Samuel Gregg on The Next American Economy
01:08:14 Share

Welcome to

To another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your hosts, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. Another great program full of fantastic guests. Our first guest up today, Sam Gregg, Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research. Recently published his 17th book. Man, that is a lot of writing, Sam. That is a lot of writing. Which hit number one in the policy category on Amazon, The Next American Economy.

written and spoken extensively on questions of political economy, economic history, monetary theory and policy, and natural law theory, and wrote an article that Chuck and I both want to talk about a little bit about corporatism. What is it and what's going on?

Yeah. So, Sam, you wrote an article in National Review Capital Matters titled A Threat Worse Than Socialism. And basically explain to our audience what corporatism is. They probably it's like, you know, they know it when they see it, but they don't know what the definition is. And talk a little bit about that and how that is transferring over to the ESG controversies and basically leads us into your book, why your book is needed.

Well, thanks for having me on, gentlemen. It's great to be with you. So corporatism is a phrase that I think most people aren't necessarily familiar with, although, as you say, once they see it, they recognize it straight away. But a good way of thinking about it is the idea that big government gets together with big...

big businesses, and at least in the past, say big unions, or we would probably say big NGOs today. And they basically collude with each other to manage everything from the top down. So that means that businesses focus their attention upon

getting favors and privileges from the government, whether it's in the form of subsidies or tariffs or industrial policies of a different type. They basically, with unions, they play the game of giving unions whatever they want in return for which unions promise not to do terrible things to them. And so the idea is that you have this type of

cooperation, which is how corporatists would describe it, although I would call it collusion, in the interest of trying to provide stability and, frankly, protection to those who are insiders, business insiders, political insiders,

NGO insiders. Now, of course, who's missing from all this is anyone who doesn't fit into any of those categories. So if you're an entrepreneur and you've got a new idea that threatens the status quo in a given economic sector, corporatists will gang up pretty quickly against you. They'll do things like try and rig the regulatory arrangements in your industry so that it's much harder for you to compete, let alone enter into the industry. They'll demand subsidies from the government so that they can

sort of keep themselves floating along for a while, hoping that they can outlast whatever it is that you have introduced into the marketplace. Another group who are outsiders, of course, are consumers. Consumers are not part of this equation. Consumers just basically pay the bills and they don't get the benefits of market competition because that's the other thing about corporatism.

It doesn't like competition. It likes stability at all costs. Now, with competition, you get churn, you get upturns, you get things going up and down, but you get a lot of benefits from it as well. Corporatists don't like that. They don't like competition because they want stability because the status quo suits them.

Yeah. One of the things that we've been seeing recently is there's been a huge shift in big tech from this sort of very unregulated, defiant, wild west, if you will, of the economy to now you see all these big tech leaders actively, as you say, colluding with government. And a lot of that, that's the tradeoff, right, is they protect their bottom line and their position in the market in exchange for performing political favors for the politicians. Right.

Yes, that's exactly right. And it goes, we should say, it goes across the political spectrum, this sort of behavior. And we have seen, I think you're right, tech used to be a sort of pretty unregulated area where you had a lot of people coming along with new ideas, new ideas would take off very quickly. There was a lot of churn in the tech world as businesses went up and down, came into the marketplace, went out of the marketplace.

But when outfits like Google, Facebook, and Twitter started opening up offices,

lobbying officers in places like Washington, D.C., that was the sign, I think, that big tech was no longer so interested in market competition. Instead, they were anxious to get close to legislators, regulators, anyone who could basically, quote-unquote, protect their market share.

And that certainly happened. It certainly happened. And the sort of favors that are involved, it's not just things like donations to campaigns. As we've seen, it's using the power of big tech to put their thumbs on the scale when it comes to any number of things, whether it's things like

social media or even just letting information out so that people can act in full information of what they have in their heads when they make important decisions. So big tech is a classic example of an industry that once upon a time, as you say, was highly unregulated. It was very much the Wild West. And then it went into what I call corporatist world. And it's really, in many respects, it's a form of cronyism. So it's a situation where

legislators and businesses do each other favors. And the people who miss out are anyone who's not part of that relationship, new entrepreneurs, young businesses trying to start up, and of course consumers, because we are the ones who end up paying for the extra expenses that come from a lack of competition as well as a type of monopoly power that's exercised through business getting close to government. And you can see, and Chuck, you brought this up when we were talking earlier this morning,

And I'd like you to follow up on that with Sam Gregg if you can. The fact that this really is now being tied to ESG and all these other things that are against the interest of the investors of these companies, they're against the public interest, but they serve a very narrow special interest.

Well, you could tell the U.S. economy is corporate to a degree just by the fact of how many lobbyists – Sam referred to that earlier. In D.C., there's like almost – there's almost 13,000 lobbyists in D.C. I mean you don't have 13,000 lobbyists unless you have a government that just keeps putting its fingers in these various industries and businesses and rewards people who go along with what they want.

punishes those whose direction they don't like. Is that fair to say, Sam? Yes, I think that's exactly what we're talking about because if you look at a city like D.C., it

Its business is lobbying. And it's a very lucrative business, right? So something like nine out of the top 20 wealthiest counties in the United States are in D.C. or the environs in Virginia. Now, guess what? There's not a lot of economic activity happening there. It's all about lobbying, lobbying, lobbying, lobbying. And so.

this type of cronyism, I think, becomes very lucrative. And ESG is part of that, right? Because it's a way of basically getting close to government, to legislators, particularly in this case, those

those on the progressive side of politics, because they will basically grant favors or try and set up the regulatory environment so that ESG causes, which are all pretty much on the left when it comes to the content of what they actually mean, they'll do a lot to try and push those causes through. So we've seen the Security and Exchange Commission try and basically push

companies in the direction of embracing ESG. And some businesses are actually lobbying for this type of treatment as well, because they know it's very lucrative when basically regulation is more or less forcing a lot of investors towards ESG-type funds, whether the investors actually like it or not. So that's very, very disturbing. And we've seen the labor top

has actually issued regulations that are trying to do the same sort of thing. So ESG is really, in many respects, another way of developing a sort of corporatist political economy in a way that I don't think is very faithful to what America is supposed to be about. No, not at all. To our audience, just to sum up,

What ESGs are is simply it's measuring companies against the defined environmental, social and governance standards. So which means let's use the Biden administration as example. It basically this is a political project for them where they use corporate power and governance to push a progressive agenda. Is that a fair way to say that, Sam? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

Yeah, it absolutely is. That's exactly what's going on here, because the progressive agenda is what it is. And ESG is a way for the left to really bring business closer and closer to that. And, you know, the thing about it is it charges higher returns. ESG funds typically charge five times the fee to

of non-ESG funds. But guess what? They also don't perform very well.

that the returns that people get are actually much lower. But it's also a way, ESG is also a way of stigmatizing those businesses who say, okay, if you want to do ESG, that's fine, but we don't think they're particularly lucrative. We don't think they're particularly giving things like shareholder value or developing profit. Because it's very clear that those pushing ESG are in the business of claiming, if you're not in bed with the ESG movement,

then you're clearly not environmentally conscious. You're clearly having bad governance structures, and you really don't care about society. But here's the thing. Remember the FTX guy who's just gone down, Sam Bankman-Froy? His company, FTX, got some of the highest ESG ratings that you can possibly imagine, right? And that includes governance, and yet we now know that the governance was terrible. It was terrible at FTX.

So this is just how destructive some of these things are. ESG, which, as I said, I think is another way for corporatism to take hold in much of the business community. And Sam Gregg, Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research, recent author of the number one in the policy category on Amazon book, The Next American Economy.

He's going to be joining us again for this next segment here. Sam, how can folks here follow your work? Our listeners out there, how can they follow your work and keep up with you? Well, I would suggest that they go to the American Institute for Economic Research's website, AIER.org. You'll find lots of information about me there and the work that AIER does. And if you're interested in the book, The Next American Economy, Nation Startup,

Fantastic. Samuel Gregg, he's going to be coming back with us right here on our next segment in just a few moments. We're going to talk a little bit more about corporatism, ESG, and the nexus between politics and business right now.

And Chuck, I know when we come back, we want to discuss a little bit also how this the history of corporatism, because it's got an extensive history beyond just the United States. Breaking Battlegrounds coming back in just a moment. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. On the line with us right now, Samuel Gregg, distinguished fellow in political economy and senior research faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research and author of the book, The Next American Economy.

Samuel, you've written 17 books. What's what's the process? How do you come up with the ideas for 17 books? I think Sam and I have an idea for a book or two, and that's about it. But you're more you're more brilliant and informative. I have I have an idea for a cliff notes or two. So, Samuel, 17 books. How did you how did you decide to get into that? What's your passion about writing? How many more do you have in you?

Well, I hope I have many more, but if I was to basically describe the process, it's really a question of looking around and saying, okay, what's an issue that is clearly on a lot of people's minds?

Do I have some sort of knowledge, some sort of skill, some type of insight into that issue that others have not managed to come up with yet? And then you have to persuade others, like publishers, that the idea is sellable, that it's important, and it's worth them investing in it. So that's how the process goes. Writing the book is one thing, and then you have to get into the business of making sure that you...

Make sure that it achieves sufficient publicity and interest, because there's no point writing a book that no one will read. That's actually my brother's an author, and he will tell you that the publicity phase of the book and going around trying to get people aware of it is actually kind of harder work than writing it.

He's absolutely right. Writing the book is, in some respects, maybe, let's say, 40% of the work. 60% of the work is the marketing and speaking about the book, coming on shows like yours, doing podcasts, getting the book reviewed. And I'm happy to say that certainly in this case, the next American economy has gotten a

lot of attention and that's partly because I've got good people around me who taught me how to do these things how to market but also have a great team of people who do this and That's that's part of the job in terms of getting the material in front of people's eyes because if you're trying to shape people's minds about some important subjects like What's happening in the American economy now and some of the different paths it could take? Then you've got to do the work of getting it in front of people

Well, let's talk about the next American economy. So the one thing I liked about the book as I read through it is you're a realist. So there's a lot of us. I'm one who in the 90s thought, look, you give free markets to Cuba. You give free markets to China. They're going to become liberal democracies. And we failed at that. It just didn't work. And I like you bring that up. But.

There's no alternative to increasing people's standard of living to creating new products without free markets. Isn't that right? That's exactly right. And as you say, I'm a realist because I think that I remember in the 1990s as well, I remember being told, well, everyone's more or less heading towards free markets and liberal democracies. It was even called the end of history, right? Right. And

the book by Francis Fukuyama, and that was the spirit of the times, but that's clearly not the case. China has not become more like us. In fact, it's gone in the opposite direction. So those are real factors that we need to think about when it comes to economic policy in the United States. We need to be realists. We need to look around and see the world as it is rather than the way we want it to be. But at the same time, we also know

that prosperity, economic growth, and many other of the good things that come from those is best generated by free markets at home and free trade abroad.

So if you're going to advance those ideas, which is what I think we should be doing, rather than looking to the state to solve our economic problems, we have to do in a way that's cognizant of these types of realities. So if we're going to be expanding trade with the rest of the world, we need to think about it in terms of, OK, there's China. China is a big economic power. We can't really ignore it.

But that's also, and that doesn't necessarily mean that we stop trading with them, but we need to think very carefully about how we bring together genuine and real national security concerns into concert with trade policies so that we get the best out of the trade policy that we can, but without selling countries and regimes who don't like us, seeing

things that they could use to hurt us. So, for example, if you're going to trade with countries that have regimes that are either indifferent or maybe even hostile to the United States, then you don't sell them nuclear technology. You don't get into the business of allowing them to steal intellectual property from them.

And so that's one of the adjustments, I think, that we've had in the United States over the past five years. There's been this realization that, guess what? China is not becoming like us. China is, in fact, becoming a serious national security threat to the United States. It's also a market of 1.4 billion people. So that's something we need to think about. So we need to reset the trade relationship in a way that if we're going to trade with China, then we need to understand there are certain guardrails

that national security put in place. But at the same time, we have to make sure that national security appeals to national security don't become a means by which crony corporatist types

used to try and skew the market in their favor. Now, I do worry about that because I've seen a lot of companies now starting to appeal to national security for a privilege, for a tariff, for a subsidy, when in fact there is actually no national security concern involved at all. Yeah.

That's an unfortunate trend that appears to be accelerating. Samuel Gregg, Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy and Senior Research Faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research. Folks, you can go to their website and keep up with his work there, but also be sure to get on Amazon and get his book because it's an important read right now for everyone to understand what's going on in the nexus between politics and economics and especially its transformation in big tech.

Samuel Gregg, thank you so much for joining us today. Chuck and Sam, thanks for having me on. It's been great talking with you. Fantastic. Well, Chuck, with what we're talking about with the economy right now, folks, you need a good, safe place to put your money.

And, I mean, the stock market's going crazy. Joe Biden obviously doesn't know what he's doing. This thing's a mess. What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market, a portfolio where you'll know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises, where you can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose, no loss of principal at any time. If you need your money back, your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly, and there are no fees.

This is a secure, collateralized portfolio that delivers a high fixed interest rate and

And what if by investing you could do well for others by doing good? Talk to our friends at YRefi. They're local. You can meet with them. They're trustworthy and honest. Chuck, I know you are an investor here. YRefi is a due diligence approved firm and you can earn up to a 10.25% rate of return. That's right, 10.25%. Just log on to invest.com.

That's invest, the letter Y, then refy.com. Or call them at 888-Y-REFY-24. That's invest, Y-REFY.com. Or call 888-Y-REFY-24. And make sure you tell our friends over there that Chuck and Sam sent you.

Chuck, we have about 30 seconds before we go to break. We're going to be coming back here with another guest that you and I know very well. Brian Sycheck, longtime political operative, works in the same sort of field that we do, friendly rivals. We're looking forward to having him on the program here. But I do want to get when we have we have a little more time in the podcast and folks definitely stay tuned and make sure you download that podcast segment.

Because you brought up something as we were talking this morning about the history of corporatism in Italy during the Mussolini era. It was a part of the Nazi era in Germany as well. Folks, Breaking Battlegrounds coming right back.

You deserve a home that's beautiful and stylish. At Overstock, you don't have to choose between low prices and quality. Find new on-trend home goods that reflect your taste and don't compromise on value. You can be proud of your home and design a space where you feel like you, all under budget. Plus, you get free shipping on everything in the continental United States. Overstock is where quality furniture and decor cost less. Welcome back.

To Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Chuck, I've got to say, I like our new opening intro music more than the original version. It took Jeremy and I three minutes. So, you know, all credit goes to us. Jeremy in the booth here for us, folks. If you don't know, this man is a magician. He's a genius. And everything we do wouldn't be possible without him. So we want to thank him again. Joining us in studio right now, Brian Sychik, owner of RPG.

RDP. I'm all over myself this morning. This is a mess. RDP Strategies. He's a national political strategist with a background in campaign management strategy, paid media, earned media, social media. Boy, Brian, that's a lot of media. A lot of media. It is a lot of media. Yeah.

It seems like that's all we do these days, right? You know, Sam, you did say friendly rivals. I don't think we've been on the opposite side of anything that I can recall. Weren't you in the governor's race this year in the primary? I thought you had some work with one of the other candidates there. I had previous work, not this cycle, so I was a bystander. Oh, so we've never gone head-to-head. No, no. I know that would not go well for me, I'm sure. Well, no, no. Look, folks, I mean, if you want good entertainment, Jew on Jew violence. Ha ha!

People pay top dollars for that. There's a long history of that, right? We can make some money on this, I think. Good stuff. Well, welcome to the program. Thank you for being here. Happy to be here. Thank you. Chuck, I know we've both known Brian for a long time, and we value his opinion. So, Brian, I've got to start out with the big news of the day.

I mean, I woke up this morning with text messages about Sinema becoming an independent from the East Coast. You know, I had lunch with Chuck earlier in the week and heard rumors that she might not run for re-election, but this becoming an independent thing was admittedly a big shock. I mean, it completely changes the calculus for 2024. We all know that Arizona was always going to be a top-tier presidential state. You know, the swing is to the swing states, and the Senate race—

The Senate race felt like the Republicans would sort of have to participate. They spent so much money here in recent years. But truth is, if Sinema was the Democrat nominee, it was going to be an uphill climb. No matter who the nominee was now, up is down, down is up. The whole thing's in play.

She has to gather a huge number of signatures now if she wants to get on the ballot. Yeah, but it's- Independents here have to gather, like, I think it's 43,000 signatures. 44,000, 45,000 signatures. So you figure you got to get twice as many. So you're really looking at 80,000 to 90,000 signatures. But she's got plenty of money. She can raise plenty of money. And she can get D's, R's, or independents.

So ninety thousand is a lot. But when you've got a lot of money, it's not that much of a barrier. It's is there a is there that narrow path if if Gallego gets in on the left and he gets Democrat base voters? And you're talking about Ruben for folks who are listening in other states. We're talking here about Arizona U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who announced today that she is leaving the Democrat Party, becoming an independent. There's been a lot of talk here about a run against her from the left because of her opposition to some of the

the Biden agenda to overturning the filibuster and Ruben Gallego far right, far, far left. That's being kind. I, yeah, we're, we're, this is a Christian family station. We air on here. I, you know, I gotta be a little cautious about the real feeling. I mean, I'll tell you what cinema, cinema opportunity. If she runs as an independent is if she goes and shows a

a very solid backbone and does something on the border if she does that i think she wins if she has seen his leader say you're not getting any vote unless i get this it makes it hard because she could go probably get a third of the republicans based on the candidate we have

I think that's absolutely right, Chuck. It depends on who we have up. If we have someone that has to go hard right to win the nomination and alienates those sort of moderate Republican voters that frankly abandoned Trump in 16 and some of our candidates this time here in Arizona, then she can definitely come up the middle.

It's a thin line. I mean, it is a thin line. She's going to have plenty of money. She's a voracious fundraiser, incredibly likable, does the work. But man, it got a lot more interesting here, that's for sure. I wouldn't bet against her.

She's tough to bet against. I mean, she really is. First Democrat elected Senate here in a long, long time. Incredibly savvy. I think her numbers, her polling numbers from what I saw earlier in the year were actually better among Republicans and some Democrats. She is savvy, and I think you're right. She's tough to bet against, but it's tough. You've got a strong R and a strong D. It's still tough to play in the middle here. I've got to say, I sent her 50 bucks, Chuck, after she held up against the filibuster. It's the only money I've sent to Democrats in at least a decade. Yeah.

Well, I'm going to note that you run again in a Republican primary that you give to Democrats. I'll take note of that. See, I'm running in a nonpartisan race against a pretend moderate. So I'm just I'm just getting the points I can. We've got one minute left in this segment, Brian. When we come back, I want to discuss. So we have Trump running again. The likelihood of DeSantis running.

But if you take those two out of the equation, who are some other Republicans who are governor or senator that you see could possibly catch fire? Happy to discuss that. Love that. Yeah, I think that's a I think that's a great topic because 20 folks, 2024, I'm sorry to say, is going to be heating up really soon.

Breaking Battlegrounds will be coming back here momentarily with more from Brian Sychick. And make sure if you are not, download, subscribe to the podcast. Make sure you don't miss anything. We always have a little extra podcast segment for you. Great discussions on there. Breaking Battlegrounds back in just a moment.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market of portfolio? Well, you'll earn where you'll know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises. You can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle if you need your money back. Your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly, and there are no fees. So,

And this is a secure, collateralized portfolio that delivers a high fixed interest rate. Talk to our friends at Y Refi. They're local. You can meet with them. They're trustworthy and honest. Y Refi is a due diligence approved firm, and you can earn up to a 10.25% rate of return. That's right, 10.25%.

That's pretty darn good in this market, folks. Just log into investyrefi.com. That's invest, the letter Y, then refi.com. Or call them at 888-Y-REFI-24. That's investyrefi.com or call 888-Y-REFI-24. Make sure you tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Help us keep the lights on on this little program of ours.

Well, Brian, thank you for sticking with us here. We were talking Kirsten Sinema when she went out, talking about wouldn't bet against her.

It might not be that Senate seat. She could run for almost anything here and she'd have a shot. Lots of money in the bank. Lots of money in the bank does provide a lot of options. You know how much she has offhand? I haven't checked her report lately, but I mean, she's a voracious fundraiser in cycle or out of cycle. She puts dollars in the bank. Business people love her. She does the work. So she really, you're right. She has a lot of options. She could run for governor down the road in four years if...

If Hobbs is a failure, which I think we all sort of expect, there's just a lot of opportunity for her. Katie Hobbs is a lightweight. Kirsten Sinema is a super heavyweight in politics. I mean, she is a monster.

Agreed. So I think sky's the limit for Sinema. I mean, somebody could some somebody could prominent could run as an independent and she could be on their ticket as a VP. You just you never know. She's she's savvy. She has the former Democrat, but votes well with Republicans. Mitch McConnell seems to like her. I mean, that provides a lot of interesting opportunity for sure.

Well, I think I think her future, if she chooses to continue in politics, isn't I think it's bright. I don't think this slows her down one bit. It's hard to it's hard to think she doesn't stay in politics. I mean, some people just sort of have the bug. It's hard to see her getting out. But you never know. Chuck, I don't you know what you yeah, they do. They get the bug. They stay in it.

But politics is just different than it was 10 years ago, Brian. I mean, we've all been at this a long time. It's different. And when we all started, we're all old enough that when you first did politics, you would go into a campaign office and there was five to 10 to 15 elderly women who came every day.

They drank coffee. They sent out mailings. They did all of those type of things. And now, you know, I was actually talking to a campaign manager in another state for a big race the other day, and he just said they won't come in anymore. The people that are getting involved are rancorous. They're agitated, and they're just like,

I don't want to deal with this. But geez, Chuck, you're making me jealous, folks. If there's any old women out there who want to come into my campaign office every day and send out mailers. Jeez, that sounds good. Chuck, you did forget the cigarettes. At that time, there was coffee and lots of cigarettes, too. That's not allowed anymore. And we can still go and provide the coffee and, you know, they can go smoke outside.

Well, and here in Arizona, Chuck, did you know that like we have the highest rate of senior marijuana usage amongst? Oh, I believe that. I don't know. You can give them multiple types of cigarettes out there.

Let's talk about presidential. So, you know, the frontrunners in the party are obviously Trump and DeSantis. My guess, if it becomes a DeSantis-Trump race, DeSantis wins that more handedly than people think. That is my two cents on the matter. But let's take those. Let's take DeSantis out of the equation. Is there another Republican, Brian, you see nationwide that you think could possibly catch fire that could speak to...

MAGA type people who are just sort of done with Trump and they're getting

getting more and more of those all the time. And, you know, what we would all call the, well, I'll just call them the Reagan Bush Republicans that are now perceived to be rhinos. Well, there's certainly no shortage of people that want the job, but I really think an undervalued stock is Tim Scott, the senator from South Carolina, African-American, smart, sort of a modern day political Horatio Alger, if you will, self-made guy from a good early primary state, incredibly articulate, very,

fantastic conservative record, can raise money, has a profile, stands out in a crowd. I think he's someone who has a real opportunity. I would consider him a very undervalued stock right now. I think he's probably an asterisk in the poll. So it's really very cheap stock right now. But I think he has someone that can really garner a lot of attention. I think he'd be great for the party, great for the country. I think the only question about him is, you know, speaking of the MAGA voters, Chuck, I think

He can certainly get those Bush-Reagan voters. But is he angry enough? Can he tap into sort of that zeitgeist of the MAGA voter? I think he would need a VP who was very, a VP choice who was very fiery and would be the person you'd have going after them. I mean, somebody has to get those people excited and you have to generate that anger. And but beyond that, he has everything on the table, the experience, the look, the raise money, the whole thing. I think he's an undervalued stock.

You know, certainly Ted Cruz is going to give it a go. Marco Rubio is going to give it a go. You know, I'm going to stop. Chuck, you know, I love both those guys. I love what they've done. I don't want them to run for president this time. Why? Because they're just they're crowding the field. Neither of them is going to be the nominee.

And I mean, it's Kim Scott might well be the nominee. He could be. I do not see a path for Rubio or Cruz that they'll become the nominee. I'm I'm with you on that. I just don't don't see. You don't see a path to be a nominee. Cruz, Cruz or Rubio. Oh, God, no, no. Cruz has a likability issue. I mean, he's right. He's incredibly conservative and articulate and bright. And if you're if he's if he's he's happy to tell you he's the smartest guy in the room. And the crowd. Well, he also he also has some family issues now.

Yeah. I mean, that takes that takes a bit. You know, I mean, I you know, I think at the end of the day, he and his wife are good parents. And boy, I think their whole world has changed. Yeah. Yeah. And for Rubio, he's just he is too anathema to the MAGA crowd. It's everything feels just too calculated. It's like too perfect, too perfect.

Check the box. Check the box. Just something manufactured about it. There's a lawyer I deal with here in town all the time who always is dressed absolutely perfectly. And it's sort of a little intimidating and it's hard to like him because there's nothing ever out of place. I think that's Marco Rubio. I think that's fair. Well, think about that, though. Think about that statement, though. We're talking about somebody that has it together. Yeah.

who's an excellent communicator who dresses well that they just seem fake. I mean, that is how much politics has changed. We would not have said that 20 years ago, guys. No. Do we have any women? You know, we have Kristi Noem. I don't think Nikki Haley is the person. Nikki Haley's not. She was anti-Trump and then love Trump and then anti-Trump again. I'm not sure where she is this week. I don't think she, on paper, she has it, but not in reality. And Noem's from a small state and it's in the middle of nowhere, not a lot of coverage. Where's the fundraising base?

Brian, you've seen, we've all seen Christine home wear a pair of jeans. None of that matters. Fair enough. I'm not going to argue with that. DeSantis, Tim Scott ticket would be very difficult for Democrats. That would be a really tough ticket to beat. I agree. He, I mean, I think people are crazy not to take a serious look at Tim Scott. Uh, it sure feels like he's going to run. It feels like he's, he's gearing up. He's got some really sharp people on the team. Um,

And he's a he's a great communicator, you know, but he he's still very much an unknown commodity. I mean, everybody's tough to poke the tires at the national level being getting elected. You know, a point he was appointed to the Senate and then ran from a position of strength as an incumbent. So it's not as though he's really been through the ringer yet. So we have to see how he performs. But I think he looks great on paper and lots of upside there. No, no doubt at all.

Any any dark horses? Sorry, Chuck. Go ahead. No, I think, you know, Junkin maybe just because he could he could self start some money. Say I'm the responsible adult in the room. And I think being a responsible adult means a lot of people now because we don't seem to have any. I think after that, it starts getting very, you know, I think vice former vice president Pence has a hard time.

I think his path is not there. I agree.

I agree. I mean, that's a mag of people will never forgive him. Right or wrong. It doesn't matter. He's dead to them. It's a 50. He's a 15 percent max candidate. Maybe 20. He feels like Joe Lieberman in 2004 where he's got name ID. So he shows up in all the polls, you know, pretty high up. But as other people get known, Tim Scott and these other folks, I see him just falling by the wayside. You know, what's interesting, Chuck, I guess part of this just speaks to the nature of Washington. But but maybe you can talk about this.

we're in an era where candidates advance much more quickly than they used to. You don't have people putting in 20 years as a U.S. senator before anyone would even consider them for the presidential race. They're not finishing two terms as governor before they're running for president. There's an awful lot of folks in the House who are charismatic. I keep wondering if we're going to see someone from that body at some point step up and make a legitimate run.

I mean, when's the last time somebody was elected directly from the House of Representatives? I'm pretty nerdy, but not nerdy enough to know the answer to that question. Chuck might be nerdy. I'm even not nerdy enough for that. I'm not nerdy enough to know that. Let's let me ask. Kylie has a computer. Find out for us. Yeah.

Yeah, Kylie, find out. Brian, so what happened in 2022? Now, it's, you know, the press will say it's a disaster. It wasn't great. Republicans will moan and groan. They still have the House majority, but it wasn't a great cycle. It was basically status quo. What do you think happened?

Do we have a candidate problem? Do we have a people don't know how to run campaigns problem now? I mean, what do we got? I think it's the fact that we all do this for a living, so we say this and we know it. Campaigns are about the future, not the past.

And I don't think there was enough attention focused on the future. It's just that simple. What are you going to do for me as a voter in the future to make my life better? You know, I like to say that I'm a I'm a guy in my mid to late 40s. I got a little kid. I got a mortgage. I got maybe old people moving into my home in a couple of years because they could be sick. What are you going to do for me? And I don't feel like a lot of Republicans around the country offered a vision for that.

And I think that's sort of part of the problem. Too much time focused on the past, not enough on the future. And the Democrats, while less than electric, felt safe. And to your point, Chuck, status quo. So that was kind of the easy road to go down. You know, Chuck, I would add to that that it's really hard. I mean, obviously, folks know I was Carrie's Carrie Lake's policy director.

She had by far the most comprehensive – we put together a massively comprehensive policy platform that was I think very forward thinking and anyone who read it would look at it. But no one ever got to read it or hear about it because everything became talking about the past. And we're not given the benefit of the doubt. A Democrat can talk about the past then move on to the future. The papers, the media will cover that future, what they're saying. With our candidates, you have no room for error.

You cannot focus on the past at all. You have to stay laser focused on the future. I think you're right. And I really think that was sort of the difference. We saw that in Pennsylvania. I think we well, Georgia was its own sort of thing. But even in Nevada and that Senate race, I just think that that sort of hurt us around the country. And I think we need to remember that we need to provide a vision and what we want this country to look like, not just the problems and the transgressions of the past. Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have just a little over two minutes left here. Brian, what do you expect Joe Biden to be doing? I mean, what is his focus in the next six to nine months? What does he try to do? Where does he try to take that party? Well, if you ask me that question before Election Day, I would say preparing for retirement. I thought we were going to Democrats are going to have a bad day. He was going to take it on the chin and announce he wasn't running. But now I think he's probably gearing up to run for president.

I mean, it sure feels like he's going to be looking for some compromises. Maybe it may be a compromise with the Republicans to get something passed, sort of like when Bush passed prescription drug reform and when Clinton passed welfare reform. If he gives the Republicans something and proves he can get things done...

That's that's something to run on. So I assume he's preparing to gear up for what can he sell to moderate suburban voters that have abandoned Republicans. That's going to keep that that that lets him win a percentage of those suburban voters around big cities in Milwaukee and Phoenix and Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, those types of places. I don't know what it is yet, but my guess is that's where he tries to go. I think that makes sense. Chuck, any final thoughts before we wrap up for today?

I have not. Brian, how do people reach you? You can reach me on my website, rdpstrategies.com and bps1015 on the IG. Fantastic. Well...

Brian, thank you so much for joining us. It is always a pleasure to chat with you. The pleasure is all mine and good luck in the campaign. I'm a voter and I'm with you. I appreciate it. Yeah, this is... And a contributor. He is. Folks, this guy has supported my campaign 100%. I can't tell you, Brian, how much I appreciate that. Folks, Breaking Battlegrounds will be back again on the air next week. But be sure again to tune in for that podcast segment. We're going to be talking a little bit about Victor Boot. Yeah, that was a...

That was a mess. Breaking Battlegrounds, coming back. Welcome to the podcast-only segment of Breaking Battlegrounds. Sticking around in studio with us today, Brian Sycheck. He is the owner of RDP Strategies, one of the smarter guys in politics.

I wish that was a higher bar, Brian. I mean, you're a smart guy. That's not a knock. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. So I'll take it. Yeah, it's sadly true. Sadly true. I really appreciated, Chuck, our first guest today, Samuel Gregg, Distinguished Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, talking about corporatism. Because this has actually kind of been one of my bet noirs for a while.

But you brought up earlier today when we were talking that there is a lengthy history of this outside the United States, and it is not a good history. No, it's something Mussolini pushed, something that Churchill – excuse me, not Churchill, Roosevelt openly admired. And it's just a way for progressives to push their agenda to a public that doesn't pay a lot of attention. So if a corporation is doing it, we still have a free market, right? Yeah.

Right. If it comes from a government mandate, then it's not a free market socialism. And they know Americans do not like that socialist terms. So they go and push it through this corporatism. And, you know, aspects of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal frankly reflected that. I don't want to get deep and get all Glenn Beck on people, but corporatism is simply the government via regulation pushing a progressive agenda. Well, you know, it's it.

It's simple as that. And it really is not in the interest of business. But if you're an individual corporation and you can use the government to protect your position at the top of the food chain, then you'll do this. This is just another business expense, right? I mean, I don't get any sense that this ESG movement is really an honest movement among Wall Street companies. I think it is absolutely just a political flack operation.

Well, you definitely saw that with the FTX founder, Sam, who basically in a private communication just said the whole thing's a joke. He's tried to backtrack a little bit about it personally, but that's just the fact. I mean, the whole point of corporatism is it doesn't cope well with dissent.

It seeks harmonization of views. And if you don't agree with that, you're going to be punished, tax regulated and fined. I love the point Chuck brought up on that segment about FTX was one of the highest rated ESG. The G is governance. It's supposed to be good governance to protect investors and people. They were like one of the highest rated companies in the world.

Yeah, it was a brilliant point. Our Samuel Gregg brought up and it just stood out. Yeah, it's unbelievable, folks, what's going on. And I think it's really actually, Chuck, I think it's important for folks to push back. Brian, do you disagree? I mean, I think we've got to make our voices heard on this and just say your job is to make money. Just go do that. I absolutely agree. I think that's sort of part of the process. But, you know,

The whole crypto thing, the whole scam they pulled, all the money they gave the Democrats, it really leaves a bad taste in people's mouth. Makes people feel like if they're just an average citizen working hard trying to make their way, there's no hope for them. And that's really disappointing and creates further distrust in the entire political process.

The IRS can go after you because you made $604 driving Uber this year. Or paying your babysitter. Right. You have to go to cash. Those who have babysitters now have crossed $600. I'm not saying that's us and our family, but you can't pay them back.

via Venmo or PayPal anymore. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. We're going to go after some 17, 18 year old kid for making $700 babysitting. What about the celebration? What are we going to do next? Lemonade stands? We're going to start monitoring, you know, monitoring how much kids make doing that. Well, shit, Brian, we've already regulated lemon stands out of existence. They show up there with the fricking health department now.

That's true. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. We grew up in a better world than the one we've created, and I'm sorry for that. Oh, you sound like an old guy. I am an old guy. You see all this gray hair? We've got to be careful with that. I'm always sensitive to back in my time. I try not to start sentences that way whenever possible. I've always wanted – if I ever have a YouTube channel of my own, I want it to be the grumpy old Republican. Yeah.

The animation of an elephant with a cane walking out and then bleeding. That's very good. I like that. So the grand Torino. Yeah.

Exactly. Exactly. Let's talk Brittany Griner. Sam and I were talking earlier. We wanted Brittany Griner home. I don't want to have dinner with Brittany Griner. I don't want to go bowling with her, but she's an American. We don't leave any American held hostage. That goes for Mr. Whalen. That goes for other people held hostage throughout the world right now. But

Boy, did we pay a price by who we did the change for? I mean, we're going to play at the end of the show a 60 minutes clip. Man, CBS is calling you just basically Satan yourself. It's a real problem. And and I don't I mean, I mean, look, I'm not in the room and there's a lot we're going to learn. So I want to give the Biden administration credit for that. And that may be the only deal they got.

I don't know if I would have taken that deal. You know, one of the things I heard someone say today that that they were actually quoting a tweet from a Russian agent who said we made Biden a deal he couldn't refuse. And I actually started to wonder, did they threaten to kill her? You know, have have have an accident. I mean, and that could be very true. I mean, she was sent to a horrible place that most people don't escape either physically or mentally.

And then that's not even saying that they did not, you know, they would have threatened her life. I agree with you, Sam. We just don't know all the details. But this swap for Victor, it's bad. And I'm telling you right now, we're going to look five, six years from now and there are going to be some innocent people killed because this guy's out running around. I'm with you, Chuck. I absolutely want her home. I don't think I don't want any American held against her will. I don't care what their politics are. I agree with you. But this was a bad deal.

And I absolutely agree. It sends a message to the North Koreans and to the Chinese and the Iranians that the Americans will make a bad deal. There's benefit in taking American citizens as political prisoners. And that is a terrible thing to put out there into the world because those countries will do that. So I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe they threaten to kill or maybe they threaten to do all sorts of things. But

It's still a bad deal. And at the end of the day, Biden got rolled by Putin. Bottom line here. I'm going to reference here another tweet that I know Chuck will appreciate. But folks, I am a huge I grew up in Boston. I'm a huge Boston Celtics fan. Boston all sports. I, you know, I root for the Suns and our Phoenix local teams right up until they play any of my my teams from Boston. And when you're when you're running for office. No, no. I'm honest about it. You know, folks, I'm not like being a Boston sports fan is a religion.

We worship at our sports stadiums there. It is what it is. So but if you are not following Utah Jazz Twitter, you are missing out tremendously because it is absolutely hilarious. And Chuck sent me a tweet from somebody on there that I thought was so great. Danny Ainge would have gotten Whelan too. That's great. Well, Danny Ainge would have gotten Whelan and he probably would have gotten Mark Fogle. Let's talk Mark Fogle for a minute.

So there's a history teacher named Mark Fogle. He's 60 years old. He's from Pittsburgh. And what his family has done over the years is they go teach at these English-speaking schools for diplomats' kids and expatriates, right? He's done this for years. And he has been teaching in Russia 10 years. He went back with medical marijuana due to various injuries. It wasn't much. And he's there. And Jane Fogle yesterday says,

It seems like the government is working really hard for Brittany Greiner and Paul Whalen. We want them to work for us, too. And then they went on to say Mark. Mark Pogel wrote a letter. He said it appears that teachers are at least as important as b-ballers. I mean, I mean, I haven't heard of Mark Pogel. I looked it up today. It's amazing what's happened to him. I mean, talk about a guy that just absolutely should not be in there.

And I have not heard a peep about this. This happened in 2021 during Biden's reign. I haven't heard one word about it. I'm with you. And the fact that the fact that they ignore this guy, the Washington Post is an excellent article about him this June. I it's our it's on our social media pages, folks. I recommend you read it. The fact that he's in there and there's not been a peep about him.

I don't even know what to say. I mean, it's disgusting. And so that's the one thing I really dislike about the Brittany Griner thing. Again, I wanted her home. Sam and I have said this since day one. She's an American citizen. I don't care if she kneels or what she does. We have we have a responsibility to every American citizen, period. Yeah, that American passport and citizenship needs to mean something. Right. But the fact that this gentleman, I have a hard time believing they could not have got this gentleman home.

I mean, OK, they're saying they're saying Paul Whelan's a spy. So they're treated differently. Right. Right. Let's just say that. Let's say that. Let's say that logic is the way it really is. You're telling me you can't get Mr. Mark Vogel home, a teacher who taught over there for 10 years and no one's accusing the man of being a spy.

This is insanity. Bad deal. It's insanity. And we're going to finish up here in just a minute, folks, with a clip from 60 Minutes talking about Victor Boot, who this guy is. We gave away the devil.

Yeah, absolutely. One hundred percent. By the way, go watch the Nicolas Cage movie based on his life. Lord of War. Lord of Wars. Yeah. And by the way, folks, if you're thinking about traveling to North Korea, Russia, Iran, guess what? Don't go. No. There's a simple way to avoid this. Don't go. Yes, correct. And I'd be very cautious right now about China.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this is certainly something they could try to do also. I mean, they're all about leverage. Yeah. Look, they have no bounds. Yeah. They're there. Their end goal is everything. There are no rules. Well put.

So, folks, we're going to end up with this clip. It's about 12 minutes. It is definitely worth a listen. Thank you for tuning in once again. Be sure to do us a favor. Send this to your friends. I have a lot of folks I talk to every week who really enjoy this program. But we're just a couple of average Joes who started doing this because we're best friends and we enjoy chatting about everything politics on the radio.

And it is blowing up. We're growing into new markets every day. We need to increase that reach. So send this podcast to one of your friends who you think might like it because I think we're doing something that's different and interesting in its own way than anything else you're going to find out there on the radio right now. For Chuck Warren, I'm Sam Stone. Brian Sychik, thank you for joining us today. As always, Jeremy in the booth.

Kylie, Jamie here. We couldn't do this program without any of you. Thank you all. Rick from Battlegrounds will be back next week. Tonight, CBS News correspondent Armin Katayan on assignment for 60 Minutes. Rarely does the U.S. government want anyone more than it wanted this man. His name is Victor Boot, and he's known as the Merchant of Death. U.S. government officials say Boot became the world's most notorious arms dealer by fueling civil wars around the world.

Courted by drug lords and dictators, the U.S. saw him as a threat because of his ability to arm terrorists targeting the United States. A former Russian military officer, But has been protected by powerful friends and long considered untouchable by law enforcement. But three years ago, the DEA devised a bold undercover operation to capture him. The story will continue in a moment.

Victor Boot, in my eyes, is one of the most dangerous men on the face of the earth. On the face of the earth? Without a doubt. Mike Braun, the former chief of operations for the U.S. Drug Enforcement, told us Boot first exploded on the scene in war-torn West Africa in the late 1980s.

Elevating bloody conflicts from machetes and single-shot rifles to... AK-47s, not by the thousands, but by the tens of thousands. So he weaponizes civil war in Africa. He transformed these young adolescent warriors into insidious, mindless, maniacally driven killing machines that operated with assembly line efficiencies.

Now 43, boot from the Soviet Republic of Tajikistan, is a mystery man who reportedly served in the Soviet Air Force and intelligence service.

The U.S. has indicted him on four terror-related charges, including conspiracy to kill Americans. What makes him a threat to the United States? He is a shadow facilitator. He's arming not only designated terrorist groups, insurgent groups, but he's also arming very powerful drug trafficking cartels around the globe.

Taking advantage of Russian military contacts at the highest levels in the collapse of the Soviet Union, federal prosecutors allege Bude essentially became a one-stop shop, offering an unlimited supply of stockpiled Cold War weapons to bad guys around the world, including Charles Taylor of Liberia, who's now on trial for war crimes.

According to the U.S. indictment, Boot had a unique selling point when it came to weapons trafficking. A fleet of cargo airplanes capable of transporting weapons and military equipment anytime, anywhere. More than 60 planes in all.

his own private air force. Those Russian aircraft were built like flying dump trucks. He could move this stuff and drop it with pinpoint accuracy to any desert, to any jungle, to any other remote place in the world right into the hands of what I refer to as the potpourri of global scum.

By the late 1990s, Boot was a legend in the shadowy world of illicit arms dealing. So elusive that the only two pictures that surfaced of him back then were taken without Boot's knowledge by a Belgian photographer. Later, Boot became the inspiration behind the Nicolas Cage character in the movie Lord of War. I was an equal opportunity merchant of death. I supplied every army but the Salvation Army.

U.S. Treasury documents reveal a boot empire so sophisticated, so complex, hidden behind a thick curtain of front companies, that even the U.S. government unwittingly contracted with two of his companies to deliver supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Juan Zarate, deputy national security advisor in the second Bush White House and a CBS News consultant, told us hiring Boot was a mistake. This was one of the grave complications for the United States. Victor Boot's tentacles reached so far and so deep that he had access to information

planes that could provide services for the U.S. government. Zirotti admitted the U.S. could do business with Boot, but it couldn't catch him. I had always thought of Victor Boot as untouchable. And I also, frankly, didn't think that anyone could get to him. A challenge Zirotti from the White House threw out at a meeting with Mike Braun and his DEA team.

The DEA had just pulled off a string of extraordinarily successful captures of high-value terrorism targets around the world, like Afghan drug lords. DEA agents live for the hunt. Mike, no one had even gotten a sniff on this guy. Let me tell you something, Armand. When I'm sitting there next to Juan and my guys are sitting across the table from him, the very best that our government's got to offer is,

And he tosses this out on the table, and I look him in the eyes, and they're looking back at me like, we'll do this. We can do this. But it was about a 5% chance in the back of my mind. And so, you know, I wished them well, and I went back to the White House. Mike Braun's thinking 95%, okay? Five and 95 make 100%.

He was going down. He was in our crosshairs. The DEA supervisor put in charge of the hunt for Victor Boot was Louis Milione. We felt that we could create a scenario that would pull him in. The plan was to pull Boot out of Moscow with a huge arms deal he couldn't refuse.

To do that, the DEA hired an undercover agent to contact a trusted associate of Boots named Andrew Smullyan. The DEA operative said he had a big business deal for Boots. I'm thinking in terms of fishing here. It's almost like you've thrown the line in the water. There's a little bit of bait. This is a business proposition, and you're waiting to see if anything comes back with a nibble. We're really waiting to see exactly what Smullyan says and what...

you know what he says about boot and that is it comes back spoke to Boris anything possible with farming equipment that's correct Boris was code for boot farming equipment for weapons that exchange led to the island of Curacao few hundred miles off the coast of Colombia it was here that boots bunny Andrew Smullyan would first meet the two DEA undercover operatives posing as officials in the Colombian rebel terrorist group known as the FARC

The two fake rebels, Eduardo and El Comandante, would say they want to buy millions of dollars worth of weapons to fight the Colombian army and the U.S. military pilots protecting them. Smolian has to believe that Eduardo and El Comandante are real. Right. If Smolian doesn't believe it, we're done and we go home. The meeting is about to take place.

What's your temperature like? Your heart rate is up a little bit and your adrenaline is going a little bit. You have butterflies. Emotions that only escalated when at this hotel in Curacao, the fake rebels tell Smolian, Boot's buddy, they want to spend $12 million on everything from sniper rifles to surface-to-air missiles. He bites off on it. In fact, he eats the whole thing whole. So it was very successful.

So successful, Smolian immediately flew to Moscow to present the deal to Boris, the man the DEA believes is boot. Two weeks later in another meeting, this time in Copenhagen, Smolian told the DEA operatives that his Russian business partner really liked the deal. And then he revealed who that man in Moscow really is. You know who this man is that we're getting the weapons from. This is boot. B-O-U-T.

He's wanted by the world. They call him the merchant of death. B-O-U-T. Yeah, he spelled it out for them. We marveled that Smolian would do that, but it was just great evidence. The DEA was in the game, but Boot was still safe and secure in Russia and reluctant to leave.

The DEA undercovers insisted they couldn't go to Moscow, but had to meet Boot to seal the deal. And Boot's going to know that that's how these deals are going to work. Comandante is not going to release these millions of dollars for these weapons to anybody until he at least shakes hands, talks, looks Boot in the eye, and then we can move on. That's how we countered, and Boot went for it. Next stop, Romania, just three days later. The play was to entice Boot to Bucharest.

claiming that's where the money was stashed to pay for the weapons. Boot said he'd come, but then he had trouble getting a visa. The case stalled. After 10 days of waiting for Boot, the top DEA agent made a gutsy call to walk away. So you've been chasing this guy hard for two months. You're almost got him, and you got to make the decision to step away from the table. If we were real, we wouldn't stay there forever. We're going to now step away.

and say look we need to take care of some other things but it's time for us to leave over the next two weeks milioni came up with a new plan to real boot in the phony rebels told boot they would be in bangkok soon asked if he could get there boot agreed the morning boot arrived in bangkok the dea and thai police had gathered downtown waiting for word from cops at the airport that the merchant of death had landed they call us in the room and they tell us that he's here

What was the moment like there? It was just unbelievable because we knew at that point, you know, you're kind of like holding on as you climb up the mountain at different points in the investigation. This was one where at that point I believed and the other investigators believed not only are we in the game, he shows up at this meeting, we've got him. He's going to be arrested. Boot drove to this hotel and met the two fake arms buyers in a conference room on the 27th floor.

Here the DEA's undercover team told Boot they want his weapons to kill Americans. The Comandante and Eduardo make it very clear. He said, we're fighting against the United States. Boot responds and says, look, they're after me too. He said, but we are together in this. They are my enemy also. Eduardo and Comandante talk about how they want sniper sites for the rifles that they have so that they could, quote, start blowing the heads off American pilots. Boot's response immediately is no.

Yes. Then the DEA said Boot jotted down on these pages what he intended to deliver for $12 million, including between 7 and 800 surface-to-air missiles. 5,000 AK-47s, anti-personnel mines, fragmentation grenades, armor-piercing rockets, money-laundering services, and all within the context of speaking about a shared ideology of communism and fighting against the Americans.

After two hours, one of the DEA undercovers made a call, a signal it was time to move in. Within minutes, the Thai police and DEA agents burst into the room. We see Boot across the far end of like a boardroom-type table, standing up with his hands inside his briefcase. And they give him the command to put his hands up, and he hesitates. And they immediately fire.

focused in with their weapons and gave them the command again. Are you thinking we've come all this way to see Victor Boot shot by a Thai policeman? The thought did cross my mind that something really bad is going to happen to him right here, but then he complied. It turned out there was no weapon in the briefcase. The disarming of Victor Boot was now officially complete. The Thais cuff him. He's taken into custody. Smully is taken into custody. Does Boot say anything?

The game is over or something like that. The game is over. Right. But then a new game began. Boot became the center of a legal tug of war between the U.S. and Russia, which wanted him released back to Moscow. Boot said he only went to Thailand as a simple tourist, not an arms dealer. Boot and the Russians managed to delay his extradition to America for more than two and a half years.

But last Tuesday, after a sting that played out on three continents, the DEA finally got their man. They flew him to New York, where he pled not guilty to charges including conspiracy to kill Americans. When Boot rode under tight security in a convoy to jail in Manhattan, riding right along with him was Louie Milione. LOUIE MILIONE, This is the lord of war, the merchant of death.

Right. And you've got him in your hands. Right. He's in custody. It's a great feeling. It's an absolutely great feeling. The political field is all about reputation, so don't let someone squash yours online. Secure your name and political future with a yourname.vote web address from godaddy.com. Your political career depends on it.