names?
Speaker 1: What is it they're transporting? All these people going off saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Fentel's killing people. I know people have died of Fennel.
Speaker 1: I have a great deal sympathy. I know a family
Speaker 1: lost two sons defendant. I have sympathy for that. There's
Speaker 1: no evidence there's any fentyl on this boat. There's no
Speaker 1: evidence that any fentanyl comes from Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Zero.
Speaker 1: There is fentyl come out of Mexico. But since we're
Speaker 1: blowing these boats up, maybe we're taking our eye off
Speaker 1: the border in Mexican go. So the whole thing is
Speaker 1: a pretense and a prelude to war in Venezuela, and
Speaker 1: I hope it doesn't happen.
Speaker 4: Senator, you've said previously that you've received not one briefing
Speaker 4: on Venezuela. In your eyes, does the administration have a
Speaker 4: coherent strategy? On this issue, and how does it square
Speaker 4: with the President and the administration's America first posture, this
Speaker 4: idea that they were going to keep America out of
Speaker 4: ever increasing foreign entinglements.
Speaker 1: The one thing I've always liked about Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: the reason I've supported him and still do support him,
Speaker 1: is that I think his instincts towards less intervention and
Speaker 1: less foreign war have been sincere He's been against the
Speaker 1: Iraq War for several decades before it happened, and after
Speaker 1: it happened, he was against the war in Libya that
Speaker 1: Obama took us into. So those were legitimate ideas that
Speaker 1: are jegitimate part of America first. But this idea of
Speaker 1: invading Venezuela, I think comes from the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: who's long wanted regime change there.
Speaker 3: Now, if you could wave.
Speaker 1: A wand and have regime change where there's adversaries we
Speaker 1: don't like, we would do it for China, we would
Speaker 1: do it for Columbia, we would do it for all
Speaker 1: the countries that have ten socialist dictators.
Speaker 3: But we don't do that because the.
Speaker 1: End result of regime change often is more chaos or
Speaker 1: chaos worse even than the authoritarianism they live under.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm getting confused here, Senator, because there was also
Speaker 2: a pardon that the administration announced this week former Honduras
Speaker 2: President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted for pushing hundreds
Speaker 2: of tons of cocaine into this country. If we're concerned
Speaker 2: about the drug trade in America, why would the administration
Speaker 2: pursue this pardon.
Speaker 1: Oh, didn't they tell you he's not an arco terrorist?
Speaker 3: And I'm being facetious.
Speaker 2: I heard the President say today that it was a
Speaker 2: Biden hoax, that it was Biden overreached.
Speaker 3: So you don't support this part. So here's the thing.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing.
Speaker 1: If they say he's not a narco terrorist, he's not
Speaker 1: a threat to America, and maybe he was falsely accused.
Speaker 1: And I say that facetiously because it gets to the
Speaker 1: point of if they label you a narco terrorist, they
Speaker 1: can kill you without trial. But if they say you're
Speaker 1: not a narco terrorist, you can be given a pardon,
Speaker 1: even though you have been convicted. Even though he's gloated
Speaker 1: over all the people he's loaded with drugs, including some
Speaker 1: who have probably and inevitably have died in our country,
Speaker 1: but he's okay because the administration does not label him
Speaker 1: and sell him a narco terrorist.
Speaker 3: It gets to the whole problem of this.
Speaker 1: So I have brought forward with Senator Cain on a
Speaker 1: couple of occasions, and we'll do again the idea that
Speaker 1: we have to debate whether this is war. There is
Speaker 1: a lower standard for rules of engagement in war. But
Speaker 1: they say it's not war. But then they say, what
Speaker 1: kind of is war? Because we've labeled a narco terrorists
Speaker 1: and they are designated to be foreign terrorists, so you
Speaker 1: can kill them without any proof because their enemy combatants.
Speaker 1: But if you try to have a vote in Congress
Speaker 1: as to whether it's war, said, we can't have that
Speaker 1: because this is our prerogative. But then you get into
Speaker 1: the lunacy of well, Orlando Hernandez is not a narco terrorist,
Speaker 1: but these guys who we don't know their name and
Speaker 1: we presented no proof they're narco terrorists. It's absolutely and
Speaker 1: utterly insane, Senator.
Speaker 4: Republicans have often been hesitant to push back on the
Speaker 4: administration's policy moves. How optimistic are you that Republicans will
Speaker 4: be able to come together, find some unity on this
Speaker 4: issue and provide oversight on this issue of the boat
Speaker 4: strikes and the posture towards Venezuela.
Speaker 1: I'm encouraged that the Arms Services Committee is going to
Speaker 1: do an investigation.
Speaker 3: That is a bipartisan thing.
Speaker 1: The Republican Chairman Wicker is going forward with an investigation.
Speaker 1: I hope they will demand the actual footage and the
Speaker 1: audio of what happened during that strike. These are strikes
Speaker 1: that are going out without the approval of Congress, at
Speaker 1: the very least after the fact. They ought to show
Speaker 1: us the actual video, the actual footage, and the actual audio.
Speaker 3: And we should hear.
Speaker 1: Under oath from the admiral that gave the order, and
Speaker 1: hear under oath from the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 2: I got to ask you about healthcare, Senator. Just a
Speaker 2: couple of hours ago. You probably saw this, the President
Speaker 2: posting on truth Social what appears to be a screen
Speaker 2: grab of a text that you sent him.
Speaker 3: Is that real?
Speaker 2: Just for starters, is that a text that you sent
Speaker 2: the president?
Speaker 1: I did, and I've engaged with the President because I've
Speaker 1: worked with him before and still want to work with
Speaker 1: the president. In the first administration, I engaged with him
Speaker 1: on something called association health plans. These are group plans
Speaker 1: that individuals can buy so For example, the biggest problem
Speaker 1: we have in healthcare is that if you're a small
Speaker 1: business person, say you're an accountant and you have three
Speaker 1: employees you want to buy insurance, you go into the
Speaker 1: individual market and you have no leverage, and if one
Speaker 1: of your employees gets cancer or you get cancer, they
Speaker 1: jack up the risk for your really small risk pool. Instead,
Speaker 1: what I'm proposing is you should be allowed to go
Speaker 1: anywhere where you want to buy insurance across state lines,
Speaker 1: including places like Costco, Sam's Club, Amazon, and then if
Speaker 1: you became one of millions of people buying insurance, Amazon
Speaker 1: or Costco would negotiate directly with the insurance company and say, look,
Speaker 1: I got ten million people want insurance, and I'm negotiating
Speaker 1: for them, and all of a sudden they become the
Speaker 1: large they become the largest entity in America, and they'll
Speaker 1: drive the prices down. The problem with Obamacare, although well
Speaker 1: intended to help people, is when you give people money
Speaker 1: to buy insurance. As insurance rates are going up, you
Speaker 1: say I'll give you more one thousand dollars, then I'll
Speaker 1: give you five, then I give you ten. You just
Speaker 1: keep chasing the rates higher because you're artificially increasing the
Speaker 1: demand and the price just goes hired and has it
Speaker 1: worked so Originally President Obama said prices will go down
Speaker 1: twenty five hundred dollars within I don't know a year
Speaker 1: or two of Obamacare, and the exact opposite has happened.
Speaker 1: So if we continue to do this, it won't get better.
Speaker 1: We're chasing in our tail, we're chasing inflation, and so
Speaker 1: well we need is leverage and to allow the marketplace
Speaker 1: work to work to bid down prices. My plan would
Speaker 1: also let everybody have an HSA, and it would let
Speaker 1: you purchase your health insurance out of an HSA. So
Speaker 1: as you save money and you're able to purchase your
Speaker 1: insurance out of it, there would be a possibility, particularly
Speaker 1: over time, that you might be able to a crew
Speaker 1: enough money that you would be able to get larger
Speaker 1: and larger deductible because you have a big savings account
Speaker 1: to cover your deductible.
Speaker 2: Just to understand for our viewers and listeners here, Senator,
Speaker 2: do you need the President now that you're pitching him
Speaker 2: on this, to say which plan yours or bil cassidys
Speaker 2: should be pursued here and will this get a floor vote?
Speaker 2: When that happens.
Speaker 3: It's the debate.
Speaker 1: We're having this debate right now within our caucus. Others
Speaker 1: in my caucus want to take the Obamacare money and
Speaker 1: stick it in your HSA. That to means another form
Speaker 1: of Obamacare, and I'm not really for that. I'm for
Speaker 1: letting you save your own money in your HSA and
Speaker 1: letting ninety percent of people who don't have an HSA
Speaker 1: get one, and then let you negotiate through a buying
Speaker 1: quote co op like Amazon to get lower prices.
Speaker 2: Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky with a sun balance
Speaker 2: of power