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. Joining us now is presidential
Speaker 2: candidate former Congressman Will Hurt. It's great to see you, sir,
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 4: I appreciate you having me on so.
Speaker 2: Absolutely from my own home state of Texas, so it's
Speaker 2: always fun to see you. I actually kind of forgot
Speaker 2: that you guys were Oh yeah, right, we have a
Speaker 2: big Aggie audience.
Speaker 3: I'm really happy about that.
Speaker 2: We always ask the same question to everybody who joins
Speaker 2: us here in studio, why are you running for presidents?
Speaker 4: I think America needs a better choice than a rematch
Speaker 4: from hell between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I think
Speaker 4: we're faced with a number of generational defining challenges. The
Speaker 4: Chinese government trying to surpass US as a global superpower,
Speaker 4: the fact that every industry is going to get impacted
Speaker 4: by advanced technologies like artificial intelligence. We continue to have
Speaker 4: a growing humanitarian crisis on the border, and our kids
Speaker 4: and grandkids are scoring the lowest on maths, science, and
Speaker 4: reading in this century. These are the issues that we
Speaker 4: should be addressing. And these are the reasons I'm in
Speaker 4: the race because we need someone that has a mix
Speaker 4: of foreign policy experience, domestic policy experience, technology experience in
Speaker 4: order to address this. And one of the things I've
Speaker 4: learned from my time when I was in Congress, way
Speaker 4: more unites us than divides us. Most people wouldn't think
Speaker 4: that's the case if you only look at social media
Speaker 4: and watch cable news. But I think we're better together.
Speaker 4: And the only way we're going to continue to make
Speaker 4: sure this experiment called America exists for another two hundred
Speaker 4: and forty seven years is if we solve these problems together.
Speaker 1: You can read a poll as well as easily as
Speaker 1: I can, and it's certainly former President Trump still has
Speaker 1: a very dominant position within the Republican primary. What is
Speaker 1: yours sort of theory of what led him to find
Speaker 1: such appeal within the Republican base and leads them to
Speaker 1: still really, you know, support him so strongly in spite
Speaker 1: of everything that we saw happen under his presidency, and
Speaker 1: know a lot of broken promises to taxcuts for the rich,
Speaker 1: in spite of him positioning himself as populous, to say
Speaker 1: nothing of January sixth, stop the steal in the what
Speaker 1: is it ninety one criminal charges that he's facing.
Speaker 4: And didn't build a wall and made it harder for
Speaker 4: agriculture in many parts of the states. You know, the
Speaker 4: list goes on of his deficiencies. Look, he is someone
Speaker 4: you know when he ran he had one hundred percent
Speaker 4: name I d He is someone that has has I
Speaker 4: think tapped into an anger and fear of the future,
Speaker 4: and he's soaking those flames. And there's no question that
Speaker 4: he's the front runner in this GOP race. There's no
Speaker 4: question that I'm a dark horse canon in this race.
Speaker 4: I understand that and appreciate that. But when you really
Speaker 4: start thinking and look at state by state, his front
Speaker 4: runner status is not as dramatic as it is in
Speaker 4: some of the national polling. And so there is a
Speaker 4: way we don't not have to accept Donald Trump as
Speaker 4: the nominee. It's not a fad a complete that Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, and it's
Speaker 4: a matter of galvanizing all those other folks who want
Speaker 4: positive actions. But we asked if we have to win, right, like,
Speaker 4: that's the reality if we elect Donald Trump. And I've
Speaker 4: made it very clear, I think Donald Trump is running
Speaker 4: for president to stay out of prison. He is not
Speaker 4: running to make America great again. And if we put
Speaker 4: Donald Trump up as a nominee, we are giving four
Speaker 4: more years to a Democrat. And that the opportunity for
Speaker 4: Republicans is to appeal to those independents and Democrats who
Speaker 4: are sick and tired of the direction the Democratic Party
Speaker 4: is go is going. And that's that's the upside, that's
Speaker 4: the opportunity. And we need more people voting in primaries.
Speaker 4: Only twenty three percent of the country votes in primaries,
Speaker 4: and that's part of the PROBMB too.
Speaker 2: It's true, it's an important point you're considering your dark
Speaker 2: horse status. Didn't get on the debate stage last time.
Speaker 2: A lot of critics I think of people who are
Speaker 2: running against Trump, at least for the big race, is
Speaker 2: that you're splitting the ticket just like you did in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. So if you can't even get on the
Speaker 2: debate stage, and you said you'd reconsider it by the fall,
Speaker 2: why not support somebody like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley or
Speaker 2: anybody who you may agree with more who may actually
Speaker 2: have a chance of rolling up the anti Trump Volde.
Speaker 4: Well, I've made it very clear that by by late
Speaker 4: fall early winter, you know, it needs to be some consolidation.
Speaker 4: So so I think that's the right strategy. I think
Speaker 4: Governor's knew New from New Hampshire had articulated that a
Speaker 4: while ago, and I subscribed to that. And so we're
Speaker 4: still I've been in this for ninety days. I believe
Speaker 4: one quarter we've we have the lower we had started with,
Speaker 4: the lowest name id and the least amount of money.
Speaker 4: And this was never about peaking today or tomorrow. I
Speaker 4: got peaking in late fall. And so we're going to
Speaker 4: continue to push this. And and if and if your
Speaker 4: viewers watch, your subscribers want to help, go to herd
Speaker 4: from America dot com and a right and help it
Speaker 4: brother out. Because because if you want to see something,
Speaker 4: if you want to see something, something different, right, And
Speaker 4: so so I said, I'm a reasonable guy, all right,
Speaker 4: So you.
Speaker 1: Were saying that you see Trump as coming to power
Speaker 1: as part of an expression of this rage that not
Speaker 1: just I think the Republican Party. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you can see a similar angst and anger that led
Speaker 1: to the rise of Bernie Sanders and very different people
Speaker 1: with very different solutions, but I think that was a commonality.
Speaker 1: Where do you think that comes from? And do you
Speaker 1: think that the you know, version of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: that you know you've queue very closely too, do you
Speaker 1: think that was part of creating that rage through failures
Speaker 1: around you know, do you regulating Wall Street? Through failures
Speaker 1: around the Iraq War, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So this rage begins with a lack of trust in
Speaker 4: our institutions. And we've seen that lack of trust and
Speaker 4: this is not just a recent phenomenon. It's been going
Speaker 4: on for decades. And that that that mistrust, specifically within
Speaker 4: the federal government, comes from when people run for office,
Speaker 4: they say one thing, and when they get in office,
Speaker 4: they do something else. And so that exacerbates this lack
Speaker 4: of trust. While people are like, you're upset repeal and
Speaker 4: replace Obamacare. Everybody talked about it, but when Donald Trump
Speaker 4: came into office, they weren't able to do it, and
Speaker 4: so that's part of the problem. And so for me,
Speaker 4: the way I've always been successful is talk about the
Speaker 4: things you can solve, right, And that's how I continue
Speaker 4: to get elected in a district that nobody thought a
Speaker 4: black Republican could win, the twenty third district that I
Speaker 4: represented for six years with seventy two percent Latino, And
Speaker 4: when I first ran, nobody thought I had a chance.
Speaker 4: And the way I want one was because I talked
Speaker 4: about things people cared about. I solved problems that were
Speaker 4: impacting the community, and then I went around and said, hey,
Speaker 4: this are the things that I did, and so that's
Speaker 4: how we build trust back in this And so yes,
Speaker 4: I believe that these opinions and things that I articulate
Speaker 4: are reflective of probably a majority of the country, and
Speaker 4: the majority of the country wants someone who's actually going
Speaker 4: to solve problems and not just you know, have some
Speaker 4: fancy slogan on TV.
Speaker 2: Well, what do you think about abortion? Do you think
Speaker 2: abortion is hurting the Republican Party today?
Speaker 4: Yes, I think it is. I'm of the opinion I've
Speaker 4: been pro life my entire career. If the Senate put
Speaker 4: a fifteen week abortion ban on my desk, I would
Speaker 4: sign it. But the other thing, now that it's back
Speaker 4: in the state's hands, the states that are restricting this
Speaker 4: need to be the greatest places on the planet for
Speaker 4: healthcare from others, for neo natal health care. The fact
Speaker 4: that in some community, especially black women, black women having
Speaker 4: kids in the United States are more likely to die
Speaker 4: during childbirth than in many parts of the developing world,
Speaker 4: to me, that's outrageous, and that's an issue that, Look,
Speaker 4: we can champion that, and our governors need to be
Speaker 4: pushing that. Our elected officials need to be pushing that.
Speaker 4: And so I think that's one of those issues that
Speaker 4: you know, look, I don't think you're going to change
Speaker 4: people's opinion on this brought a topic, but you can
Speaker 4: be talking about things that we can all agree on.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of issues, people are very interested in big
Speaker 1: auto worker strike against the Big Three going on right now.
Speaker 1: You have somewhere around seventy five percent of the American
Speaker 1: public on side of the workers. Are you on the
Speaker 1: side of the workers?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm on the side of one. I'm not a
Speaker 4: big government Republican, So the federal government doesn't have a
Speaker 4: role in this two having led organizations. You know, when
Speaker 4: the organization benefits, the people involved in the organization should benefit, right,
Speaker 4: And so I don't know the details of the case,
Speaker 4: but yeah, if you're having a company that's making a
Speaker 4: lot of money, then you should make sure your workers
Speaker 4: are benefit. It's the workers right now, you know. So
Speaker 4: my issue with unions, you know, look, if you want
Speaker 4: to join a union, join a union, that's fine. Just
Speaker 4: don't force people to join a union, right, is my
Speaker 4: position on this.
Speaker 1: So look, I think that I mean, you're in favor
Speaker 1: of right to work, Like, would you work for a
Speaker 1: federal right to work passage?
Speaker 4: I would not do that. On the on the federal
Speaker 4: government side, I think there's difference when it comes to
Speaker 4: the federal unions. Now again I've worked with a lot
Speaker 4: of the existing federal unions, whether it's a border patrol union,
Speaker 4: even SEIU, you know, when I was in Congress. We
Speaker 4: work closely with them. But again, if people want to
Speaker 4: be able to join a union, they should.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about Ukraine as well. This
Speaker 2: isn't interesting. So we have some polling up. We can
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We've got a majority of Republicans who are opposing Ukraine
Speaker 2: funding right now, considering your stance on this, and if
Speaker 2: the majority of the party doesn't support it, why do
Speaker 2: you fall on the other side.
Speaker 4: Because it's the right thing to do. And here's why,
Speaker 4: And I'll explain why as a less be here in
Speaker 4: Washington today is specifically a pertinent question for sure. Yeah,
Speaker 4: So the issue is nobody wants to see a forever
Speaker 4: war in Ukraine. Nobody wants to see a lack of
Speaker 4: accountability of the resources or the material that we send
Speaker 4: to that right, Like, these are things that we can
Speaker 4: all agree on. One of my long term problems I
Speaker 4: have with the federal government, like our ability to account
Speaker 4: for dollar spend is crazy. If you want to know
Speaker 4: how many how much money DoD you spent on office
Speaker 4: supplies last month, it would take you a year to
Speaker 4: figure that problem out. So those two are problems. However,
Speaker 4: the United States of America built an international order that
Speaker 4: benefits us, and when we don't defend that international order,
Speaker 4: that hurts us. And the reality is if Ukraine doesn't win,
Speaker 4: And the way I define winning, right, the way I
Speaker 4: define winning is pushing the Russians out of all of
Speaker 4: Ukraine that includes Crimeria and Donbos and I'm probably more
Speaker 4: aggressive than most on that position. And so so if
Speaker 4: we don't do that and the Russians, let's say we go,
Speaker 4: the Russians go back to February twenty twenty two, that's
Speaker 4: a win in a victory for Russia. Eastern Europe is
Speaker 4: not going to care about what Western Europe or the
Speaker 4: United States of America thinks. Western Europe is not going
Speaker 4: to care what America thinks. The fact that macront the
Speaker 4: French president this summer, I want say it was June
Speaker 4: was in China talking to an American newspaper saying that, hey, America,
Speaker 4: don't make us choose, don't make franch choose between the
Speaker 4: US and China. Ukraine losing is going to exacerbate that problem, right,
Speaker 4: And I think the biggest issue that the United States
Speaker 4: of America is facing is this new Cold War between
Speaker 4: US and the Chinese government. So these things are connected.
Speaker 4: And I also, and again I'm sorry for my long
Speaker 4: winded answer, I think we would not be fighting a
Speaker 4: war the way we're trying to make the Ukrainians write
Speaker 4: this war. So you know, the issue is not the
Speaker 4: percentage of how much money we're spending. It's about five
Speaker 4: percent of the entire DoD budget that is going to
Speaker 4: dismantling the Russian military. The fact that Russia has to
Speaker 4: go to North Korea to get weapons is a signed
Speaker 4: things aren't going that well, right, And so I think
Speaker 4: the speed at which just equipment and support goes is
Speaker 4: part of is part of the problem.
Speaker 1: So you would actually ramp things up, then spend more.
Speaker 1: Provide would you provide the long range missiles they're asking for?
Speaker 4: We're healthy, Yes, I would provide like so so troops
Speaker 4: on the ground, right, Ukrainians on the ground, I would
Speaker 4: not have I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: If Ukrainians, if the Ukrainian military uses a long range
Speaker 2: missile to a crime in Rostov well established?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: Yes, so that with US provided weapons, with US.
Speaker 4: Provided weapons and and the counterdar that is going to
Speaker 4: be is that escalation? Yeah? Right? And and so so
Speaker 4: I think that the concept of escalation has has gotten
Speaker 4: out of control. When the when the Iranians provided ua
Speaker 4: vs to this conflict, did we escalate against Iranians?
Speaker 1: Know?
Speaker 4: When the Chinese provided additional support to the Russians, did
Speaker 4: we escalate against them? Right? And so so will the
Speaker 4: Russians use an attached a nuclear weapon? Right? Putin's rule
Speaker 4: and we've found out what is Vladimir Putin going to
Speaker 4: do when he's pushed? We saw Progosion decide that and
Speaker 4: instead of escalating, what did he did? He capitulated? Right now?
Speaker 4: He ended up killing them killing it. Now. Guess what
Speaker 4: if I was prodotionan, I probably wouldn't be flying around
Speaker 4: in Russian military equipment.
Speaker 3: In Russia, no question, you know.
Speaker 4: So so so again, if we want at the moment,
Speaker 4: is is Ukraine winning? Well? The answer to that is no, yeah, sure,
Speaker 4: but is Russian winning well?
Speaker 3: It depends on what you look at.
Speaker 2: Right, have an industrial base, They've ramped up their defense,
Speaker 2: spending their artillery production. All that outpaces the sanctions actually
Speaker 2: haven't worked. I mean, I want to flip things around.
Speaker 2: So I believe that you served in the CIA at
Speaker 2: the time.
Speaker 3: That we were at the war in Iraq.
Speaker 4: That's correct, right?
Speaker 2: Okay, So the Iranians were providing e fps, these very
Speaker 2: deadly IEDs that killed upwards of hundreds of American soldiers.
Speaker 2: Don't you think that that was an attack and an
Speaker 2: escalation on our behalf.
Speaker 3: Or against us?
Speaker 2: So if the Iranians are providing she and militia's IEDs
Speaker 2: that are killing Americans. A lot of people in this
Speaker 2: country at that time understood that as an attack or
Speaker 2: indirect attack against us. How is it not vice versa
Speaker 2: when we're doing that to Russia? And then what would
Speaker 2: stop them from doing things similar to us?
Speaker 4: So so, in my opinion, the error, and that was
Speaker 4: we should have attacked the Iranian locations interact, not the wrong.
Speaker 4: We we knew where, we knew where the Kods force was. Right,
Speaker 4: Let's let's go back to Costom Sulimani.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: I think the attack on Costom Sulimani was absolutely correct
Speaker 4: and and and did what was a response by the
Speaker 4: Iranians in that moment They telegraphed launching missiles at a
Speaker 4: US location that that that injured nobody and then then
Speaker 4: then it was squashed. So in that case we knew.
Speaker 4: So that is the example of how the Iranians were
Speaker 4: going to escalate. And we have an example already of
Speaker 4: how vitamin putin is going to escalate and and so
Speaker 4: will that force the the the the the Russian to
Speaker 4: do something? So do you think that Russia would be
Speaker 4: able to find if they attack something in Poland or
Speaker 4: if they hit somebody in the US, and you get
Speaker 4: the you get NATO forces in the right for for
Speaker 4: Vladimir Putin, well for US too. So but but again
Speaker 4: it's it's you know, what is what is the what
Speaker 4: have we seen the Russians do? And if the goal
Speaker 4: is you.
Speaker 1: May be correct, You might be correct, just like you know,
Speaker 1: the bet was right in terms of Iran's response to
Speaker 1: the assassination of a costum stool of mine.
Speaker 3: But if there is.
Speaker 1: Even a small percentage chance that we could end up
Speaker 1: in a world destroying nuclear conflict, isn't that something that
Speaker 1: we have to take seriously?
Speaker 4: Of course we take it seriously. But you make a
Speaker 4: calculation on whether does that prevent you to stop from
Speaker 4: doing something? Well, so let let's play that out. If
Speaker 4: so we go to let's say Zelensky for some reason
Speaker 4: system with Latimir Putin and decides to have say, hey,
Speaker 4: we're to go back to February twenty twenty two, how
Speaker 4: how does the world change from that? Okay, so we
Speaker 4: prevented a nuclear war, but then does that exacerbate America's
Speaker 4: role in the world. And here's why I'm concerned about
Speaker 4: this issue. Because of this order that we built, we
Speaker 4: become the greatest economy on the planet. And if the
Speaker 4: Chinese government surpasses us in their percentage of global GDP,
Speaker 4: in their ability to work and increase their access to allies,
Speaker 4: that means the dollar is not going to go as
Speaker 4: far as it has as we've gotten used to. It
Speaker 4: are four to one caves, and retirement accounts are not
Speaker 4: going to go as far as we expected it. Our
Speaker 4: kids are not going to have access to the best
Speaker 4: paying jobs. These are the consequences because no one's going
Speaker 4: to care about us because there's no such things the
Speaker 4: security guarantees anymore. There's no such things as improving a
Speaker 4: cooperation between our economy.
Speaker 2: We have no security guarantee with Ukraine. Let's be clear.
Speaker 2: I mean we do with NATO. But essentially you said
Speaker 2: at the start, you said I don't want to sign
Speaker 2: U up endless war. You effectively we're talking here about
Speaker 2: twenty four billion. The intelligence community brief senators yesterday. They
Speaker 2: said this is just the first of as we've already
Speaker 2: provided one hundred billion, the same amount we provide the
Speaker 2: Afghan national security forces over twenty years of war.
Speaker 3: If this is what they need on a quarterly basis.
Speaker 3: Aren't you signing us up for an endless war?
Speaker 2: I mean that's one hundred billion a year expenditure for
Speaker 2: what you're talking about. Ukraine is our sixty seventh largest
Speaker 2: trading partner. Russia is like number twenty five. Fifty percent
Speaker 2: of world GDP is China and the rest of Asia.
Speaker 2: They don't care about Ukraine. I was just in India.
Speaker 2: They could care less about what's going on in there.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't you be managing this relationship that's happening here
Speaker 2: as supposed to risking a nuclear conflict over security non
Speaker 2: security guaranteed country and talking again about something irrelevant to
Speaker 2: the global economy.
Speaker 4: Well, there was a security guarantee between US, the Russians,
Speaker 4: the United States, the Budapests memorandum when the Ukrainians willingly
Speaker 4: gave up to the weapons. Right, So it's not NATO,
Speaker 4: but there is there is an agreement in place. So
Speaker 4: how is the money being used? What are the objectives? Right? Like,
Speaker 4: these are valuable questions. We should be suspicious of the
Speaker 4: amount of money that is being spent. And I'm not saying,
Speaker 4: you know, blank shack or anything, but but these are
Speaker 4: some of the conversations that need to be had. I wasn't.
Speaker 4: I wasn't in the the intel briefing and stuff like that.
Speaker 4: But when I'm president, we're going to be having these
Speaker 4: issues because guess what, what was the failure in Iraq? Right?
Speaker 4: The invasion Iraq was a failure? Right, it was in
Speaker 4: failure because it was based on flawed intelligence and you
Speaker 4: ignored information on the ground. The consequences of that was
Speaker 4: long term you know, the number of deaths, destabilization in
Speaker 4: the region, right, and then a long term impact on
Speaker 4: the socio political fabric of Iraq. Right in in Soul Syria,
Speaker 4: in Syria. But there was zero plan post invasion, right,
Speaker 4: there were there, There was of course no no, no,
Speaker 4: But I agree, I agree, I agree with that. Right,
Speaker 4: But if you're going to go, you need to have
Speaker 4: you need.
Speaker 1: To have a part in your ideal world. Because this
Speaker 1: is one of the things that I just struggle to understand.
Speaker 1: What does the endgame in Ukraine look like? Because what
Speaker 1: we were but we were sold I mean, that's a
Speaker 1: nice thing to say, but it's not anywhere close to reality.
Speaker 1: And we were sold the idea that Okay, we've got
Speaker 1: this counter offensive coming, let's do what we can. We're
Speaker 1: gonna ship more aid, We're gonna, you know, really fund
Speaker 1: this thing to the hilt. They're going to have a
Speaker 1: chance to break through and at least disrupt this land
Speaker 1: bridge that the Russians have to cry it didn't happen.
Speaker 1: So what is the strategy now? What does it look
Speaker 1: like to bring what has been a brutal and horrific
Speaker 1: conflict that has devastated so many people's lives.
Speaker 4: And the Ukrainians are doing all of this. The Ukrainians
Speaker 4: are doing all this. We were out but without air superiority, right,
Speaker 4: we would never be fighting that war that way, and
Speaker 4: so so theer. But we're also we're also restricting how
Speaker 4: they can use the equipment.
Speaker 1: So what so lay that out for me? So what
Speaker 1: are you advocating for specifically here?
Speaker 4: Continue to let Poland and again now we have palms
Speaker 4: with Poland today, right Because again, if I was advising
Speaker 4: today Zelenski or yesterday, I guess, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 4: the Ukraine deal. If I was, if I was advising Zelenski,
Speaker 4: I wouldn't be saying, hey, be critical of your partners
Speaker 4: that are helping you, right, And I think that was
Speaker 4: a mistake with Poland. But give them F sixteen's right,
Speaker 4: let them use the equipment the bomb rush. And again,
Speaker 4: so this notion that so y'all think that if if
Speaker 4: Zelensky attacks sites, that he's already attacked.
Speaker 3: With drums, with his drunes, with his eniings.
Speaker 4: Okay, so Vladimir Putin's going to launch your nuclear weapon
Speaker 4: into San Francisco.
Speaker 2: Maybe bomb's leviv or maybe that accidentally goes across the
Speaker 2: border into Poland. And Article five gets uh, yeah, and
Speaker 2: now we're in a full blink. Sure, And even if
Speaker 2: the nukes don't go, half a million people lost limbs
Speaker 2: already in Ukraine, outpacing some of the out of some
Speaker 2: of those prosthetic statistics that came out of the.
Speaker 3: First World War. I've been to the grades in France.
Speaker 3: We don't need any of that over.
Speaker 4: Here, especially over I agree with that. I agree with that.
Speaker 3: Okay, we're obviously there's a lot that we could get.
Speaker 2: Of course, I do actually want to go These.
Speaker 4: Are the kind of debates that I wish we had
Speaker 4: more often, right about, Yeah, that's why we had that's
Speaker 4: the premise. Yes, we don't have a time later, which
Speaker 4: is kind Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2: I did want to ask, so you worked in the CIA. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we've always been curious ask somebody who wasn't there. Do
Speaker 2: you think the CIA had anything to do with the
Speaker 2: assassination of John F.
Speaker 4: Kennedy. Oh, I'm not equipped to answer that, like like
Speaker 4: c I A like official, I don't like you got
Speaker 4: So here's here's what I always say about There's two
Speaker 4: things about movies about the CIA that kind of like,
Speaker 4: you know, rubbed me the wrong way. It always shows
Speaker 4: that like when you're handling an asset, like their lives
Speaker 4: is like throwaway, like my most my one job. These
Speaker 4: are people that are giving us information to keep our
Speaker 4: country safe. My number one job was to keep them safe. Right.
Speaker 4: I would never do something with an asset that would
Speaker 4: that would ultimately hurt Okay, and then like like that,
Speaker 4: like the CIA is going to violate laws in the
Speaker 4: United States? Right now, what's happened? So no, No, it
Speaker 4: was a different you know, I started in October two thousand, right,
Speaker 4: and so THEA was very different from the time when
Speaker 4: we were doing things in Central America and even in
Speaker 4: in in Vietnam. And you know, my job was to
Speaker 4: stop terrorists from blowing up our homeland, right to prevent
Speaker 4: Russian spies and chinesevies from stelling our secrets and to
Speaker 4: put you know, nuclear weapons flippers out of business. And
Speaker 4: I always tell people, if they knew how many threats
Speaker 4: to the country they are, valid, valid threats they were,
Speaker 4: most people wouldn't come out of their homes, right. But
Speaker 4: it was a job that I loved and enjoyed and
Speaker 4: got to do it in exotic places.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I always wanted to ask, so we got
Speaker 2: a non committal answer.
Speaker 4: There you go.
Speaker 2: We appreciate you joining you, sir, and what you can
Speaker 2: shout out your website.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sure, heard for america dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you sir, Thank you.
Speaker 4: M