E127: Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in conversation with the Besties
02:01:47 Share

Sax, you ready? You get your quick time going.

Oh, I let me do that quick.

And just a quick note. sex. mr. Kennedy doesn't have ear pieces and so he, we just have to be careful of the cross talk for talking of each other, all direct h questions, each person, and then follow up, obviously, to see judges went sert yourself. But gentle, certain there. Don't just be, be gentle when you interrupt.

cut.

Here's you call up, at least if you didn't correctly .

itll be quick OK. Here we go in three.

We open sources to the fans .

and just got crazy. Sorry, everybody, welcome to the all in podcast. As many of you know, this pockets has gotten quite popular last two years, typically in the top ten or twenty each week.

And we talk about politics. We've got a following. N, D, C.

and why are you calling me so? Absorb, how opens show .

come down every OK? yes. And part of that are ongoing. Discussions about politics and presidential candidates has resonated in particular communities. And today we are lucky enough to have one of the top presidential, hopefully in the twenty twenty four election joining us, a Robert anna junior and we will be inviting all presidential al candidates to come on to the all in poddar ast and have candid uh discussions that are unfiltered the way the audience would expect them. We're going to play with different formats, but we decided for the first one, we've got a series of topics we would like to cover and we're going to treat that like any other all in podcast without us have David sex who has is the most conservative of our panel, who has been also the most enthusiastic, I think, of everybody here, uh, and one of the most enthusiastic supporters of robbert Kennedy juniors pursuit of the presentation of the united states. So would to introduce .

our guest yeah, let me give bob a proper introduction. Robber france is Kenny junior is entering the public arena as a canada for the first time at the age of sixty nine, but is perhaps no exaggeration to say that he was destined for the mission he is now pursuing. He is the nephew w of prison, john f.

Kennedy, and the sun of the attorney general in a Robert f. Kennedy. When bobbie was fourteen, his dad was running for president on a plot from a civil rights, civil liberties, lifting americans out of poverty and opposing the vietnam war. He had just won the california primary when he was tragically assassinated. Rk junior graduate from harvard and the university virgina law school and became an environmental lawyer who aggressively litigated against corporate polluters and government agencies who were fAiling to regulate them.

He has always put the health and safety american people at the forefront of his activism, and this has made him controversial at times as he has questioned the safety of some arma udal products and also criticize covered restrictions during the pandemic. For this, the mainstream media has tried to pay him as a, quote, conspiracy theorists. But given that so many conspiracy theories about cover have been indicated, tablet magazine, quote, quote, at this point, the fact that Robert f.

Kennedy is the country's leading conspiracy theorists alone qualified to be president. But the biggest reason why I think is kind to see is so interesting and relevant is that a harkings back to democratic party that believed in peace instead of war, free speech and civil liberties to have censorship building up, middle class instead the donor class, and opposing corner greed, especially the military industrial complex, which is a message you just don't hear much anymore coming from the democratic s side of the isle. So with that, bobbi Kennedy, welcome to the program.

Thank you so much. driving.

So maybe we could start with foreign policy, something we've discussed here, specifically the ukraine and russia's invasion of ukraine and our support of that war. sex. Would you like to tip a question for mr. Kenny? I think Bobby s.

Tweet on subject shows that he has a really deep understanding of IT. He's been saying a lot of things that happened, saying the beginning of the war, which IT not just the fact that were risking war or three over, you know, getting involved in in a country that isn't a treat I in our states, that kind of violence rest in the states, but I think your critical s deeper because you actually understand the causes of how this war started. So maybe know, bob, you could speak to that, how how did we end up in this proxy war with with russia from your standpoint?

Wow, you know, personal I would let me start by by saying this. I supported the humAnitarian aid to the the ukraine, which is what we were told to initially, which is the was the mission, although I had I was suspicious having and in my son, as as i've mentioned, actually went over left law gold and not tell us where he what's going, and went over enjoying the foreign legion and thought in the car, gave offensive with a special forces group, he served as a machine corner. He was an engagement with the russians, and but he feels the same way, essentially, that I do. This is no under humAnitary amish and at all the decisions the united states had made, has made since since the start has been about, have been about prolonging the war, maximizing the the violence of the war, and being absolutely and transnational, uh, against the many opportunities to actually set up the war.

If you and at my understanding, the war is that not that the and y is pushing this war as hard as I can, but that the new accounts in the White house want this warm they want a regime change with the russians and exhaust the twenty twenty two are objective is to x degrade russian forces that cannot find anywhere else in the world um and president by the knowledge at one of his objectives and worse regime changed in russia removing the other boot well, if those are the objective, that is the office of a monetary, an mission that is a mission to maximize cats go on boards, is essentially a war of bittridge. And that's what we're saying. And the brunt of this is being paid by the flower of ukraine and use.

There have been over three hundred thousand. This is something that the U. S. Government and the ukrainian government have worked hard die. The number of casualties which has been is that the most of violent conflicts since world were two, that take a place probably where in the world, and the casual ATS are enormous. All over three hundred thousand in ukrainian dead.

The russians are killing ukraine and handing on who you believe at a rage of a five to one to eight one, which is the seventy one in the, and recently, recently, like with leaked pentagon to arguments, and the russians cannot lose this war, were being told their lose, and they cannot afford to lose this war. This is existent, al of them, and they're been building up their forces. They have attend to one artillery advantage on us.

And this is an artillery world, so is simply and we do not have the utility to replace that. We've lost up there. This is a word that is proceeding and a very category make trigiani. And the answered your question about how we got in this or goes back a long way, but I would say that the real story starts in twenty fourteen, when the U. S.

Government, and particularly the need cons in the White house and elsewhere, participated and supported the overthrow island over a could take top against the democratically elected government of the ukraine and put in a very, very any russian government. This prompted russian to, and believes that that the U. S.

Or navy was now going to be an I into the black sea to have a ported crime APP IT prompted the russians to preempted dly in the crime here. At the same time, the the government that went came in to the ukraine, they can, enacting a series of laws that turned the russian populations of the dumbass. They, they, they illegalities, essentially their culture, their language.

And they began ultimately killing them. They killed fourteen others. Them and IT was IT prompted a civil war in the country and the rush and uh response, which is illegal, I have no sympathy or toward flat ataman putin flattering putin is a gangster and he's a dog. But his his response in the dumb as was not rational.

So I guess the question becomes, if you were elected president, would you stop standing arguments to ukraine?

I would immediately I have a cease fire, and I would said, all the war, and I think IT can be sad. I don't even know. I isn't the best. This war, which outline in the mixed words in twenty fourteen, cook ords, which all the european a country is agreed upon, was when when the russians said, and the russian people into them as voted to leave russia and russia did not want them, russia said, no, let's develop an accord, an agreement which would make dumb as a an autonomous region within the ukraine, which would agree to not put missile systems in ukraine, air missile systems, we should, we agree that ukraine would not join nato.

If landscape says, now I want to keep fighting, would you stop sending U. S. weapons?

I would settle this. I would settle this war. Ukraine, can I fight without U. S. Or so?

Then at some point you will tells the zoan skii, if i'm reading into what you're saying correctly, hey, settle IT or around.

I do.

You think that we somehow allowed the land sky to believe that we would allow him intended meaning? Do you think that U. S. Foreign policy somehow almost induced this thing to happen? I just want to try to understand .

the boundaries we happen doing in integrated tive military exercises with the ukrainian military. So we were actives integrating them into nato forces. There was no question that, you know, the one thing that putin said from the outside, this is a red line.

When I ung with a president, one of things that he he's had, a couple of things. He's a number one, the principal job of the present united states to keep the nation out of work. And he succeeded doing that during his term office.

Sixteen thousand million advisers were not the rise to participate in comment. That didn't mean that some of them didn't. They were authorize and be, in fact, that was fewer federal troops that he sent to get James married as into the university mississippi, oh, he is, and fewer red of an ARM.

And two weeks before he died, he's in a national security order ordering all of those troops home by five, nine hundred and sixty five, with the first thousand to come home that month, I november. And he died two weeks later. So and then commerce Johnson came in, and we ended the war and sent two hundred and fifty thousand troops over there, which is always wanted to do.

yeah. And he stood up to them, all of the other things my uncle said, and, you know, the anniversary of his speech in american university, which is an extraordinary speech, probably one of the best in american history, jeff s. Access called to call the most important speech in american history. IT was a speech to the american people, and IT was an extraordinary page.

Because if he read IT is asking them to put there they are them, just out into the shoes of the russians and understand that the russians bore the brand of world, world that laws, and one out of every thirteen russians to dide that war, a third of their country was occupied at the level to the ground. It's like he said, is as if the entire east causes the united. The chicago was put in the rubble, and he described this in detail, where the american people to say, you know, we're all people were all on an art.

And we need, we need to understand each other, other's motives, and not just vilify each other. And what we're seeing now is this formula. Vilification is narrative that we saw as a who saying, with putin, with the every little war that we wanted get into, those guys are very evil.

Work here, good. And we're gonna rescue. You know, the danger and distress.

Just on that. Could you contrast and compare just maybe the last three or four presidents on this very narrow dimension of that of G, F. Case promise of what a president should be doing? Bosh, obama, trumped. Now, biden, how do you see the things that these guys have gotten right and or very wrong here on that dimension.

just on that dimension, you know, in different for many, many years a job? I know, you know, he's a go to war guy. He he was one of the strongest supporters, the iraq, or he's been supportive every war that come along. And that I think that's one of the reasons that know some of those, that portion of the democratic party, which is a very, very powful kind of game. Bakers was very happy with him getting an office, and he never says, no, what war I think trump, you know, i'd liked a lot of which trump s had about foreign policy, about disentangling, as from major reaction of of constant wars, and that the cause that that imposed on our country, what it's doing, it's hollowing out our middle class.

But then tempted a lot of things, including walking away from the you, from a the media nuclear mescal treaty, which is that was another provocation for russia, is that treated, you know, where we're putting these intermediate missing systems, all of the long the russian border in romanian poll and in in ukraine and and that this can you I can can hit mask and in a few minutes so there was a very destabilizing system. We all signed IT, and he walked away from IT. And now I don't think that was A, I think that was another provocation.

We should be the escalating these for provocations, though you know that why IT didn't know of is what George cannon said after after in other the collapse. Why do we even have anyone anymore? Why do we have IT? Why do we have IT? Unless we're going involve the russians in IT? Why do we do a martial plan for russia? We won the war.

They are the losers. They admit they are the losers, but they want to join the european community. Let's make that easy for them, not, not continue to treat them as if they are the enemy, because that is a self profiling province. Y, and that unforgetting is what we did.

let's pia then you want to contain and you would force everybody to the table to a resolution. If I understanding correctly, you are an explicit in terms of which you remove support. But I think we can infer from IT, you would have a point at which you would stop sending or a moments to ukraine.

We have tremendous moral pressure and economic pressure and everything else on ukraine.

How about this, Jason? I mean, would you be willing to take nato expansion off the table if that helps resolve this conflict? Yeah, every is Better. won't. Well.

by IT won't.

right? absolutely. Why are we trying to expand? We gave our word we would not expand nato one inch to the east. And now we've gone to thirteen countries. You know, if he is a provocation.

let's talk about taiwan.

So we ve got .

to stay out of wars. If jg. Ping decides taiwan is strategic and he invades taiwan, what would your response be .

if you were elected present? Well, my response would eat like that is essentially a world party and washed. And that is, is encouraging that conflict, that is drumming up that conflict. What I would do is I would I would d asked like that I would stop looking at IT as a threat right now and and I and allow the chinese and the talese to come to their own lotion about what kind of relationship they have. And I think that that that if we have our provocations toward the chinese, that that would naturally.

especially and if trying to decided it's strategic and we're going in anyway, would you if you were president, defend I want .

that's a question that I would not answer.

I'm curious, why not why don't presidential candidates just answer that question?

Because you're committing the country to a war in the future and that would be probably the bloody is war ever thought. And it's not something that strategically is not good strategy to protect. Project your your intentions. You want to leave room for negotiation, you want to leave room for all kinds of moments, and you want to have a debate with the american people and with congress.

The good bidness been clear that he would defend IT, right? So that it's an interesting insight, right? They're freeze. G, do you, anna, talk me a little bit about the economy and the spending .

that we're in? yeah. So Robert, I think my biggest question i've referenced this on the show a number of times um is this, uh, extraordinary concern I have about the fiscal deficit and the .

debt level of the U.

S. Running deficits north of a trillion dollars a year, thirty three trillion in total debt. Some people use the debt to G D P. Metric, which you know this point is approaching has succeeded one hundred and thirty percent and fifty two nations that have reached that level of debt GDP. Only one of them has not had to restructure their currency or restructure their dead payments.

Obviously, with the dead ceiling approaching and some fiscal conservatives using this moment as a point to try and generate leverage, I guess my biggest question for the country now and going forward is, you know, do we actually have the ability to pursue all of these interests on a social, geopolitical, a security agenda and and do so without having either a baLanced budget or a plan that says, here are the boundaries and here are the boundary conditions? Because in the last couple of years, and particularly in the last five years, we've seen almost like a bi partisan, unmitigated spending spray that you know is largely driven to, you know, to do what the electorate wants, which is to give people stuff. And giving people stuff costs money.

And that money has to be paid back at some point. I guess, how do you think about the importance of this? And how do you think about the boundary conditions that you would, you know look to articulate and impose, uh, as you you know, think about this role with respect the deficit spending and the debt .

levels for this country in terms of a uli I I you know I would love to hear arguments about the APP and I um you know I will as you save I think that is now thirty two trillion a gdpr gdpr and twenty five, uh, trillions. So that is that just a really alarming ratio? If you look at why you know that the primary cause of our military pendant is we're spending eight this year.

I think I A eight point four trillion dollars on the military budget this year, but if you thrown in the homeless security and all that surveilLance and security expenditure, how much one point one in a year, that's one point one trillion in a year that is attributable to to essentially to are are in war monger. And I don't think we can afford to be policeman of the world anymore. We have eight hundred bases around the world.

We need to start rebuilding our middle class at home. We need to be the responsible with our debt. And we need, my grandfather always had, and we should make amErica too expensive to conquer.

We should make forrest america. We should ARM amErica the teeth at at home that notes, we are too expensive to conquer. And then we should concentrate on building up our economic c power and a robust middle class as what's going to make amErica strong.

And instead of projecting military strength abroad, do you want to be protracting our economic space and a marketplace of ideas and economic power? You know, right now we're borrow six, six billion dollars a day, mainly from the chinese and japanese, just to serve the interest on that. Death is not a healthy thing for amErica to be.

And we got to figure out, you know, a way to, in place, fiscal discipline. I can tell you exactly what my boundary would be. That's something I need to think.

But how do you how do you think about that? Like I think none of directionally spending, you know, defenses is about eight hundred billion, non defenses about nine hundred billion. And then obviously, their social security benefits medicare, in order to get the budget baLanced, you think cutting defense would be kind of the first priority, and you could get there through, you know, that approach.

But I there still seems to be a big gap to me. You know, give how much spending on how do we actually get there? Are we ultimately gonna have to kind of change retirement benefits, restructure medicare, medicare, or we going to raise taxes or we going to do all three to get to this point? Others SE.

We have this obviously kind of never ending that spiral that that's going to cause a massive crisis. Uh, whether it's not this year, maybe it's in five years or ten years right now, it's projected social security will go bankrupt in twenty thirty five, twenty thirty four around that range. So this is coming up fast.

Or are we gonna cutting besides defense? And or we gona be raising taxes to seventy percent? Thank to kind of bridge in this hole.

I can ask that question. I there are targets for opportunity and they in the home of security I think once we stop fighting these words all over the world, there's a lot that less aid for to have the service legislation to the real cost in the military, one, two year, not just the eight hundred trillion that shows up on the block. And I think those are targets for opportunity.

And I I can you know, I have know, I need study more. You I had to how to get back in to a baLance of budget. You know, one of things i'd say this urbs is that I don't think we should be playing chicken in congress about raising the data ceiling because I think I don't think we should mess around with the full of things and created the united states, and particularly at this point time.

one of the things that happened in the world, Bobby said, there's been a couple of country's france is probably the best example that had to raise the retirement age. And irrespective of the view that one has on whether that was right, wrong, the practical reality of doing this is just that when these initial social safety nights were passed, the average life expectancy of folks was ten, fifteen years less than what they are today. And presumably, as we keep inventing technologies, folks are going to live to eighty, ninety, one hundred years on average, which may seem imlac simple, but is likely if you look at the trend. I'm just curious how you think about the state of our social safety net and what has to change, what would you keep the same and what has to be totally reimagine for what the world will look like in thirty or years?

I would say it's a red lined for me to touch social security or medicare, medicare, and think we need to take care people, particularly people who have spent their whole life left hand into a system with a promise at the end of and I ve worked hard and and saved and done what they're supposed to do. I don't think that you know it's right to pull the rug out from under them. But again, I this is an iteration that I need to spend more time looking at uh, and studying maybe the next time I come back here at our answer for you guys.

I think this is my concern is, uh, sorry but Robert, the the comment you just made is the same comment I hear from both sides of the I O. That we can touch social security, medicare, medicaid because that would be so unpopular we wouldn't get elected. And that's ultimately kind of what a democracy like ours may lead to, is that folks vote and elect representatives that are going to create these systems that benefit them.

But in the aggregate, we may not be able to support those benefits over time and at scale, and we may be facing that moment sooner than any of us want to. And I think it's one of the more pressing issues and concerns, not just for the united states but for the global economy, that if the U. S.

Doesn't resolve this massive hole, talking about social security, for example, going bankrupt in the next twelve years, as one acute example of that problem said, you know, we may not be able to turn IT around. And I mean, do you think that politics is set up to solve these structural economic problems that the U. S. Is now facing because so much of politics ends up leading towards what additional benefits can I provide to my, uh, the folks to get me elected?

Here is that thing is we spent eight trillion dollars, warn iraq, eight million dollars, and we got nothing for him.

Yeah, that's pretty. not.

That's not. In fact, we are worse than nothing. We killed more a milian. He's probably, uh, we created this is we turn iraq into a proxy for an which is exactly what we were not trying to do for forty years.

And we drove two million refugees with the iraq war, and it's after has yeah you know, pakistan and afghanis and two million ravages neck of these stabilize democracy in europe. And we go at at eight trillion dollars there. We spent sixteen trillion dollars on the pandemic.

I again, nothing in return. So that's twenty fortune dollars. And now we're doing bank. They allow every a couple of months. So look on valley. Big fed said that he was bringing three hundred billion dollars that made up for all of the no deflationary A, A steps that the by administration had previously taken.

Oh, you go to, you know, h you go to an american who's been working their whole life, has been promised at the end of the life that they're onna get a few bucks every month. And you know, I have a friend I brought to my speech with me, whose but we during the same month that we committed to another seven hundred and fifty million during march and seven hundred and fifty million dollars extra to the ukraine, we, uh, we got fifteen million americans from metal air. My friend got a call from I, from the, from the government on his cell phone, a recorded call saying that your food stamps have just been cut by ninety percent.

He went from do under eighty three dollars a month to twenty five dollars a month. So you try to feel yourself on twenty five dollars a month. There are thirty million americans who are starving right now. And that, to me, is unacceptable. And it's hard to go to people like that, people who have been honest, who played by the rules, who have done everything that they were supposed to do with the promise that they would be taken care of, that their health care would be taken care of, an all the age you go to those people and say, okay, now we're gona cut your food stamps and try to feed yourself on twenty five dollars a month. Try to feed you yourself are twenty five dollars so big or telling them that and and then spending .

eight hundred billion to make a plane.

I onna cut the federal budget when you're in over hundred billion to ukraine, you you have no moral .

author to do you know you're like tinkering in the engine room when the ship is thinking, you know because but like you know or switching to here's on the tiana. Ah let's see you with the real problem. Let's figure out how to make this nation and nation that is really focused on that and give our people inside rather than saying, okay, well, in order to pay for the ukraine war, we got to screw every american on social security and metal care.

We've head, by the way, the inflation that we've created from from just printing money is making my friend keys food quite expensive. So the cause of stables in this country, he is rage by seven, six percent in two years. And now they're cutting this food stamps and bAiling out the same months three hundred million dollars.

This to look on valley bag. We got that. I mean, that IT doesn't make any his stance and having this kind of conversation, how do we screw with a poor to picture that we can know we can milk them all.

We're doing all of this great. It's like this country is acting like the alcohol lic who is bind on his market and who takes the milk money and goes in the bar and lies rounds for the strangers. That's what you're dealing with.

That is a pretty good and knowledge shots, everybody.

So let me have all question on this decel ing fight, which is which is a game of chicken. And the the country's economy might go off a Cliff in the next month because republicans, democrat can agree. So biden's position is, I want a clean that ceiling increase.

No terms on IT. The house republicans, half passed a death ceiling increase. But IT contains things like a one percent cap on spending growth, IT claws back unspent, covered nineteen reality funds and IT would halt biden student debt forgiven ness plan.

So Robert, I guess the question to you would be, would you negotiate like what would your poster to house republicans be? Would you be willing to negotiate? Because by in the basic saying I will not negotiate at all. So negotiate or not negotiate, I guess .

that's my question to you. You yeah you have to negotiate your passing or they have to negotiate. They have to you know they have to work out to something that's good for our country and know and you're going to both sujets and have to give up to something we have to know. We have to put our country first. And it's insane to play this game of chicken with, you know, with this, when this excess of I been .

a lot of talk, Robert, about the deep state, the F B I D O J C I A, your family, obviously having dealt with two tragic assassinations for other and uncle IT has deleted this first hand in terms of just having the CIA information about these assinniboins. Curious your position on some of the most radical proposals people have this election cycle of dismantling the F, B I, C I D O, J O K. The deep state.

Do you believe there's a deep state? And how would you, as president, deal with this intelligence, a Operation we have? And then then also personally, what are your .

personal feelings on IT? Well you know I have I you know I I have a pretty clear idea about how I would handle um the intelligence agencies.

And in fact, my father was thinking very deeply about that at the time my father who believed first reaction when his brother who was killed was that the CIA I had killed them in fact the first three calls he may on that day and I know I was home um at the time and john a calm, the C I A was right across the street from my house and so john a commons, the C I A director. You would come to our house and swim every day after work during the spring and summer time and my father called the C I. A desk.

And talk to to ask officer and said, did your people do this? That was his first call that and he called the Harry would always was that cuban, who was one of the cubans who had remained friendly with my family, know what? We were surrounded by humans growing up because who were made of pig refugees.

My father had got some freed after a year, you know, in the casuals prison, and and my father and mother spent a lot of time finding houses, one of them schools integrating to the U. S. Military finding jobs.

And so we were all raised very, very closely with the cuban community, but gradually they turned away from my family. But this is one cubit who had Better an engineer I fought with. The second call that he made was to a hurry where we is, and he said, did I did not our people, meaning that C, I, eight people do this.

And and that was a. And so my father was thinking very, very, very carefully about how to handle C. I, A.

He had been, you know, he had been essentially managing the C I. A. Since he came into our office. And he recognized that the product, and as I talked about on my empty, and I think David on the show mention, is that during the day apex invasion, my uncle realized that even lie to chosen bell and and dollars and Richard bits the head as well as he achieved.

And he came out in the middle invasion when I turned into and some, and he realized these men were being killed on the beach. And he said, I wanted take the CIA and shadow into a thousand pieces and the wind. So he recognize that the function of the intelligence agencies had devolved and that they were they had become captive of the military industrial complex, and the military contractors and their are, their function was essentially to provide our natation well with a constant pipeline of new wars to feed military industry complex and the growth of the surveilLance state.

And my father, when he ran for president, p. Hamo, is one of his favorite. A newman asked them on the later and two weeks before he did, asked him what what he was gonna about the C.

I, A, and he said, what we need to do is we we need to remove the asian age division has been ash branch from the plans division. The plan is division. C, I, A is essentially the dirty tricks provision at the the division, the action of division they do the assassinations, they fixed elections.

They do their military Operations, black up torture, black sites, all of that stuff, yeah, has been an urged division. And C. I A was originally set up by cuba, by human as an sb.

An agency beanie means information gathering and analysis. It's not violence is about information acquisition. And unfortunately the the the the content sign action division, but was wagging the sbi and I dog.

So the functioning, the as division was to to to provide new actions, things to do, or they clanked side division and then covering up their mistakes. So there was never any accountability. And what my father understood is that the S.

V. Ized divisions should not be working for the, for the services they should appeal, overseeing and and particularly doing accountability of, you know what? If this, the C.

I A looks the way that the C I A looks at one. Iraq is IT, which is a suck because we accomplish our mission of the policy. But, and you know that C, I A was George canada who lied to present portion and said, it's a slam done. So they got us to go in there.

weapons as so as president. Would you rethink IT? And then just as a final question not to follow to that.

Do you believe they murdered? We're involved in the murder of your uncle. What would have you come to person?

They were definitely involved in the area. And you know and the six year cover up, there's still not releasing the you know the papers that legally they have release, but I don't think there is any double. If you look at this huge, you know a mountain, my animal tal mountain of evidence and confession, and so many people have confessed to their involved men.

And, you know, we understand, if you look, I mean, for anybody who has doubts about that, I would recommend a book I gym Douglas called the unspeakable because I think he's done a Better job than anybody else that kind of assembling and is still in all of the millions and millions of documents added, have been released over the past fifty years. And these things, these revelations, are released in re, nobody really takes no, put them to get. So you would .

definitely rethink the C, I, I, V, F, B, I, D, J. We know the whole intelligence as the minimum.

I think what you're saying as well as maybe you would also released the documents that maybe would at least provide some more transparency. I just wanted to build on that because you had a very provocative tweet. Part of what you're talking about is accountability, and we need data and transparency to have that.

There are people that have whistle loan. There are people that have leaked. And I think it's fair to say that they've all been treated by the security apparatus in largely the exact same way. But you tweet recently about your desire to see some of those folks forgiving, important. You want to just take a few minutes just to talk about some of those folks that you think has allowed us to actually see the truth if we wanted see IT and why .

you think that and what you think should be done with folks. IT is a newspaper ite publisher. He published league e documents. You know, why are we? I mean, I, if I was any newspaper by lisha in this country, I would be worried about that.

And now he can go to jail for life because he had published leaked arguments of great import to the american people of things that should not have been secret, that we should have known about um the revelations that affect our civil rights, affect our foreign policy, affect things that we have right and up a and you know it's it's really it's strange that there's any support for his imprisonment. But among the press, and I think the press is beginning to figure this out. Finally, the most controversial those figures that and what snowden but I would just snowden released documents that showed us that we were all being spied upon, and and that is important for americans to know.

And in fact, IT was so important that congress passed laws, based upon his revelations, protect the american people. So why are we punishing the whip, or rather than punishing the people who are, you know, who were illegally spying on us? That's what we shall be doing.

We shouldn't be jAiling the centers in our country. We should be jAiling with flowers. We should be jAiling the people who break the lot.

This byte tisa, do you believe the deep state is acting to several the trump presidency and that they are framing him on these three or four indications that .

they are working on.

some that have drop, some that haven't. Do you believe there's a deep state spiracle .

against them because you might be facing, you know i've described how of these bureaucracies function and its not not so much a group of people that kind of deep's ly date implies there's a group of people kind of in a black coats and a smoky room boiling springs. But the corruption is systemic, the you know that all of these agencies are captive. The agencies, the C.

I, A, is ultimately working for APP for industry like the oil industry, the coal industry and the military contractors. 那 i've always had that ties since the very beginning of Allen dollars， who would work for self and gram well and ended up doing good IT as and I have his former clients like texaco and united fruit, texaco and bp. And in iran, my one thousand and fifty three is format client.

And through jack up our bds tried an idealize united fruit. You know, the C, I, A, under dollars went over through the government to protect the interest of his former clients. Has always been the higher the industry and high now and particularly oil industry.

And the ties to to the most of industrial contractors really drive C, I, A action and C. I. A.

intelligence. And we have to, you know, you have to stop. And then this is systemic.

And all these agencies, I mean, U. S, D, A is run by cargill, smithfield, sattle pilgrims. John tyson, epa is right.

When we suit E, P, A, we got discovered arguments that showed that the head of the pasi division just rolled had been secretly working for month for a decade, you know, sending memo back and forth with on sandal directing on me. You need to kill this study. You need to kill that study. And this, unfortunately, is not exception.

IT is the all most of the people who work with those agencies are good, said that since they're good americans, they're honest and they're but the people who tend to rise in those agencies and occupy these very, very powerful key positions from decades or years like one thousand fifty years, our people who are in the tank with industry. And what we need to do is unravel that across the government. And that's really what people say, that the deep that really is what is, is a systemic corruption within our agencies that is as driven by agency capture.

Can we actually just talk about the corona virus, maybe pandemic for second? And I I just want a time in two concepts. Sometimes, again, there's a lot of mainstream misinformation about IT. There is a lot that came out about you, particularly as a relates to vaccines. I just want to give you an opportunity to set the record straight just on what you think happened covered all that corruption, your thought on vaccines, the efficacy of our programs, how we should change what we keep the same. Just maybe a chance to clear the year so that we can get some of the gobi cook on the internet set state.

I mean, it's arted you know I wrote a two hundred fifty thousand paid book about and I in a couple of book sounds so it's hard test on arise you know what went wrong in A A second but but essentially we had instead of a public health response to a public health crisis, we had a authorize and monetized response that was the inverse of what of everything that you would want to do if you actually wanted to protect my love.

We've known, you know, if you look at W, H, O protocols or the C D C protocol of the eu, the x in britain, of those, they all had protests. I had to manager the pandemic. They all said unanimously, you do not use lockdowns mass like downs. You quarantine in the sake you protect the vulnerable, but you keep society moving because the consequences of not do, of shutting down society will be, make me on anything that the disease is going to impose. Everybody knew that.

And so, you know, we had these these agencies that that had drawled for years and years, this alternative, you know, militarized response, and instead of you doing what you don't want to do, which is to get treatment to people they have, I mean, you know, we live in the age of the internet. We should have had a grid that connected all fifteen million in front line doctors, every country around the world, and figured out what are you doing that works in your country, you know, and try and then dealing that information processing and and getting at all other doctors. We knew what was working.

We knew I ever met them in hydro xc. We're working. We knew that since two thousand and four, because N I H did the study that said hydrogen obliterates ground of virus, we knew what would work at that time. And what was the rich thought they the response was they could not allow early treatment to occur.

why? Because there is a little known federal law that says if there is a drug that is shown effective against the target disease, IT is ill, a drug that is proof for any purpose IT is illegal to the issue on A I use authorization for a vaccine. So if they had admitted that a hydrastis work on our I maked work against another virus, IT would have destroy their whole hundred billion dollar vaccine in our enterprise.

So they had to kill early treatments, and they went after yourself that they knew work. This was the first reaction virus in history where people would go to the hospital and they would test positive for ground of virus and be symptomatic. They are si. That's why they went to the hospital. And the hospital would say in them, there is no treatment, go home to your lips, turn blue and you can't breathe and come back, and we will give you two things that are gonna kill you and dessert air and hyo oxy and and and venia.

So people still look at in this country and and if he is a hero, and we were doing things a couple of miles or may in malabo, there were police server is out of the serve and giving one thousand dol tickets and telling him to go on him out of the sunshine where where come on of virus doesn't spread and lock him in their home where he does. And every time they sent some one of these people home from the hospital, sick IT was a super spreader of end. Oh, you look at our record ground of virus.

And this is when nobody can explain who is no defending. For its era, we had the highest body count in the world by far from corroded virus h the art, we have four point two percent of the world's. For hobo lation, we had sixteen percent of the covet deaths.

How does anybody explain that? And you go to nations that didn't do what we told him. nigeria.

Nigeria is a malaria burden in the world. So everybody, everybody gets a drops at workin once a week, sunday, sunday. Everybody in the country takes on sunday.

They had the highest river plants burden. So I have the country's on our Megan. Nigeria ever had an epidemic. IT had a death rate in nigeria of fourteen people per million population.

Our death rate, three thousand per million population, lacks in our countries, were dying at three point six times the rate of White. Why were american black sign and nigerian black words? And and then you go to hate you.

Eighty had. And by the way, in nigeria had one point three percent fascination rate, eighty had one point four percent xining rate, and they had a death rate of fifteen people per million population. These, these in the countries that don't, if algan bilk, he said, we gotta get them vaccinated.

We got to do IT every because they're going to get totally wiped out because they're poverty. And guess right, they never had a pandemics across africa. That was a temple and fascination rate. And guess what? They had a death rate about three hundred and forty.

Some people think that the death rate here was overstated because of incentives to do that. You believe that as well? yes. So maybe part of that decorators IT was over study. But you believe, looking back on this, that fouche as well as the farma companies, bill gates, investments in those areas that let us down a path for call at the medical industrial of the farmer industrial complex, you believe the farmer industrial complex dictated our response to current virus and then freed egypt?

yes.

But do you believe that that that's .

the I don't question. I believe this was, you know, IT. As I said, I was a military response. I mean, look at who running the, look at who is running the country of irish response when you think would be H H S.

Well, when they had one warp speed, had to present its deglaciation y, its organization charts to show to the fda very back when they demand IT and words. We went in and shows me organization charts. The, the, the, uh, the agency running warp speed and mic response was not H H.

S. IT. Was nsa, the national security agency evil? And is the director national intelligence? So SHE was running Operation work speed and who was manufacturing IT wasn't fazer modern? He was one hundred and forty military contractors. You know what lines ready and you say, you know you know all of this clamp ed on on civil rights that we saw the sensor ship um closing the church is you know that closing the right to assemble the banning of jury trials against armored dal companies, they crashed the seven amendment, the first they closed down three point three million business is with no due process, no just compensation ah they they literally the fourth amendment right to you to uh against warn researchers and ages with all these in truth of you know you had to show on your medical records to go get out your house building freeburg what is correct .

or do you believe in and what is incorrect about robots with rob saying.

if anything, I an obvious a lot of things I said, well, I was on the executive for a couple. So you think I at the table facing the E, P, A in the U. S.

D. A. And certainly didn't feel like a very cozy relationship in at least what I saw on a few years. I was there. I was I did feel like a very kind of independent regulatory and chAllenging, Frankly, regulatory process that monsanto had to manage and deal with and go through in releasing new products.

You know, I I don't think that this notion that they were kind of embedded parties that did our wims and wishes really placed at enjoy sitting there. And i'm not a long time. Monsanto executive, I built a software company and so to monsanto and SAT on the execution for a few years after the acquisition.

But I guess the the more kind of I think bigger framing question for you, Robert, really around vaccines in general. I think your commentary around the the covered response and uh, you know the influencing forces there didn't start with covered, right? I mean, you you you've been a kind of you know outspoken voice on vaccines and general for some time.

Is that a fair statement? Because I think that's part of the media narrative around your history and legacy is that you have been kind of outspoken on vaccines and the you know the the risks and the and the effects that you that you consider to be kind of I don't know if it's employed or explicit with respect to the use and why adoption of of vaccines over time. And you can share a little bit about your broader perspective in the years leading up to cove IT and how that then kind of informed your point of view .

specifically on covered in my objective, not of IT. I'm not any action. I I fully have accident. My kids were fully accepted my wish at this point that I had not done that because I know enough about them now.

But I principal objective, IT, is that vaccines, in that the childhood vaccines are immune from relicensing safety testing of the seventy two. When I was a kid, I got three vaccine. My children at seven, two, those is sixteen accent.

And the vaccine ines are uh the one medical product that does not have to go through a place of control trials. You test explosion explosions of license and there's a number of the used to work reasons for that. They come out of the kind of military beginning.

The accident were regarded as as an national security and against biological attacks on our countries. They are make sure of the russians attack us with anthrax or as other biological agent. They could quickly formulate and deploy, vaccinated two hundred thousand americans with irregular oran pediments, so they they call them biologic run and and is an exempted only logics from previous safety I lidiat on IT.

Should not one of them has ever been test IT realized. So nobody knows what the, you know, you can say at the vaccine is effective c and the target disease, but you can't say that it's not causing worst problems. Now i'll just summarized this worry in the the vaccines schedule exploded in one hundred eighty ex the vacancy industry succeeded in getting wrong a rag and design a law.

And my uncle was also a group that was pressured by why, as which is losing twenty dollars and downs am liabilities and every vaccine had made because of was is for every dollar that made and a in and proves they want to egan and said, we're going to get out of the vaccine business and you're going to be left with out of accent supply unless you give us full, immediate from living rain and reluctantly sign that console today. No matter how negligence the company, no matter how grievous h injury, no matter how reckless or conduct you cannot see them that caused IT gold rush is now you ve got a product that there's no downs am liability heb a meeting from that there is no upstream safety testing that as a two hundred and fifty million dollars are saving. And there is no marketing or advertising costs of because the federal government GTA mend this product to seventy six million american children where they like.

And and there is no Better product in the world. And so there was a gold russian. Instead of the three vaccines, we quickly ended up with seventy two and I were going to you know to and eighty right now and there's no ended site and a lot of those vaccine were unaccepted that they are not even for casual, does he? Because this here's what happened in night, beginning in one nine hundred and eighty nine.

We experience that chronic disease epidemic in the dispense, and is unlike anything in any him in history. We went from having six percent of americans affected by chronic disease to fifty four percent by two thousand. And sex.

And what I mean by chronic disease, I mean neurological disease that I never saw and I was a kid, A D D, A D H D specially and language like text and resident um A S D autism or collapse sy all of these some year autism rates went from one ten thousand to one every thirty four hundred and eighty nine. What is the year this began? Alert is penology es.

They appeared food allergies, eggs and has suddenly appeared. And IT flexes and as mob, you know, which i've been around, but IT exploded. And then don't mean disease is like roma, I think I did isn't juvenile diabetes? I never know OK I eleven, seventeen, inks about seventy cousins. I never knew anybody with any other instance cases.

And so why do find my kids of allergies? So, uh uh, so then if you look at manufacturer inserts for those seventy two vaccines, there's four hundred and twenty diseases have associated with the vaccine that are listed, like including every one of those diseases is and when epidemic in one nine hundred and eighty nine, and this is the country which the most happily live vaccinated and this was happening here, unlike any other country in the world. And so we have is and and you know, they was good for the farma.

This farmer, i'll make sixty billions on the vaccine. When I was a kid, they were making two hundred and fifty million. Now they make six billion a year from covet vaccine.

Freeman, do you believe that these vaccines are over prescribed and are part of the rise and A D, H D, and and all the lighting of disease? I'm just asking, freed by whose are a resident scientists believe, you know, explicit, a scientist.

i'm curious. I don't think there's direct evidence supporting that relationship. I think that there's a lot of environmental factors that have been driving changes .

in you know the rate of .

problems with out the community that relates to our food products. Products are food system IT relates to environmental chemistry, like Robert have talked about. Generally, I think there's a lot of environmental conditioning that cause this rise .

in in in problems in human vaccines, our children today. So we run in a toxic. But there was a time like, and actually I talked to collegiate, that I ve many my lot as it's probably most of the images in the country fell ander again looked at the time line and have the explosion of all the chronic is is and he said there is only a finite number of things that of course, you know one is like to say things that what became you big with IT against in every demography beginning and one thousand nine hundred ninety three, nineteen eighty nine. One of miss life is a new look to a petite size p fl phones.

Ultra, I made the whole list um and so it's a finite number and the question is and vaccines are are part of that and now IT is suspicious ous because the vaccines, the list all of the is a side effect. Now I I put together books you know one of my books, this subject on connecting these as fourteen unit references and four hundred studies adjusted, so that science out there is pretty clear. But we N I age refused to study these things because IT knows that whatever, whatever they follow the dogs is, onna end up with a baby shop.

And so they simply have just up studying them and they've turned themselves into an invite or from critical products, and they don't do this kind of basic research. I wanted to give you guys one example. The most common vaccine the world is called the D T.

B vaccine. That a, that isn't does IT. We gave IT in this country, and beginning around seventy nine, IT was killing or causing severe brain injury in one out of every I U C, L S.

Are he funded by I X that founded? So they really, that would cause all the law, is that they eventually precipitated the passion of the magazines. We stopped IT here. They stopped in europe. Bill gates and W.

H, O are still giving IT to one hundred and to sixty one million african children every year, is the most popular vaccine on earth, OK says, are likely, and saved thirty million lives. He went the dangerous and said, we've saved thirty million lives. Will you support this programme in twenty seventeen? The dangers said, show me the study that shows that saved all those lives.

He couldn't do IT. So they they went down. And the doctor, west africa, with the date, Operate all these health clinics. And they look at thirty years of data. And as I turned out, in a nation called any half, the kids that country at the age two months have received a vaccine. And half and not IT was a perfect natural experiment.

And they look at thirty years of data, and what they found was that the kids who receive the vaccine were not dying of deep tera tennis and produces, but girls who received the vaccine were dying at ten times the rate of unvaccinated girls. And they were not dying of anything ever, anybody ever associated with the vaccine. They were dying of tip of bill ara malaria anemia, cuts and rapes and mainly poem ary, respiratory disease and monia, and what the researchers concluded.

And this was a study funded by the dangers, government, and no one or this, which of vaccine company and the scientists were all proof vaccine. They said, is this vaccine is killing more people than the disease everywhere. Nobody knew that, because nobody associated the people who were dying, because they were dying, all these different things.

How would only the unvaccinated kids? So the vaccines and had saved them from dip area tender and protected by the ruin their immune system so they couldn't defend themselves against other disease. And that's the danger i'm not having pacific control trials prior to introducing the product, particularly when you Mandate a product for healthy people.

Let's, with our remaining time here, move on to energy, you and the environment. You've got an incredible track record. Remember growing up in new york, the amazing work you did for the watershed project, and i'll let you expand upon that in the moment.

But the only confounding thing I I found in your position, and i'm curious which change or not, is that you spend decades trying to close the indian point nuclear power plant in a time when clearly nuclear power is gotten safer and is clearly, I think the world believes in certain in everybody who's on this panel believes nuclear is a key point, uh, in the transition to renewable. So what is your actual position explained to us as basically as you can on nuclear power? And do you regret or have you read thought your position on indian point?

no. I mean, any important is a little leaking tradition and the not every every day. So I don't see how you can say and safe and you know if they still haven't figured out what to do with the ways.

And now and you know is is eighteen miles from the town and hat um if a you know a the the shack or they were still storing uh the few rods at the structure integrity of a cart terrorist tack is that would you know basically render new. And have a habit for next five thousand years or so, have to put to put something that risk is so close. And ten million people, dogs make any sense.

Now look good power. I'm all forward, if they can ever make IT say, if ever make an economically and it's not me saying it's not to save. It's an insurance industry they can't get insurance about, say if they can't get insurance about to say and I would say I don't want nuclear, american nuclear I mean, you go look at what fu a shame up.

They're poisoning the pacific c every day with huge amounts, are really deadly radiation. And they and out their only solution to IT is to suck the water out of the ground water and store in these big tanks. And if you just go on the internet and look at a picture of the foolish of water tanks and they go on to the rising and there is no end to IT.

Robert, can I just make a point? The thing with nuclear that's worth separating is it's not the fundamental technology there that's broken in either example that you use, but it's the profit motive that caused both the industrial engineering of both plans to be subpar because for cosham, a for example, was engineer not to the seismic levels .

that you really .

needed or elevation and even coning that here's what I would say is that you know, in our country, there's the nuclear is regarded as so dangerous and I can't get insurance. So the industry had to go to congress and as these left side and over in the middle of night and get the Price Anderson act pass. So so that to shift there are accident burned onto the american public.

Oh, if there plank is up, I, I and I was a miles on that plan and i'm going to have to pay forward. So I don't think that free market capitals, I believe in free markets. And I can tell you this, there is no public utility on the face of the earth will build one of those plants without massive public subsidy is not one nobody will ever do IT.

And then they have to store the waste for the next thirty thousand years, which is five times and the month of recorded human history. And if you tell me how that if they had to advertized that rate up front, there is no way, anyone, you do IT number, number two or three or four, whatever I i've got to IT caused now between I and sixteen billion dollars to build a nuclear power plant, just the construction cost. And then you've got ta get the technicians and then you've got ta get, you know, the way is possible, the regular outages and all of this, there's no way that I could compete in a frame market.

I believe in frame archipelago. M, I am a radical framework here. I believe that our energy system should reflect the marketplace.

And the yet right now, you can build a solar plant for a billion dollars a gig. You can build a wind plant for one point two billion dollars a gig. A cold plan will cause you about three and a half billion dollars a gig.

what? And then you have to pay for the fuel. I, cutting down the mounts of west Virginia, poisoning twenty two thousand miles of the stream, burning, you know, of putting mercury that gets into every fresh water. Fish in amErica sterilizing the lakes of the appelation if they had to internalize that cause coal, which says that you know, it's or no, which he says is or IT turns out is the most expensive way of water. Em, i'm just trying to make the .

point that if you look at the level of cost of energy now, what you're saying is exactly why solar and wind are winning. It's just so much cleaner makes so much more sense.

There's not a fuel cost. And if the impediment is distribution is that we don't have a grade system that can effectively working of variable power and .

me provide a counter, maybe it's not about distribution, but it's about scaling production capacity. So you know, if you look over nearly any historical time scales into we've had industrial energy production on earth for every one percent increase in G D P per capital, you see a roughly one point two percent increase in energy consumption per capital. And so if you forecast out by the end of the century the G D P per capital estimate in the U.

S. And around the world, we need to increase global energy production by roughly, you know, anywhere from five to ten ex. And you know, the current system of pulling carbon out of the ground and burning IT up and pulling his energy out of IT doesn't scale, doesn't make sense. Obviously, put aside the carbon effect problem and there appears to be, you know, reasonable chance of a pretty serious material shortage for renewable sources by the middle of next decade.

So what do you think is the right answer to long range energy security? And what sort of technology should we be embracing? And do you think that they scale fast enough to kind of allow us to have our economy grow the way that that needs to the support the the the population demands over the next century? I mean.

I I am a agnostic about the energies sort, and I think you need to know you have to be a lecture about IT and a lot of them are, you know, makes sense locally. But we I mean, we have enough energy, we have enough wind energy in north the code, north the code is the windy is place is on earth outside of the article on north, the code montana and text, we have enough wind energy to prety was five times the amount of our entire grid the problem is the north go to wind farm cannot get this product to market because IT display tes in a know we have to, and I take with dated grid system that simply will not efficiently move electrons across the country.

And we need A D, C, great system that I was all perhaps of the big cities and said that can do that in north of koa, if you have an active foreign is worth about three hundred box. If you couldn't winter, her band on IT is worth about thirty two hundred box. So every farmer in north, the code I wants to put winter binds in their corn fields.

And the problem is they cannot get that energy to market. That is the only job point. And if we and the same is true, you know, we have great solar power in this country. We we have you know, we have an abundance of of renewable energy in this country in the house, the promise, the incomes were, were, were. We're Operating on rules, on the rules that were written by the incubator to reward the dirty is filthy, his most poison his mouth xc fields from rather than cheap, clean Green hills, some people from heaven. And we are first that and make IT make them all compound seems like .

technology and economics, however s that in a way. Yeah.

one last question on this. So as president, would you support initiatives that could advance and allow approval of safe nuclear vision production systems to be built .

here in the U. S? Well, I I would like like I say, I support note and new technologies are no that are safe, you know where they but but as long as they can compete in marketplace, you show me.

And by the way, I language should be doing science. Even when there is no you, I can have an end. And so we should be looking at this time. I would not promote no if it's not competitive in the marketplace and it's and and that means no cleaning up your mess after yourself, which of lessening we were almost to learn and gender garden if they show us what they are going to do with the ways how they're going to internalize their cause rather than what they're doing now, which is the excEllent lize their cross and internalized their profits.

Okay, we have covered a lot of territory, and I hate to get to a controversial ones like culture wars, but it's gonna come up in the president on election. I personally don't think this is what's important in the presidential election. I think the fiscal stuff, the energy stuff, the the the wars and political stuff we have discuss today are much more important. But i'm curious to take on the issues around disney to scientist trans uh in this code of issues which have become an obsession IT seems between certain members or certain political parties or both parties, the media and certainly it's taken over a lot of discussions among the the generation on social media what should take on all this and when you get caught up in these debates and the presidential debates about trans athletes, as for one example, do you think a trans woman who was a biological mail should be able to be put in a female prison? Do you think they should be able to play on a female basketball team and change with a bunch e of fifteen year girls in a high school locker?

I've already, at first one, when I say this, I think that people, I believe in bottle auto 的 and like people's choices about what they want to do with their body， should be respected and people should not be shamed. I do not believe at at somebody who was born, a biological man should be able to compete late, run in life, whatever age choices are made on a woman's demand. I mean, I have A A niece who is a playing soft all at A B, C.

SHE has worked. Uh, he has devoted her entire life getting that scholarship. And IT is consumed. And i've watched, you know, during my lifetime, women sports from essentially nonexistent to to equable, mainly with men sports. And I think that's important and I don't think that you know women should lose ground um in in anyway. So I would you know I said and I don't believe that that's the right thing, but I think everybody should be respected.

Let me ask a question then about parents who are struggling with this issue. At what age should a doctor be allowed to perform general assignment surgery on an individual you believe adults? So at what age should you be able to have gender surgery? Because this is gonna come up multiple times in this debate.

I think I also thought I have that choice. Uh I don't think a child should have that choice uh um except with you know certainly not with our parent and permission and I really do you know of uh I can out that the um the you know is and let's start by saintship this is a difficult issue and it's nation that we should not be judging people on and we should not be having people about wish.

But we trying to solve people problems and give people's much live way as possible to and we as much respect, as much only way to exercise their choices and much respect those choices as we. but. With in that framework, I don't believe that is that a child without their parent of permission should be allowed to choose that kind of surgery because what if their .

parents agree to should a fifteen year old be able to be?

That's a very difficult question and I I don't feel like i'm equipped answer and i'm not gonna. And yes.

I think this panel of grey, this is a very difficult issue. And you know people should be .

what do you think about things like critical race theory? And maybe we can just use that as a way to just talk about the state of U. S. Education in general.

Are we preparing our children for the task at hand? And what is the task at hand maybe in your eyes? And how does IT need to change if IT all?

Now I know, I think critical race there, as much as I understand that, is, you know, listen, we should not hiding from people. We should be honest people about the history in this country of genoa of racism, and know we need to be honest about that with each other, not to shame people, not to make people people feel battle, not didn't make people feel guilty, but to understand that the milestones that we never wanted to go there again and to move forward with those things.

I, you know, international, I I don't really understand the battle over a critical raised in in schools but enter to the extent if somebody would say that this has to that that theme has to dominate all historical um teaching, I would be against that I think is very, very important. You know america, our country has has a wonderful things in the world. We have a history of ideas, and we have a history of authority and leadership, and we have a history of doing bad things to, but I think for children, for the sake of, not an national unity, for the the sake of, you know, we need to instilled, is a sense of how optimism and hope and love, and also a love of history.

I M, I grew up learning history and learning, you know, kind of the heroic as x of history, which I now understand, or not the only parts of history, right? But it's really important for children to have have role models to up to and have an optimized view of our country and have to understand what the shared values are in by values. I'm an aspirational values. You know, the things that our country is supposed to stand for. 2， when we are at.

for example, in the in 3 franco， we cancel the advanced placement classes because I made people feel bad. Do you think that was a good decision if in the name of equity?

Now we should be inspiring our children towards excEllence, and we should be able to, as IT, also give them measures of what we mean by excEllence. And you know that inspires kids and inspired is the best out of them. And we we need to have those kind of metric. So that doesn't make any sense to me.

And then what's your view on, for example, just educational diversity and charter schools and your just position on the teachers unions?

I mean, my view is that we ought to be put in huge race horses in public schools and making them the best schools in the world. And I think if we you know, right now we're making the stealth bombers for a billion dollars that cannot fly in the rain. And I think if we just cut production of a couple of those, we can make all our schools the of the world .

that do they need competition. Do you believe in vouchers and parents getting to choose which school they go? Because IT does seem like there is not a lot of competition and that these teachers unions have a shrink le hold on the schools.

I have to look at that issue. Or I mean, my inclination is that we should be putting resources into making our public schools and bad schools and world.

But you said you believed in free. More gets when with regard to energy, why not .

free markets in regard to .

education? H IT in appeal that during the dec, that a lot of people grew suspicious of the mainstream media, even more suspicious than they ready had been. That seemed like the media was Carrying water on certain issues.

IT was almost impossible for the media to take seriously the idea that the virus might have come from the wuhan lab, for example. People who put forward that, I think reasonable explanation were call conspiracy theorists. The media didn't want to look into why for exam.

This is an example. Fauci, I lifted obama's morritt a on gaining unction research. Couldn't get the media to really cover whether, you know, masking todgers in schools do anything positive.

And then when we found out that the mra shots didn't prevent covered the way they said, they never even really asked the ceos of pfizer and these other companies, when did you know this? When did you know that the vaccines didn't do what you said they're going to do? And I remember a davos, you had a rebel news that was this carrillo media out outfit that IT costs berlin, the the CEO fires around in the street and they were disaster him questions that the media supposed to ask like, you know, when did you know, what did you know I, when did you know, IT with respect to whether the vaccines prevented the spread? And you couldn't get the new york times, you need the mystery males to cover this.

And all I felt to this grilling media outfit. So any event, that's a long wind up. But you know, Robert, what's your take on the media? Why can't we get what seems to be onest media coverage? How does this fit into your theory of regulatory capture? Who are they sort of Carrying waterford and why?

You know, I in twenty fifteen, I wrote a book on the area that was documentary that came that time culture is among was really good the arctic try on the the mercury uh based um uh uh uh preserve IT if that wasn't a lot of axy that time and it's been removed from most except food of ecco now. But I took that I had a very close relationship with the Roger ailes, who is the founder, fox.

And as I had this weird relationship, because when I was nineteen years old, I spent three months in at ten with him in east africa. And and we you know, he was like when he started facts, no, he became my darfur's me and we were every issue we always isn't, was a very fki eye and very clever. But he was also very loyal to his friends and he wouldn't make all the host of ox news put me on so I was the only entry was going on ended and below rally and new cavo.

It's not regularly like weekly and he made them do that but I went to him with this with this um this movie showed at him and he found a compelling and he had a relatives who he believed as vaccines injured a very, very close relative and he bought he believed what what is going on and what the documentary know the throws of the documentary was but he said, I cannot let you talk about this on fox is i'm sorry it's the first time ever saw w me this and he said, um if I let you if any of my host let you want to talk about this, I would have to fire them and he said um and if I didn't farm, I get a call from Robert within ten minutes and he said to me at that time that seventy percent of the revenues for his not on network prime time where pharmacy of last and that um that he said of twenty two ads spaces that we sell on the network news on the evening news. Seventeen of those are pharmacy al we can not afford to um to offend our biggest um our our biggest uh funder because advertisers and you know I had this interesting experience with jake tapper well, when I worked on my rolling his own article, deadly community, which was about this secret meeting that took place in something which orge by C, D, C. And all of the action company is an F, D, A, where they decided to hide the autism effect from the american people and we I got the transcript for our publishing and roles on and and jack harper worked for twenty one days with me on a on a dock, on a exclusive story, and he was going to add sign tane ously was were all interest on publishing hit and tapped.

The night before he went on, he called me in total distress and he said, it's been pulled by corporate. A whole thing is gone on this. And never in my career as corporate killed one of my story, and i'm really angry.

And then I call him back in X, A is never spoken to me again. But you know, there are consequences for these news casts who depart from the worth of oxy. And they know if you know, if you look at Andrews and Cooper, he's got a now probably a thirteen million of years salary. But if you actually do the math, probably around ten million of that comes from Fisher, which poses a show. So you know that he's working for them, he's not working for us and you know they know who they're working for.

explosive stuff uh, and I can't disagree with you as having been a publisher. My whole car here there.

why, why, why even have pharmacie ads on T, V? I mean, only doctors compressed scribe them.

Yeah, he was illegal prior in nineteen and ninety seventh. So where there's only two nations in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising on T, V, one is new zealand and in the other, the united states. We both have these huge pharmacy ticket sales.

So we take three to four times the amount of fameux al drugs as the european and takes. And we have the worst health results were seventy nine in terms of, you know, health impacts, you know, health outcomes among all nations. And so you know and also pharma udal drugs and third biggest killer of americans after cancer on its act.

So IT is not helping when when F D. A changed that rule um the A M A was against IT. I like all the medical institution, said you can do this IT is going to destroy health in america.

And you know, they did IT. And the problem is that these are that the pharmacy al companies. Now no, not not only I have this platform for broadcasts in their product, but they also control content. On the question.

as far as I can tell, I think the left, just to be blunt, hates you more than the right. And so you wanted just comment on your ability to get the mainstream media to pay attention, particularly folks on the left, and give you the air time so that you can get your .

and how much the party matters in this process.

For I don't know that they are gonna. I mean, that was kind of drama tic. What happened this week to them not to make, as I used to with the A B saying and a one of the the a person who describes herself as the journalist, journalist and gave me a long talk when I got the A B C, that when I got to the Green room that he was not somebody who had ever sensor are kind and they're not.

We're going a Cherry bit because I said, I know i'm very uncomfortable doing IT taped interview with you. Does I know what you guys do when I type an interview? You cut IT up your Cherry pig and you die IT and you do and and you play things that a contact and SHE said, you won't do you see that from me? I'm a journalist, journalist.

I take orders from anybody I do and then, but SHE asked me, he says, you know, in the interview, I didn't want to talk about vaccine, are not going around the country. Talk him out. exit.

If you see my speeches, I I mention vaccines. I, but if somebody asked me about vaccine, i'm going to tell the truth. I'm not looking to talk about I I know a lot about him, but i'm not leaving with that because I am interested in lot of other issues.

Oh, SHE says everything you've said about vaccines, about vaccines not has been debunked and um in vaccines is clear, do not cause autism. What do you have to say by that? And then I said the like, who? And then I went into a long diatribe where I cited the cases, the dates and publications and the studies. So let's show that yeah obviously IT caused autism and SHE cut out that whole section and then and then so SHE had her question, which stated the industry talking point and then he broke the the the the news report on me with something at the beginning that says, you know, he's known to be a chronic liar and a disinformation spread er and then the end he said we had to remove things.

He said because they were false the whole thing was some weird that he has gotten criticism even from the left because you know I mean what what is the news? Can the casters supposed to do and they supposed to manipulate public information? Is their job protect americans from dangerous thoughts? Are the audiences? Do they have such contempt their audiences at the you think that the audiences can make up their own minds? And what is their whole vision about the traditional role of the american media as the guardians of free? You can be sure commitment .

to you is to not take out one sentence of anything said i'd like .

you to take. I .

mean, I also found that a crazy decision for them to make if you if they actually believe that what you're saying about vaccines, which they put on the table is incorrect, or what you said about autism or cov is incorrect, they should be trained enough to the body and have a thoughtful debate about you.

I'll be even more than my short take away about you rather that you are this odd person which is born and raised by the establishment, but raising a lot of very uncomfortable questions about the establishment. And I think that that's very complicated for people to deal with. And I don't think that folks will be very support of you in the mainstream.

And I think the reason is because it'll cause them to question all these systems that they put a lot of trust into, that they work with him. And so I am not even sure whether they're trying to play gotto journalism about vaccines or which is a much bigger thing, which is here is a guy that I do think it's very similar to trump that says he came out of the house and told us what was happening in the house and IT actually turned out that was happening. The dave shaped quote from saturday night live, I think you're a very different person than him, but that comment is very much the same.

I think people are attracted to the truth and the confirmatory evidence about when they think that there's Frankly, corruption and when it's layed bear in plain english. I think it's validating for those on the outside because we're like we knew IT. And then for focus on the inside, they're like we need to bury IT.

And I think that that's what you're gna be up against this entire election cycle. So whether it's us, whether it's rogan folks that you'll give you the chance for you to just lay your case out for millions of people who can smartly and intelligently make up their decision, I think that's what IT comes down to. So I really just want to say thank you for giving us so much time and just being as honest as you are and transparent as you are.

Sex closing. But here with yeah I that I mean.

I think I think that's a great reference to month to to the shipment quote. I think that the abc y news interview was really telling because I think it's one thing if they had edited the interview for time and just cut certain things, but they didn't do that, they cut out your side of the conversation and then declared you guilty of misinformation, but not laying the audience here. What IT is that you said they simply declared you guilty of IT.

And I think in that case, I think this is an example of how dissenting views are labelled as misinformation as really a suppression tactic. You know, they can prove that I was making they didn't give you the chance to to say your side of IT. And I think this is a tactic now of the elite to declare certain inconvenient truth or viewpoints at bounds.

They don't want them being considered. And I think what's very interesting about your campaign is you are going to force, I think, elites, various kinds, foregone policy elites, Anderson Cooper, political elites, media elites, consider you that know whether you agree with them or not. I think you've made them in a very articulate way.

And I know enough about certain of view reviews, like with respect to the origin ukraine war to say, yeah, I agree with that. I believe that's true. So I don't think they can dismiss you.

Today's spiracle there is sax, as we've talked about our tomorrow's policies. Today's conspiracy there is our tomato math. I really .

think that this is what's going to be scary as if you're as its election kind of rules forward. The contrast and compare on the democratic side is gonna be very troublesome to the establishment. And I just think curd judicious just keep sticking to IT and telling .

people what you think freeburg .

any final thought as we rap I that and I I wanted because it's such a great platform. What I ve always said to people, you know, if I if i'm promoting misinformation, which i'm constantly accused, show me what IT is identify, don't just say an informed information problem to show me the piece that you don't agree with, or is that I made a false statement. I would say that I have not promoted any misinformation.

If if, unless misinformation is just a youth musical for anything that, apart from government orthodoxies, every post, I have probably the most robust fact checking Operation in north america, because I know these attack come. So we have three hundred, over three hundred and twenty, and be actually scientists on my advise, abort, who see everything that goes out. And everything that I posted on instagram was cited or source work to a government database or p reviews publication.

I don't wait anything. And by the way, that doesn't mean I won't make a mistake at some point. But guess what, if I made a mistake, people would point them out. And you know what I would do? I change IT .

and a power opinion .

in the face of new. Please show me fact that the only thing that will change my opinion show me facts and I will change. This is so fast, but, you know, you need to make facts.

So just on on the competition between you invited for this nomination, I want to say that the Kennedy families has been involved in public life for for decades, and many Kennedy has served in public life. And I honestly don't remember one time with any Kennedy has served in public life where they've been accused of receiving money from a foreign government, not once.

And we're now up to twelve bidens, I think, who have received a payment from foreign governments potentially in this larger hundred by in scale. Do you have a point of you on that? I mean, the fact that IT appears that under biden and other members, the band family receive payments from foreign governments is that how do you interpret that? Is that something that you think is fair game .

in this campaign to talk about? Know, I don't know. How about IT render judgment on IT? I don't know the infancies of those those relationships. I think the optics are are unfortunate but um you know I would leave I think IT is fair game for people who are looking into IT to to criticize some question that I don't position be at that all right.

H on that I would just like to say I grew up in a catholic household, irish catholic in bricklin. On the wall in my grandmother and grandfathers dining room were three people by Kennedy, rob Kennedy and jesus Christ. It's been an hour to have you on the program, and thank you for giving us two hours a viBrant debate.

We wish you well and we like to have you on again. And perhaps if this platform allows for debates and they will not host you on the debate, we will here on the online podcast, i'll let you go. And the on behalf of all the best ties, thank you for giving us two hours and deeply engaging on these topics.

I think, thank you. I really enjoy IT.

Alright, this, I think went spectacular. Well, let's go around the horn here and get immediate reactions. freedoms. G, I want to start with you, because I think you on the science issues may be held back a little bit and let him speak.

We are we didn't have much of a dialogue with him. I think we all kind of had a few opening statements, but let him kind of speak his mind. I don't know.

We'll see how the episode plays with listeners. IT was really him having a platform to speak his mind for the past, you know, two hours. And IT is interesting.

I mean, obviously he's a candidate that chAllenging the the current sitting president for his own party's nomination. So you know really kind of you know interesting moment to participate in. And you know but we did kind of give him the platform to kind of speak his mind. I think my observation is this guy, Robert, clearly has a very deeply rooted entire establishment energy. And that place through, in many of his points of view, entire establishment kind of. Energy, I think, manifests as both conspiracy theories where you as people have kind of classified some of his claims, which typically you know involved looking at coit correlation or circumstance but not necessarily having the causality uh or the tie to demonstrate or or have proof uh of of point or or evidence of point and I think that that's really where he tripped me up on a couple of points personally.

which ones would you say at the points that trip most?

Where would you like? Uh, I think the general statement that there are kind of you know embedded interests in government is a good general statement OK you start to try and tie together different kinds correlations or circumstances and say that evidence it's not really IT IT doesn't resonate true with me as someone who who likes to kind of see empirical truth kind of be demonstrated.

I think some of these points around we know that P, F, O is one, you know, one of these products, one of these chemistries. He talked about that in the environment, they're very damaging to the environment. They're very damaging the human health. And there are others that he makes clams around that don't have that same level evidence. But they all get kind of bucket together that all this stuff is bad, that all nuclear is bad. Because there you know a facility that was built in the nineteen, nineteen fifties and one thousand nine and sixties that had some degree of bad engineering, and what some might argue isn't necessarily a major hazards, radioactive league, but has above kind of standards of radiation league. And therefore, all nuclear is threatening those in the sorts of things that can trick me up .

with him that have a little bit as well. The nuclear issue .

thing that matters to me. This is all just bullshit, talking, rambling about social issues. And you like what the fuck we going to do with education and wars? None of IT fucking matters if we cannot solve the debt and budget crisis is problem in this country.

We are running into the ground. The united states is already disagreed. I know you do, and I don't think the U. S.

For thing that I told you .

guys on every is how much do you think about the prioritization of the fiscal, the federal budget? How do you think about the dead level and how do you think about the boundary conditions? And is clear that, that's not really a concrete part of his platform nor is IT by way for any other candidate that i've seen so far. That kind of where I said.

and it's very unpopular chaos.

Let's have your response. I think that your opium is an ion and you presented as this canonical fact. And that's what I have an issue, if I just think that's intellectually not accurate. So I respect the fact that you think that, that's the issue, but I think there's a lot of smart people that would say that's not the issue that you think IT is.

And there are other issues. Where did you find yourself? Tramp in this process, agreeing with him or disagreeing with him.

all political candidates at some point, have a fork in the road, which is that they're going to be a truth teller of their own truth, or they're going to be conforming to talking points to try to offend the least amount of people.

okay? And the .

first path is much risk here, but IT actually has much larger discontinuous outcomes. I E trump. The other path is a good antidote to the first path.

When the first path is what's in power and you saw biden take that path. So for me, I don't agree with some of the things that he said. In fact, there are things like nuclear, which I just think he's wrong about.

sure.

But what do I appreciate is that there is a version of his truth that is researched and reason from his own lived experience, as well as history and facts. And then he's also willing to say, I just don't know, known enough about IT. So let me rethink IT and then come back you I thought the comment about you know school choice was an example, right? And I I think that that's healthy.

So on baLance, I would rather have candidate in that first pocket, which are truth tellers that have the potential to cause disagreement versus the play gators who say nothing. And this is where I do agree with freeway. Whatever the issues are, that may be important. The point is placating doesn't work anymore, and you need some .

kind of confrontation .

on hard topics for there to be any progress now. And so I prefer those kinds of people that are able to draw a hard line.

agitators.

And and I personally, i've always been, and I have been very and establishment. The idea tearing down all these institutions of power gives me glee.

I find a glial sex. And me look at this, this incredible, we know, almost two hour conversation we had here. I think we did hold him and force them on certain issues more than you would Normally get an interview without being sensational.

We didn't lead with vaccine. We didn't lead with culture words. We talked about really important issues. Where did you find yourself in most agreement with him? And where did you find yourself in least agreement with?

Well, I I want to make sure we see the forest for the trees here, because I think you can disagree with this. For that tree, you can get lost down the rabbit hole of some these very technical scientific debates. But IT, here's the forest, is you've got this sign of wealth and privilege who comes from the most prominent, famous democratic family.

And he was set in his life to go become an environmental lawyer who go fight against big corporate environmental polluters. And somewhere along the way, he realized IT wasn't just big corporations. The problem IT was the agencies, the government agencies, that were especially regulating them.

And he realized that there was a revolving door going on between industry and these agencies. And so he ended up litigating not just against big companies, but against government agencies. I think that's a really interesting place for a candidate to come from.

And what you heard him say, or what I took away from IT, is that he has a very sophisticated critique of regulatory capture. And IT goes beyond just the environmental area, goes also a big farmer. And he goes to the military industrial complex when he's talking about all these unnecessary wars that the united city has gotten into.

And who can doubt that after we spent twenty years and eight trillion dollars bog down in forever wars, the middle ast, who can doubt that the military does a complex, has played a million role in our foreign policy. And we've got all these generals when they retired from the pentagon. They go right onto the boards of these defense contractors.

So there's enough right about his critique that I think you can't dismiss IT. You can't to say this guys are considering theorists or and not he saying too many things that I know that be true and there's a lot of other areas I don't know what the truth is, but he is making, i'd say, sensible arguments in his presenting data and he's asking you to chAllenge him on the data. So in any event, I think he's got this very interesting critique of regulatory capture.

What he's basically saying is that we have a ruling elite in this country that is managing the country for its own benefit and that is screwing the middle class. And that critique actually is very similar to a trump and scientists and people on the rider thing. The only difference is that I think people on the right are blaming ideology.

They're saying that the ruling elite is following this woy ology. What Kennedy is saying that is that the ruling class, this is following the money. But you know what think could both be right?

I think these critics are very compatible. So look, you might disagree with this or that part of IT, but I think that this overall critique, forest, forget about the trees. I think this forest could find purchase with the electorate because I think people just feel like there's something true about this.

What I will says, this is exactly how drunk got elected. And there was a great piece, I think, IT was in the atlantic when he was running the first time around that talked a lot about the psychology gy of his appeal, that he comes from wealth, he comes from the system. But he is the emptying system, system product that he came out of, this machine of wealth, this machine of industry, this machine of influence.

And he said, this entire system needs to be torn down. And it's, by the way, the psychology that they highlighted and and IT speaks to trump, not necessarily to robbert, but what they highlighted. What if you look historically at the rise of authoritarian regimes um coming out of democracies? It's typically the folks that are come from an influence, from a point of influence and from the point of privilege and power. And they then decided they wanted to tear down the system that produce them and you trust the that comes out of the machine versus the outsider who doesn't really know the machine and doesn't really have access. And that's partially why I think maybe he has a shot at being the anti biden alternative more so perhaps in this go around the look.

he's not a bully and he's he's not going to tell anything down listen and i've heard him on other interviews and what he said is we need a peaceful revolution. We need to reorder is his government agencies. So he's not saying, so maybe that's .

why he does win over trump, right? Maybe he becomes the less extreme. He's not the bully but he's like, I know how to this mental you know he said deal terms quite.

They're incredible. Free speech supporting the rule of law changeing the middle class. I mean, these are not things that are .

really controversial.

In the end is very more I think .

my my concern is just the framework for how you kind of rationalised and and make decisions if you're allowing kind of influence in your window and correlation, be kind of the driving force instead of having you know make sure you just at least gather and and sort the empirical evidence to make those decisions that doing .

he reach a different conclusion than you yeah he's .

just exactly because think that the other conclusion is just the orthodox conclusion, which is nothing to see here.

Yeah I D buy the i'm not an orthodox guy .

and i'm not like following folks have said you're pushing R, F, K because you think he's a weaker candidate against the republicans. Your response no.

I don't initially think be a week candidate for all the reasons were talking about. I think he be profitable to to bite in in a lot of people's views. So so look for me, this is not like partisan.

I just think he's really interesting. I think he is a breath of fresh air. I think there are many aspects of his critique of our system and the corruption of our ruling class that at home, I think regulatory capture is a huge issue. I think a lot of these agencies do need to be reorganized.

So IT is the invisible hand that we don't know how to quantify well in all these other discussions that we have. And he does put his finger on this really ugly, uncomfortable truth, which is there's a cloyster set of insiders for which there's a revolving door between power and money. And it's gonna very awkward for a small number of people to hear that message as he gets more attention, which is probably why the media industrial complex will not, you know, will do is best to prevent that message from .

getting out that the media is gonna block the sky at every angle.

Because you know why pocket can play a huge role. dislike. In two thousand and sixteen, social media broke through and play a huge role. I think in twenty twenty four, I think that podcast .

could .

break and be the way that unearth those, get their message. I could be get .

their message up because if after two hours of this, you don't want to learn more about him or you're not going to consider him more fully, I think it's impossible because he's so well spoken and he said he's got a moral compass. He's got a track record .

and he just what he isn't saying is he's not just throwing bombs and there may be things that you can debate with him about his interpretation of what he looks at. You know, that's very fair criticism, I think, but his critique is, well, reason. And so you have to unpack the nuances of IT to understand why he got to IT and also to try to prove him wrong. That is very powerful because it's not just him anda screaming about how things aren't working.

Now he and I, the moments I thought we're very important here, and especially for the listeners are, listen, who are making important decisions. I want to maybe change the political system. There were multiple times on the issue of trans surgery, and i'm going to be very new on here with the permission of the parents.

He said, I need to do more research on IT, on freeway, chAllenging him about spending, spending. He said, I need to, I need to give that some more about, but broadly speaking, you know, I think we can take money out of the military budget and billion dollar planes that don't fly the there were many moments where he, he conceded, I I need to give that some more thought. I need to be thought ful about that.

That's not something that you typically hear, but in a platform like this with you know the nuance that we've created on this plan from having discussions and the audience also being nuances and having depth, we know the fans of this podcast are in a lot of positions of power. I'm sure a hundred percent or very high percentage the people listen to podcast is actually vote and are very influential within their own circles. I think this kind of platform, we have a very deep discussion. And somebody can say, you know what I need to go deep on that and think about when I ask him about weapons in and then I said, hey, why wouldn't you give an answer that you would defend? I on, I don't give IT, so I don't want to .

check my car. You would I wonder that does a really good answer. The official policy unity, which means IT depends on the circus and bite in when his outside multiple times that he would defended and his own staff walked IT back because they said we're not changing strategic ambiguity. So yeah, I mean, the policy he said in that case actually is the I stays policy.

So let me ask you guys a question, if heat won the democratic nomination and he's up against thrown putty vote .

for are OK yeah of course are k and I think sex would have a hard time. He won't say who he's voted for previously.

I think that of both or x doesn't .

like to say he's just .

just who both candidates are.

You won't x one even tell us who we voted?

I would love for R, F, K, junior, beyond ballot, and have that choice for sure. And that is possible. I would, as possible, I would vote for him. IT depends to the other person who .

you have even tell us who you voted for, or if you voted in the last election.

Well, that's my right, and I don't have to tell you.

I just think it's intellectual dishonest. Since you talk about politics so much that I do, I think you should tell us who you want.

something you have. I talk about issues and how I decide to baLance those issues because every candidate is a complex mix of issues that's multiple .

in my decision project IT. I'm not the .

one injecting. So to follow .

up on the question I asked, I would love to see Donald trump come on the show and give him an opportunity to have a conversation and see if folks can have a different point of you coming out of that as well as joe biden and maybe some of the other candidates running further republicans. And I want to see if the the points of focus for us can you know, maybe a match up with one or more these candidates. So nicky.

hello, come on. right?

We think, yeah.

So nicky, hell is in. And then trump do IT and then buy them triple to IT. I think I would do IT because he somebody, I mean, he had, he had, he did something with a bar table.

right? Jason, do you do you want me to do the announcement on the the summer? Oh, please. Okay.

so but .

we are confirmed .

and signed on our venue. And so we are confirmed for all in summit twenty twenty three in last Angeles, september tenth through wealth secure.

The big baby .

lets go will put out me. And I think it's gonna be really exciting because we will have an opportunity to at this point in the year, we have a lot of time to put together a really high quality agenda for conversations we want to have with really amazing people. So I am excited about that. We have to started to put together some ideas on what we want to talk about, who we want to invite, to have those conversations.

put out some invites. So very good. B by the you, the this is your A I i'm handing everything off to you.

I'm helping with the parties basically, but you're driving congratulation. Your team is exceptional. I just want to let the audience now we're are doing IT together. I mean, i'm stepping back and letting you drive. I consider this like you.

I care very deeply about content and I want to know make sure that chance yeah thanks and have a chance to have a conversation you to have the folks we want to talk with so you would not think .

to be Better than you building on top of the first one. And then we just keep going from there, a triumph and sex. If they want to build on her from there, they'll be three.

This is what everybody wants to know as tickets. There's going to be three tickets. tears. They'll be a VIP one for seventy five hundred that get you into the dinners.

Oh or yeah, that's that's that's an important the V I P experience this year. We got some feedback on the last go around um that we needed to make sure there was a degree of the differentiation. So the V I P experience will include special VIP dinners, early access to the theater gift bags, special sections during the parties.

So hopefully IT elevate the experience a bit for folks that are able to pay the higher ticket fee, which actually support service. No bottom, your kind, but hopely as a way to to support the overall programme and keep the cost down for everyone else. And then it's a hundred general admission pass, which includes access to the parties and then we'll still have the scholarship guys.

A funny story. Yeah, when I joined the owner ship group, that about the barriers, I heard a rumor, which is that when we were competing, IT was us versus Allison to buy the warriors. And Alice son had an idea.

I don't know, this is true, that this is what I heard, that he had. He had an idea for a new cereal, and he, like, he wanted to make IT an ultraViolet dian. And so there's only five thousand seats, and I power like singapore airlines first class seats. So you go to the state of.

but would be like everybody would be like up close and you could touch and outside they also had a thousand guilty teens so you could just, yeah, I mean, it's hard enough .

a family to go see in a crazy expensive it's razer hundred ts of dollars for no place seat for .

the dictator. Trim off Polly hop, tia four, David sax, who set up this episode, and freeburg assault of science, uh, we hope you enjoy. This is the first of many to come. We will still be doing regular dockets. We might have to go to two episodes a week on week like this, who knows? But give me your feedback, share the show and i'll see you all at the all in summer.

your.

World, man.

We open sources .

to .

the .

fans .

and crazy and.

Should all get a room big.

Sexual tension to release.

we need get.