0:07

I'm Dave Rubin and joining me today is an environmental

0:10

lawyer, author and candidate for

0:12

President of the United States, Robert F.

0:14

Kennedy Jr. Finally, welcome to The Rubin

0:16

Report. Dave, thanks for having me. Sorry

0:19

it took me so long. No,

0:21

I'm glad to have you. And with all

0:23

the media stuff

0:25

you've been going through over the last couple of weeks, you've given us

0:27

plenty to talk about. First off, though,

0:29

you usually do these interviews sitting

0:31

in your library. Am I getting the

0:34

special office interview or what's going

0:36

on here? I'm in a hotel room in New York City.

0:40

Hotel in New York. I'll take it. All

0:42

right. So let's dive into it. I thought before we get

0:45

into some of the specifics and

0:47

all the media stuff that's been happening and everything

0:49

else, I was once

0:51

a Democrat. When

0:54

we talk about you on my show, people often ask,

0:56

Dave, what makes RFK

0:59

a Democrat at this point? This isn't 1960, 1970, 1980.

1:03

So I guess that's my first question to you. What

1:06

sort of lines you up with the modern

1:08

Democrat Party at this point? Well,

1:10

I don't. My

1:16

loyalty and affiliation and

1:18

affinity for the Democratic Party is,

1:21

you know, for the party that I grew up with.

1:25

And I think, you know, what's

1:27

happening in the party today is unfortunate.

1:30

I do think the party, I do believe the party

1:32

is redeemable ultimately. And

1:37

I think our country is redeemable. And

1:40

I think we need both of those things to happen.

1:44

If you went through a checklist,

1:47

Dave, of all of the things that

1:50

my uncle John Kennedy, my

1:52

father Robert Kennedy believed in and

1:54

Edward Kennedy believed in, I

1:57

would kind of check probably every item

1:59

on the list.

1:59

this.

2:03

Whereas today, you know,

2:05

some of the issues that the Democratic Party

2:07

has embraced are things that I'm uncomfortable

2:10

with. And I think a lot of people around the country

2:12

are and a lot of the traditional

2:14

base

2:16

of the Democratic Party, which was working

2:18

people's unions, American

2:20

middle class, and

2:23

now more and more minorities,

2:27

blacks and Hispanics are moving away

2:29

from the Democratic Party because they feel like

2:32

they've been neglected and that the party is

2:34

not representing their

2:37

interests anymore or their values.

2:41

What do you think the best way to sort of separate

2:44

what I would consider the old school classical

2:46

liberals, guys like you and

2:48

your uncle and your father, from

2:51

what's going on with the more radical

2:53

progressive branch?

2:56

Well, you know, I just talk, I

2:58

try not to talk

3:03

about, you know, I try

3:05

not to badmouth anybody.

3:08

You know, I think there's been

3:10

enough of that in this country and people

3:12

are done with it. And

3:14

we need to find a path back

3:17

to civility and

3:20

to end this very, very toxic polarization.

3:23

So I try not to

3:26

condemn other people. And I just,

3:28

I talk about the things that I believe in, which

3:31

are the traditional values that Democratic

3:33

Party, I try to find,

3:35

and I've always

3:37

done this, try

3:39

to identify the values that

3:42

we have in common,

3:43

rather than focusing on the

3:46

issues that hold us apart. You know, I spent 35 years

3:48

as a, as kind of one of the leading

3:54

environmental champions in this country, but

3:56

I was speaking regularly,

3:58

probably doing 60 years.

3:59

big speeches a year to mainly Republican

4:02

groups and I was getting standing

4:05

ovations and most of them because

4:07

I didn't focus on the issues

4:10

like there's no

4:12

such thing as Republican children or Democratic

4:14

children we all want a clean environment and

4:18

yet it had become a very partisan issue

4:20

so I tried to talk about the environment

4:22

in a way that

4:25

you know that every American could embrace

4:27

and I think most of us 80%

4:30

of us agree on 99% of

4:35

the issues.

4:37

Yeah have you been shocked at the way the media

4:39

has been treating you because you've been out there

4:41

basically talking to everybody having open

4:43

conversations you're talking to people on the right you're

4:45

talking to

4:46

people on the left and the media has

4:48

gone after you in an absolutely crazy

4:51

way I want to read one headline to

4:53

you it's about your wife who I adore and we

4:55

were sort of in similar circles when I lived in LA

4:58

and I love curb but this headline that I'm sure

5:00

you saw from the New York Times Cheryl Hines

5:02

the curb your enthusiasm actress

5:05

is beloved in Hollywood now

5:07

she's supporting the presidential campaign

5:09

of her husband Robert F Kennedy jr.

5:12

is she normalizing his often

5:14

dangerous ideas I actually

5:16

retweeted it and I asked people to come up with

5:18

some of your dangerous ideas and nobody seems

5:20

to really know what they are but that doesn't stop

5:23

the New York Times yeah

5:26

all of my conspiracy theories as it turns

5:28

out have come true oh

5:31

yeah they're no longer theories they're

5:33

you know they're now proven

5:36

hypotheses but

5:37

you know what I do wonder about

5:40

it I you know I was thinking about this this

5:42

morning that I'm

5:44

because that this kind of this

5:47

hailstorm of negative publicity

5:49

about me really kind of not it goes

5:53

beyond like hit pieces to be just

5:55

this you know poisonous vitriol

6:00

And that it's coming from all the legacy media,

6:02

from the Atlantic Monthly, from New York Magazine,

6:05

New Yorker, from the Washington Post, and the

6:07

New York Times, from Vanity Fair, Daily

6:10

Beast, Daily Coast, Rolling

6:13

Stone,

6:15

and many, many others. And

6:17

they all kind of use the same talking points,

6:20

and they also are

6:22

not accurate. You know, none of them

6:25

has really written accurate. And

6:28

that's one of the reasons it doesn't trouble me, is

6:30

because it's just

6:32

inaccuracies, distortions,

6:35

mischaracterizations. But

6:38

one of the things that kind of occurred to me is

6:41

that there's something bigger at play than

6:44

just their kind of hatred of me.

6:47

I

6:49

feel like I'm kind of on the spirit tip

6:52

of a war between this

6:54

declining legacy

6:57

media and the

6:59

evolving and emerging new

7:01

media, the podcasters,

7:04

all of these alternative news sites.

7:07

And I'm in a litigation right now against

7:10

an organization called the TNI, the

7:13

Trusted News Initiative.

7:15

The Trusted News Initiative was

7:17

a conspiracy that

7:21

was initiated by BBC,

7:24

where they called together all of the legacy

7:26

news sites, including API, the

7:28

Associated Press, Reuters,

7:33

the UPI, the Washington Post,

7:35

and many, many others. And they

7:38

married them to the social media sites,

7:40

to Microsoft, to Google,

7:44

Facebook, Twitter. And

7:47

they all made an agreement with each

7:49

other that they would censor

7:51

certain kinds of information. For example,

7:53

any information about COVID

7:56

that departed from government orthodoxies.

7:59

It also...

7:59

information that challenged any

8:02

kind of political orthodoxies, like

8:04

any reports on Hunter Biden's laptop,

8:08

reports about the Ukraine war that were

8:11

inconsistent with the official US positions.

8:14

And this was an extraordinary thing. This has never happened

8:17

before. But

8:18

we have obtained during the litigation,

8:20

the internal communications.

8:23

And one of the things that the BBC,

8:26

the organizers said at the beginning,

8:29

is that, you know, this is about saving

8:32

ourselves, our economic

8:34

models, because we are, you know,

8:36

most people look at us and they say CNN and

8:40

BBC are competitors, but we aren't. The

8:42

real competition is coming from these thousands

8:45

of emerging alternative

8:47

media sites

8:48

that are eroding trust

8:51

in the legacy sites

8:54

and are taking away our

8:56

business model. And

8:59

we need to bond together. And so

9:01

the way it worked was that

9:03

they would all identify issues

9:05

and identify individuals who

9:08

were saying things that should be censored.

9:11

They would notify each other of those

9:14

posts or those articles and

9:17

of those individuals. They

9:19

would censor them

9:20

and then the social

9:22

media sites would not allow those,

9:24

the sites that printed them on. So

9:27

if you were, you know, Green

9:29

Med Info, which is, you

9:31

know, a site that provides

9:33

wellness information or Joe Mercola

9:36

or one of these sites, these

9:38

others are Breitbart or somebody who

9:40

was departing from government orthodoxies.

9:43

You would find yourself banned on social media.

9:45

And those sites absolutely

9:47

require social

9:49

media for their business models. So

9:52

if they, if you prevent them from going

9:54

viral, the way their business model works

9:57

is they put in articles, they print

9:59

articles.

9:59

or publish articles as

10:02

end-go-firal.

10:04

That's the only way that they grow, that

10:06

they earn, you know, that they can earn

10:08

advertising dollars. So if you cut

10:10

them off there, and this is what the memo from

10:12

BBC said,

10:14

we need to choke off those

10:16

sites. So they wanted to kill all those

10:18

sites.

10:20

And they did it by agreeing on a single

10:22

narrative, which was the official government narrative,

10:25

and then censoring or ridiculing,

10:28

you know, or throttling

10:31

or shadow banning. Anybody

10:34

who challenged those, or the toxic.

10:36

So you have the legacy

10:38

media, which traditionally

10:42

was functioning as guardians of

10:44

the First Amendment of free expression. They

10:47

were, you know, they were supposed

10:49

to courageously speak truth to power,

10:51

maintain this posture

10:54

of fear and skepticism towards big

10:56

aggregations of power, government, corporations,

10:59

and they now become the opposite. They become

11:01

propagandists with a

11:03

powerful and oppressors of, you

11:06

know, a free speech, and the

11:08

enemies of the First Amendment. And that,

11:11

you know, I

11:11

find myself, you know, I

11:13

now see

11:15

myself as a spirit of this

11:17

emerging media, which

11:20

is in an economic competition, but

11:22

also kind of an ideological, you know,

11:24

Armageddon.

11:26

With the old media sites, and

11:28

you know, so I'm being championed

11:30

by Russell Brand, and by Joe

11:32

Rogan, and by, you know, Lex

11:36

Freeman, and all of these, you know,

11:38

kind of alternative media

11:40

giants

11:41

in a battle. And

11:44

I think they see that as well. Russell

11:46

Brand said to me, something about

11:49

that the other day, that sent me thinking,

11:51

you know,

11:53

how they need to, those sites,

11:56

really need to understand where we all

11:59

are, and this where they are.

11:59

they are in this world of disruption, of

12:03

the old, of the old business

12:06

model.

12:07

Right, and it's really bizarre because

12:09

even now, when they've been so frequently

12:12

exposed for the censorship, your interview

12:14

with my friend Jordan Peterson from about

12:17

two weeks ago was taken down on YouTube

12:19

and then they put it up on Rumble and now you're

12:21

on Rumble and they're not censoring anybody. But

12:23

what do you think about, so what would you do?

12:26

So if you were president of the United States, what would

12:28

you do in terms of big tech? Is

12:30

it breaking them up? Is it regulating them? How

12:32

do you connect that to what you just described

12:34

with the legacy media that's offering, that's

12:37

usually pushing the pressure on big

12:39

tech to do these things? And then of course the connections

12:41

we now know with the CIA and FBI and everything

12:44

else.

12:45

Yeah, well more and more, we're beginning

12:47

to understand and the judicial

12:50

decision this week by Judge Doggy

12:54

in the Missouri and Louisiana,

12:58

Attorney General's cases, I think

13:01

really lays it out

13:04

that the social media sites

13:06

were kind of victims as well of

13:10

the censorship because they

13:13

were, and I was, I'm judged,

13:16

the decision's 155 pages and

13:18

it's a decision that forbids the

13:20

Biden White House from

13:23

having any contact with social media sites.

13:25

It's an extraordinary injunction. And

13:28

I think it's bulletproof. I think that's why he

13:31

did this 155 page decision because

13:34

he wanted to lay out the evidence. And

13:37

he talks about the history about how the Biden

13:39

administration initiated

13:41

this censorship

13:45

push, Blitzkrieg. And

13:50

I was the first one

13:51

that they ordered censored. Oh,

13:54

the Biden administration came into office on January

13:57

21st, 2021 on January 21st.

13:59

January 23rd, they contacted

14:03

Facebook, the White House contacted Facebook

14:05

and asked them to start to remove me.

14:08

Then three weeks later,

14:10

there was a battle. The

14:12

people in the White House were threatening Facebook

14:16

with withdrawal of their Section

14:19

230 immunity, which is existential

14:22

threat to them. Section 230,

14:24

of course, is the liability

14:26

shield. If

14:29

you defamed Donald

14:32

Trump on Facebook and

14:34

said something that was untrue, that you knew to

14:37

be untrue, that was scurrilous

14:39

and very damaging,

14:41

he can sue you, but he can't

14:43

sue Facebook. Facebook is

14:46

supposed to be a neutral platform

14:48

and it cannot be sued, and that's called Section Zuckerberg

14:53

said, if we lose that,

14:55

it's existential. We cease to exist.

14:59

They would actually have to censor more in that

15:01

case because they would have more liability, so

15:03

they'd be basically censoring everybody. They

15:09

would have to have lawyers read every

15:11

single post and

15:13

assess it for defamation.

15:15

It would be no way to do it. It would just collapse.

15:21

That's what the White House was threatening. If you don't

15:23

censor these guys, we're

15:25

going to withdraw your Section 230 immunity.

15:28

The White House was strong arming them

15:30

in the most powerful way to

15:32

censor, and then the White House invited

15:35

in all of these agencies, the really

15:37

weird agencies like the Census Bureau.

15:40

The CIA was involved, the FBI was involved,

15:43

the DH, the Department of Homeland

15:45

Security was involved.

15:47

Also, like the IRS and

15:50

the Census Bureau and a whole bunch

15:52

of other agencies were all involved in identifying

15:55

people that needed to be censored, and the things

15:57

they were censoring were really crazy.

15:59

You know, it's the same thing that TNI

16:02

was censoring, like Hunter Biden's laptop. You

16:04

weren't allowed to talk about that. Anything

16:07

to do with the Wuhan lab you couldn't talk about.

16:11

But also personal attacks

16:13

on the president. There was a parody of the president

16:16

and his wife that

16:18

they ordered taken

16:20

down.

16:21

So this is really, this

16:23

is like King George the third, back

16:27

in the revolution. This is the reason

16:29

we had the revolution was that and

16:31

put the First Amendment in place so

16:34

that the king or the ruler

16:36

could not silence critics because

16:38

if government can silence his critics, it

16:41

has license for any atrocity.

16:44

So what would your policy be? Would it be

16:46

that you break up some of these companies or would

16:48

it be that you'd be regulating them or

16:51

let them collapse? What I would first

16:55

of all, on day one, I'm going

16:57

to issue executive order is forbidden forbidding

17:00

any

17:00

federal

17:05

agency

17:06

from engaging in the censorship activities

17:09

or recommendations or contacts

17:11

with these companies regarding posts

17:13

that they don't like. There's

17:16

of course things that should be removed from

17:18

the Internet, but it's

17:21

unprotected speech, pedophilia

17:24

and inciting violence

17:31

and those kind of things you can

17:33

censor without

17:35

violating the First Amendment because they're not

17:37

illegal. Yeah,

17:40

they're illegal and they're not protected by the First

17:42

Amendment. But

17:44

otherwise, I'm going to order them

17:46

all. Not only am I going to order them to stop

17:48

censoring, but I'm

17:50

going to basically with reinstate

17:54

the Smith-Munt Act,

17:56

which has been effectively just forgotten

17:59

about an

17:59

abandoned that forbids the

18:03

federal agencies from propagandizing

18:05

American people. And

18:08

that is just as frightening what's happening

18:10

now with the active propaganda

18:12

by the CIA through all of these legitimate

18:15

media sites

18:17

of

18:20

debates about the Ukraine war and about

18:22

things that Americans should not be propagandized

18:25

about. We should know who,

18:27

you know, I think everybody should be able

18:30

to talk about these things, but we should know who it

18:32

is talking. We

18:34

shouldn't have the CIA running reporters

18:36

and Rolling Stone and Daily

18:40

Coast and Daily Beast and

18:42

telling us, you know, pretending that they're

18:44

neutral reporters.

18:46

How worried are you that

18:48

what Trump describes as the swamp or what

18:50

you're just, you know, the CIA, the three letter agencies,

18:53

the deep state, all of this stuff that

18:55

going against it and talking about it the way

18:57

you talk about it, which is somewhat similar to the way

18:59

Trump talks about it, that it's a machine that

19:01

is so embedded or as your uncle used to talk about

19:04

that secrecy cannot be a piece of

19:06

a flourishing democracy. But it's so embedded

19:09

in everything right now. All of our agencies,

19:11

all of our institutions, ESG, all

19:14

of these things that it actually can't

19:16

change that much. You can go

19:18

in and you can do executive actions and all that, but

19:21

somehow the system, the swamp just

19:23

keeps moving forward.

19:25

Yeah, I don't believe that. You

19:28

know, I'm very excited about having an opportunity

19:31

to fix it. I've spent, and I think I'm

19:33

uniquely positioned

19:36

to do that because

19:38

I've spent 40 years suing these

19:41

agencies and thinking about how do you

19:43

unravel agency capture. And you know,

19:45

I've sued,

19:47

I've had suits involving almost all of

19:49

the major agencies, NIH, CDC, FDA,

19:54

HHS, and then the

19:57

Department of Agriculture, because I've spent.

20:00

I spent 20 years suing factory

20:02

farms and big processed

20:04

food producers. I saw how that agency

20:06

has been taken over by industrial

20:09

agriculture and has completely

20:11

drifted away from its mission of protecting

20:14

small family farmers and providing

20:17

America a wholesome food supply. I'm

20:19

involved now with litigation

20:22

that involves the Department of Transportation. I'm

20:24

representing a thousand families in the

20:27

Norfolk Southern Spill that have

20:29

ended their lives and that spill happened because

20:32

of agency capture. And many of these agencies,

20:35

and of course, probably 20%

20:37

of the 500

20:40

environmental cases that I've been

20:42

involved with have been

20:45

against EPA,

20:47

which is captured

20:49

by the pesticide industry, by the

20:54

oil and coal industry. When

20:57

I sued Monsanto, we came across

20:59

emails, secret

21:01

emails, that Monsanto had exchanged

21:04

with the head of the pesticide division, a guy called

21:06

Jess Roland,

21:08

who was taking a federal paycheck and supposedly

21:10

working for the taxpayer, but secretly he was

21:14

working

21:15

for Monsanto. And this is the

21:17

problem, is that most of the people who work at

21:19

these agencies are well-intentioned individuals,

21:22

they're patriots, they're good government

21:24

employees, they're public servants, but

21:28

the people who tend to rise to the top and

21:30

become the division heads, the branch heads, and

21:33

of course, the directors of those departments

21:37

are people who are in

21:39

the tank with the industry. And

21:42

they set the tone and they

21:45

set the agenda for the whole. So I

21:48

need to go in there and do

21:50

that. I've spent a lot

21:53

of my life studying the CIA because

21:55

my family's 60-year

21:57

fistfight with that agency, I know...

21:59

my uncle was going to try to reorganize

22:02

the agency if he hadn't been killed. I

22:04

know exactly what my father was going to do

22:07

with the agency. In fact, he had a long conversation

22:09

with it a week before he died with

22:11

Pete Hamill, my friend who was covering

22:14

him.

22:17

I don't think it's a hard thing to do. You

22:20

need to get rid of the perverse incentives

22:23

these financial entanglements with the agencies

22:25

have with the industries they're supposed to regulate.

22:29

You need to move around certain

22:31

individuals and you need to put

22:33

in place really good laws against

22:39

revolving doors,

22:41

which is part of the problem. People

22:43

work for 20 years for the federal

22:46

government, for one of these agencies,

22:48

and as soon as they're

22:50

pension fast,

22:52

they move over to the industry that they've been regulating.

22:56

They want a good job and a lot of them are

22:58

the heads of departments now.

23:00

They end up doing a bunch of favors

23:03

for these companies right before they leave

23:05

in order to

23:07

get the paybacks. I can give you example

23:09

after example of that. Right

23:12

now, they just have to wait 12 months. We need

23:14

a five-year wait to make sure

23:16

to get rid of those revolving doors. I

23:20

think it can be fixed. I'm

23:23

very confident. That's something I'm very,

23:25

very excited about doing. I'm going to go

23:27

to the agencies myself.

23:30

I'm going to go to Bethesda and

23:32

I'm going to go to the EPA

23:35

and I'm going to have direct interactions

23:40

with those agencies and make sure that the

23:43

end of the State Department, which is now run

23:46

from top to bottom by neocons,

23:48

whose job is to

23:51

keep us involved in these constant wars.

23:54

We need to move those people out

23:57

and reinstate. to

24:01

reinstall the integrity

24:03

in those agencies and the public purpose.

24:06

So I sense you have, you

24:08

see a bit of a connection between say some

24:10

of the coverage that you get in places like the New

24:12

York Times and your criticism

24:15

of the agencies and things

24:17

like that. Like you see this as sort of one

24:20

insidious web, which I think is deeply also

24:22

connected

24:23

to the Democrat Party these days. I mean, the

24:25

fact that you're polling in some places

24:27

over 20% right now, and they

24:29

are making it very, very clear that they're not gonna

24:32

put you on a debate stage. I mean, a lot of Democrats

24:35

I think are not happy about this. I know a lot of Republicans

24:37

are not happy about it and they're happy to talk

24:39

to you.

24:40

Yeah, I mean,

24:44

I think, one of the things I

24:46

said

24:48

in my speech,

24:50

my announcement speech in Boston is that

24:53

the people are normally put in charge of

24:55

these agencies and this was

24:57

what Trump did too. You

24:59

know, Trump came in and he promised to

25:02

drain the swamp and then he

25:05

named me as head of the Vaccine Safety Commission

25:08

and I started that function. I met

25:10

with Fauci, I met with Collins and

25:12

was putting together that project.

25:15

And then when that news

25:17

got out,

25:19

Pfizer gave a million dollar contribution

25:22

to Trump

25:23

and Trump

25:25

appointed to Pfizer's handpick

25:28

candidates, Alex Azar, to run

25:31

HHS and Scott Gottlieb

25:34

who was a partner of Pfizer to

25:36

run FDA. And Gottlieb

25:39

came in there, did an $88 billion gift to

25:43

Operation Warp Speed for Pfizer

25:46

and then left to

25:48

join Pfizer board and get his collective

25:51

payoff. So, you know, that is

25:53

the

25:53

swamp and people

25:56

come in wanting to change it but they get intimidated

25:59

by these.

25:59

agencies

26:02

and they get frightened

26:04

because the agency can hurt you. If

26:07

you go after that agency, there's

26:10

a lot of top-level officials in there who can

26:12

commit all kinds of civil disobedience

26:14

that will embarrass the president. So what

26:17

they do is they appoint somebody who's safe.

26:19

They look at the agency and say, I'd like to

26:21

change that, but I've got other agendas. They

26:25

leave the whole instrument of corruption

26:27

intact

26:29

and they appoint somebody who's safe.

26:33

That person, Ralph Reed once said to me,

26:35

the guys who get those jobs are

26:37

the guys who get the joke.

26:43

I said in my announcement speeches, I get

26:45

the joke, but I don't think it's funny. I'm

26:49

not safe. My

26:52

job is to keep the American people

26:54

safe,

26:56

but I'm not going to be safe with that status

26:58

quo. I'm going to be the worst nightmare

27:01

for the status quo.

27:02

So for all the people that hear you, the independents,

27:05

what I would say are the remaining sort of old

27:08

school liberals, and for

27:10

even some conservatives who are open to a lot of these

27:12

ideas, and a lot of the stuff you're talking about, it's sort of

27:14

Trumpian in a certain sense. It's stuff that Tucker Carlson

27:17

talks about. I want to get to the Ukraine war in

27:19

a second. What's

27:21

the way to get you on that stage so

27:24

that there can be a debate

27:25

between you and Joe Biden? Because to me, the difference

27:28

would be so stark

27:29

that that could start the avalanche.

27:32

That seems to be the chance.

27:33

What can you do with the Democrat

27:36

Party in essence, is what I'm asking. I think

27:38

we need to go with the Democratic Party

27:40

into a debate. I mean, we're

27:43

in

27:44

a period in history where so

27:47

many Americans no longer believe in the political

27:49

process. They think it's rigged against

27:51

them. And the Democratic Party and

27:54

the Republican Party ought to be doing their best

27:57

to showcase gold standard.

27:59

elections and

28:02

to tell the American people democracy

28:05

counts, your vote counts, your opinion counts,

28:09

and we're actually going to do retail campaigning,

28:12

we're gonna have

28:14

debates, we're not going to

28:16

be like the Soviet Union where the

28:18

party would pick

28:20

the candidate and tell you, here's

28:22

who you vote for and there's no real

28:24

contest going on and no real choice.

28:27

This

28:28

is America. We

28:30

modeled democracy for the world. We should

28:33

have a role model

28:35

election in this country and

28:39

we need to tell Joe Biden

28:42

to embrace the ideals that he stood for

28:44

for his whole career and not end his

28:47

career by tarring

28:49

our country with a rigged

28:51

election.

28:54

Are you in any contact with the

28:56

Democrat Party? I mean have you, have they specifically

28:58

said we're not gonna, I mean I'm guessing they don't pick

29:00

up your calls, right? No,

29:02

I'm not in contact with them. I mean they've you know

29:05

been very clear that they

29:07

don't want me in this election. I hear it

29:09

from people all the time, you know, why don't

29:11

you, you know, you could hurt Joe

29:13

Biden, you know, and get

29:16

Trump elected. You know

29:18

people say that to me a lot,

29:20

you know, people who are in the party

29:23

or

29:24

you know I ran into Hillary Clinton at

29:27

a dinner a couple of weeks ago

29:29

and she said something like that to

29:31

me along

29:32

those lines and

29:35

you know and it's strange because

29:38

most,

29:41

I don't think anybody is happy

29:43

with the choices that Americans are being

29:45

given right now and I think you

29:47

know we need some other

29:50

choices. I'm glad Mary Ann Williamson

29:52

is in this race. I hope Gavin

29:54

Newsom gets into it. I think you

29:56

know we need choices. We need, we

29:59

can't just have

29:59

have a Kabuki theater, democracy,

30:03

we need a real, we're

30:06

supposed to be the Democrat, we're

30:08

supposed to be the party of the New Deal,

30:10

not the party of the rape deal, and that's why.

30:13

I have to, my audience will go

30:15

crazy if I don't say something though about

30:17

Gavin Newsom because he, to me,

30:20

is exactly why I'm no longer a

30:22

Democrat. The reason I literally fled

30:24

California because of him,

30:26

high taxes, endless regulation,

30:29

lockdowns, keeping his winery open.

30:32

So I'm with you that you need a diverse broad

30:34

coalition of people and different ideas and all that stuff,

30:36

but that guy, I

30:38

would be remiss if I did not say that.

30:41

But I love that because that's what

30:43

I wanna run, I wanna have that discussion with

30:45

him. I wanna sit on a stage

30:49

and say exactly what you just said because

30:52

we should have all the working people involved

30:54

in this debate. I want people

30:56

who I don't agree with. And

30:59

I also wanted to say to show that we

31:01

can have a civil discussion with each other,

31:03

even though we have

31:05

these profound disagreements. There's

31:10

nobody who disagrees more with the way that

31:13

Gavin Newsom

31:15

ran the COVID operation. I

31:20

was in San Francisco

31:23

this week, and I spent,

31:26

I guess almost nine months in San Francisco

31:30

during the Monsanto trials.

31:33

So I got to know

31:35

the city really well and love the city.

31:38

And the courthouse is near enough Union

31:41

Square that I could walk down to Union

31:43

Square every morning. Union

31:47

Square for people who don't know San Francisco, it's

31:49

like the Fifth Avenue of San Francisco. It's where

31:51

all the shops, Armani and Nordstroms

31:54

and Banana Republic and Gap

31:56

and all of these

31:58

powerful.

31:59

iconic American corporations,

32:02

the showcase of American retail

32:05

might is right there, you know,

32:07

Levi's and

32:10

all of the, and it is Fifth

32:12

Avenue West.

32:14

And I went down there three weeks

32:17

ago and every one of those shops

32:19

is closed, every one of them.

32:22

And, you know, these are huge buildings

32:25

and giant malls and retail

32:27

and they're just closed.

32:29

They're boarded up because they, you

32:32

know, they just let, they let them

32:35

languish during these lockdowns

32:37

that just destroyed the city. There's a 30, 35% vacancy

32:39

rate. Then there's no way that they're, you

32:44

know, I don't even even understand any

32:47

conception of how they can bring

32:49

that city back.

32:51

You know, you need somebody, I don't

32:53

know, you need some very, very powerful

32:55

dynamic character who

32:57

can come in and convince

32:59

these retailers that, you know, that

33:01

the policies are going to change and that

33:04

they can take a risk on California, on

33:06

San Francisco again. And that's all Gavin

33:08

Newsom. And I want

33:10

to talk to him about that. I want to talk on a

33:13

stage, you know, about what do you think

33:15

that's good for America? You know, are you out?

33:17

What do you,

33:19

yeah, what do you make of the people that now are

33:21

refusing to talk to you? Because look, I'm

33:23

with you. I would love for you to have that conversation

33:25

with Newsom. I think he's, he's,

33:28

I mean, he destroyed San Francisco as mayor, as you're pointing

33:30

out, and then he destroyed the state in essence, California

33:33

as governor. But you know, it's not just him.

33:35

I mean, you know, Jake Tapper went on CNN,

33:38

what was it about 10 days ago and said he

33:40

would not have you on the show because of your dangerous

33:42

misinformation. There was obviously this

33:45

famous thing with Dr. Peter Hotez

33:47

on, you know,

33:49

telling Rogan that he'll no longer do the show and

33:51

he won't even, he won't debate you.

33:53

By the way, I then had Brett Weinstein and

33:56

Jay Bhattacharya offered to debate

33:58

Hotez. He won't debate them either. But this

34:00

notion that you're out there saying, hey, I'll talk to

34:02

you guys. And now they've framed you as,

34:05

oh, he's untouchable as if something

34:07

you've said is so crazy.

34:09

Yeah, I mean, if you can't debate it, it's not

34:11

science. Let's, you know, the

34:14

science is rooted in reason and

34:16

logic. And,

34:20

you know, scientists are supposed to be able

34:22

to subject themselves to the,

34:24

you know, to the furnace of debate and,

34:28

you know, allow their

34:31

ideas to triumph in the mud, to

34:33

become a kneel and debate, and then to triumph

34:36

and rise in the marketplace of ideas.

34:39

And if you can't do that, I mean, they say, well,

34:41

because I'm a fraud, and

34:44

a quack, and a charlotte, and all the other, you

34:46

know, things that they say about me that,

34:49

you know, you can't debate somebody like that. Well,

34:51

that's a bunch of, first of all,

34:53

you know, I've won hundreds

34:56

and hundreds of cases by arguing

34:58

in front of juries. And,

35:01

you know, with people who, if I was

35:03

making these kind of, you know, absurd

35:05

claims, you know, if I was the kind

35:08

of person that was making those kind of

35:10

claims that were baseless, that

35:13

the other attorneys in those cases would

35:15

chew me up and spit me out

35:17

and humiliate me in front of the jury, because

35:19

that's what we are trained to do.

35:23

And so,

35:23

you know, I, Hotez

35:26

told the truth one time with Rogan, is

35:29

that two or three years ago, Rogan said, why

35:32

don't you debate Bobby Kennedy?

35:35

And he said, well, he's a cunning lawyer,

35:37

and, you know, I'm not trained with debate. Well,

35:40

you

35:41

know, every scientist is, you

35:44

look at what Darwin did, and what, you

35:46

know, and even

35:48

like Archimedes, and, you know, all

35:50

of the Galileo

35:52

and all these, they had to defend

35:55

their ideas. I mean, their forums set up

35:57

all over the world where scientists get together.

35:59

and debate each

36:02

other. And those debates are

36:04

vicious and they're, oh

36:08

for them, very, very high stakes debate

36:11

and they use every

36:13

trick, but that's part of being a scientist.

36:16

If you take your ideas and you give

36:19

them, and you know the way that, what

36:22

I would do with HOTA is that I really have

36:24

a lot of domain knowledge about vaccine

36:27

studies. I've written books about

36:29

them, I've assembled them. And

36:32

so I would, my

36:35

way of debating would be asking him, showing

36:38

him the studies and saying, how

36:40

can you explain this? If what you're saying is true,

36:42

show me your study. Either

36:45

way,

36:45

I've had private debates

36:48

with HOTA's. So I

36:50

probably spent, I don't know, 10

36:52

or 20 hours with him because

36:55

a few years ago, somebody

37:00

asked me, somebody who I

37:02

was, with whom I was very close,

37:05

told me they were gonna come out publicly against

37:08

me with vaccination and this person is very

37:10

wired in at NIH. And I said, before

37:13

you do that,

37:15

put me in a room with a guy

37:17

who knows more about vaccines than anybody

37:19

in the world.

37:21

And you listen to me debate them

37:23

and then make up your mind about whether or

37:25

not you wanna go public against me. And

37:28

so he called Francis Collins,

37:32

and Francis Collins and Tony Fauci.

37:35

And they didn't wanna do it, but then he said the

37:38

guy to do it is Peter Hotez. Oh,

37:40

he was their champion. He's

37:44

their Goliath. And

37:46

so Hotez got, did

37:49

a series of phone calls with me and this other

37:51

individual.

37:53

And let me just

37:55

say this, the individual did

37:57

not come out publicly against me after

37:59

listening.

37:59

to those debates.

38:01

But we then had a lot of email exchanges

38:03

where I would say show me the study that shows

38:06

that vaccines don't cause

38:08

all that any of the vaccines given

38:10

the first six months of life don't give

38:13

don't cause autism. He ended

38:15

up sending me 11 studies about the MMR

38:18

vaccine which is not does not

38:20

fit in that category and the Institute

38:22

of Medicine the National Academy of Sciences

38:24

those studies don't exist.

38:26

I showed him those papers. So

38:31

you know his I don't think

38:33

his fear is that I would say something

38:35

that was sort of crazy

38:38

and detached from reality. I think his

38:40

fear is that I would expose

38:42

reality.

38:44

Right. I mean that that's the point. Like

38:46

it's not like you're some random kook on the

38:48

street. It's like if you were saying crazy things you

38:50

should be able

38:51

to debunk them. Let's hit a couple

38:54

other topics.

38:55

The affirmative action decision came

38:57

out a week or so ago from the Supreme Court.

39:00

And you know I've been on board so much of what you're

39:02

saying even though as I said I'm I don't consider

39:05

myself a Democrat. I moved to Florida.

39:07

It's the first time I've ever registered as a Republican

39:10

since I've been here in Florida. But

39:12

I saw your your tweet thread about the affirmative

39:15

action decision

39:15

and basically you were you

39:18

were against the decision. And I

39:20

was hoping maybe you could just walk us through

39:22

the the philosophy there. Yeah.

39:24

And I understand why people you

39:28

know different about that with me

39:30

and a lot of the people who have supported me on

39:32

other issues would

39:34

be disappointed by that. But you know that.

39:39

Listen I grew up in a state

39:42

that was a Jim Gross. When

39:45

I grew up in Virginia I

39:49

you know it was illegal at that

39:51

time for a black man to marry a white woman.

39:54

Every aspect of life was governed by

39:56

considerations of race. You

39:59

were

39:59

identified by black on your birth certificate.

40:03

You were raised in a black neighborhood. You attended

40:05

segregated black segregated schools. You

40:07

transportation, public parks, everything,

40:11

every aspect you were you were identified

40:13

by race on your death

40:15

certificate and buried in a black cemetery.

40:18

I had a guy, there was a guy

40:20

who worked for my family and

40:23

I from when I was young I was going

40:26

hunting and trapping hawks

40:28

down in the southern part of Virginia and

40:31

he would carry me on those trips

40:34

and he had been a World War

40:36

II vet. He was in the CBs,

40:38

he was six foot five, incredibly

40:41

smart and when we stopped in restaurants

40:44

I would have to go in and buy the food and bring it out

40:46

so that the two of us could eat it in the car. He

40:49

asked me one day to accompany him

40:52

into the local shoe

40:54

store because he was not allowed in the

40:56

shoe store. He had to buy the shoes

40:59

from bring them outside and

41:01

he had to try them on the curb. Oh

41:04

you know when I and my family

41:07

was you know deeply involved in the civil

41:09

rights movement and you

41:12

know a lot of people look at affirmative action

41:15

say well you know it's been a it's been a hundred and

41:17

fifty years since the

41:19

Civil

41:21

War. You know people

41:24

that had black Americans have had time to recover

41:28

but you know I was uh

41:31

you know I saw what it

41:33

was like to be black when I was a kid.

41:35

I saw that you know that

41:38

all of those higher level

41:40

society were forbidden right you know

41:42

in my lifetime and

41:44

my family was deeply involved in

41:46

ending that system of Jim Crow and

41:49

part of um of you

41:52

know of that process was doing something

41:54

that normally I wouldn't believe in which

41:57

is uh which

41:59

is allowing

41:59

you know, considerations

42:03

of race to

42:07

affect the judgments about who

42:09

gets these, you know, positions in

42:11

colleges. But I also

42:14

know, Dave, that

42:15

almost all of those colleges already

42:18

have a system of preference. And

42:20

the system of preference is for legacies,

42:23

you know, for people like me who had

42:25

a grandfather who went to Harvard,

42:27

a father who went to Harvard, and the uncles that went

42:29

there. And so it's much easier for

42:32

me to get in. But all of those

42:34

legacies and also the

42:38

offspring of faculty are

42:41

given preferences. And if you look at a

42:43

pie chart, who's in

42:45

almost none

42:45

of those kids are black. So

42:48

this is kind of a way of counterbalancing

42:50

that. And it's not, you know, believe

42:53

me, I have a lot of problems with it too. And

42:56

let me tell you what the problems are. And I

42:58

see with

42:59

affirmative action is one, it's just contrary

43:02

to American values that, you know,

43:04

people that were meritocracy. It's

43:06

an illusion, though, as I said, that we're meritocracy,

43:09

because there are all these built in biases

43:11

and preferences. But also,

43:13

I think that the bigger problem

43:16

is what Barack Obama calls, you

43:19

know,

43:20

the subtle bigotry

43:23

of low expectations. That,

43:26

you know, people, a black

43:29

kid in a college, in

43:31

a good college, that people are looking at that kid

43:33

and saying, Oh, he got in here

43:35

because he got a preference. And

43:38

I don't think that's good for America either. So

43:40

I understand that, you know, I

43:42

think the Supreme Court has made a decision that

43:45

debate is now over about affirmative

43:47

action. We're moving on,

43:49

and we're going to, you

43:50

know, try to preserve the

43:53

beachhead that black Americans got

43:55

during that period in faculty positions

43:57

in business positions, etc.

44:00

But,

44:02

you know, for me, I would say that

44:05

we probably should have kept it in place for a few more

44:07

years, but, you know, it's

44:09

over now.

44:11

Right. I get the intentions. Just one more

44:13

on that. What would you say in that case

44:15

to the kid, the, say, 16 or

44:17

17-year-old Asian kid who, you

44:19

know, scored perfect on his SATs

44:21

and at all A's and,

44:23

you know, he knows he's not getting into Harvard

44:25

because someone with significantly less grades

44:28

is going to get in, no one gave that Asian kid

44:30

anything. He might be second American from South Korea

44:32

and his parents owned a bodega. That was a lot

44:34

of kids that I grew up around. I mean, what do you say to

44:37

that kid? I think that's what the nugget

44:39

really comes down to here. I

44:41

agree with that. I think that's

44:44

a, you know, it's

44:47

not an easy position on

44:50

any side to take. But,

44:53

you know, as far as that Asian kid goes,

44:55

there's kids getting into that college because

44:57

they're good

44:58

at sports

44:59

who don't have that kind of academic, you

45:03

know, discipline or academic

45:05

performance record. There's all

45:08

kinds of biases that

45:10

get certain people in and,

45:14

you know, it's not a straight meritocracy.

45:18

There's no college. There are very few colleges

45:21

in this country. I'm not going to say no. Just

45:24

look at your GPA

45:26

and your test scores and

45:28

say that the top, you

45:30

know, 3,000 kids with the best

45:32

test scores in the country, the kids are going to get into

45:34

this college. All the decisions

45:37

are dripping with bias

45:40

of one kind or another. And

45:43

unfortunately, the bias, you

45:46

know, these studies show that the biases

45:49

tend to reflect

45:51

the racial composition of the admissions

45:54

department. That they, you know, people

45:56

tend to favor people who look like them.

45:59

and give them a preference. And a lot

46:02

of the admissions departments didn't have black

46:04

people in them. And so, it's not

46:07

an easy question, Dave. It's

46:11

not one that I, it's

46:15

one that's inconsistent with a lot of my other

46:17

values and ideas about the country, but

46:19

because of my background, and

46:24

I land on that side.

46:27

Yeah, I think that's as fair

46:29

or as honest an answer as you can give. Personally,

46:32

I happen to disagree, but that's just fine.

46:34

That's the point of all of this. Yeah. Let's

46:37

hit a couple other things. So, Ukraine war, there

46:40

seems to have been this odd flip amongst

46:42

the parties. When I was growing up, again, as a

46:44

Democrat in New York and my family, we

46:46

all considered ourselves JFK Democrats,

46:49

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ed Koch, probably

46:51

many of the people that

46:53

you literally grew up around, but that you're ideological

46:56

heroes as well. The

46:59

Democrats were sort of the anti-war party.

47:01

That was at least the notion, and it was the Republicans

47:04

and the neocons who then wanted to nation

47:06

build and all of these things. We seem to have had

47:08

a flip on that. Now, I get there are plenty of Republicans

47:11

that are for this Ukraine war as well, but it does

47:13

seem to be being driven more by

47:15

the Democrat party, at least because Biden is

47:17

in office. What do we do? Well,

47:19

first off, I guess, do you think that's a fair estimation?

47:22

And then what do we do about this that get ourselves out

47:24

of this before World War III comes?

47:26

Yeah, and it's getting to a crazy

47:28

point right now where we're now, the Biden

47:31

administration a year ago said that

47:33

when they were called on to send cluster

47:35

bombs to Israel, the

47:38

Biden administration, Jen Bessocki

47:40

said, use the

47:41

cluster bombs as a war crime. Yesterday,

47:44

President Biden announced that

47:46

they're sending cluster bombs to Russia.

47:50

And meanwhile, they're telling the American people who are winning

47:52

the war, cluster bombs are a last

47:56

resort weapon.

47:58

And they're saying they have to send them. because they've

48:00

run out of other weapons. So what is actually

48:02

happening? Why are we being lied to? Clearly

48:06

we're being lied to, but now

48:08

you have this split. And by

48:10

the way,

48:12

the driving force behind wars

48:14

in this country have been a group of people called

48:17

the Neocon that are embedded in the State

48:19

Department from the top to the bottom. That's

48:21

absolutely pervasive in the State Department.

48:26

And they were, you know, a lot

48:28

of them were driven out because they, after the

48:30

Iraq war, they published

48:33

their manifesto in the late 1990s. It

48:36

was called the Project for a New American Century

48:38

and this outlined their plans for the world. And

48:40

what they said is that America

48:43

had won the Cold War and as the victor, it

48:45

was our privilege

48:48

to run the world for at least a

48:50

century. It would be the American Century, Project

48:53

for a New American Century. And

48:55

that we should accomplish this feat through

48:57

the use of our superior military

48:59

power and through violence. And

49:02

it outlined eight countries that needed to

49:04

be overthrown, including Iraq. And then

49:07

shortly after that, publication

49:09

of that, the Neocon's in the White House who

49:11

surrounded President George W. Bush,

49:14

you know, defrauded us into

49:16

the Iraq war by saying there were weapons of mass

49:18

destruction and suggesting, you know, falsely

49:22

that Saddam had something to do with

49:25

the 9-11 attack. That work

49:27

cost us in the end about $8 trillion. We

49:30

left Iraq worse than we found it. We

49:33

killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.

49:35

The country is now an incoherent, you

49:38

know, battle between Shia and Sunni death

49:40

squads. We pushed Iraq

49:42

into a proxy posture with

49:44

Iran, which is, you know,

49:46

exactly the foreign policy outcome

49:49

that we were trying to avoid for 40 years.

49:52

We created ISIS. We

49:55

drove 2 million refugees into Europe,

49:57

which destabilized all the nations in Europe

49:59

first. you know, the next probably

50:03

century. I mean what's happening in France

50:05

with Iraq, with the riots today

50:07

is a direct result of our intervention

50:09

in Iraq and Syria.

50:12

Brexit, it was an outcome,

50:14

it was a blowback from our intervention

50:16

in Iraq and Syria. So we

50:18

broke apart Europe, you know,

50:21

and all of those neocons were driven

50:23

out of office and we thought they would have gone

50:25

from government forever. They were

50:28

pariahs, you know, they were in

50:31

shame, disgrace, and

50:34

but they reappeared

50:38

first in the Obama administration, a few

50:40

of them, and then now

50:43

they run the

50:45

Biden administration. Victoria

50:49

Newland, Tony Blinken, these are, you

50:51

know, key figures in, in

50:54

fact, Victoria Newland's husband,

50:56

Robert Kagan, was the author of Project

50:58

for a New American Century, that PENAC

51:01

document that I referred to, and they're

51:04

the ones who have orchestrated

51:06

this Ukraine war. Their

51:08

vision was that

51:10

we should, they've always wanted to dismantle

51:13

and balkanize Russia and

51:15

run Russia and

51:18

be able to devour its natural resources,

51:21

you know, have US companies in, exploiting

51:23

the oil, etc. So they

51:25

believe that Russia was weak militarily

51:28

and, and that Putin was weak.

51:30

They were mistaken

51:32

and they said, they felt like if

51:35

we punish Russia with these draconian

51:37

sanctions, the economy would

51:40

implode, it would destabilize the country, they

51:42

would overthrow Putin, and whoever replaced

51:44

Putin, no matter if they

51:47

were more nationalist, more violent, it wouldn't matter

51:49

because Putin himself was the guy that

51:51

was holding Russia together and and

51:53

they had to get rid of him because then

51:56

it with the whole Russian, you know, Russian

51:58

enterprise would fall apart. And

52:01

they, you know, they say in

52:03

Brzezinski's book, etc., they say again

52:06

and again and again, we got to draw Russia

52:08

into a war like we did in Afghanistan

52:11

and expose its military and its men

52:14

to draw them into a war against NATO. And

52:16

then we can deploy all of NATO forces against

52:18

them. We can expose the weakness of the Russian

52:21

army and the Russian state. It will, there'll

52:24

be an ousting of Putin, etc. This

52:26

was their plan. So,

52:29

you know, Putin did not want to go into Ukraine.

52:31

We now know that's clear. He wanted to sign

52:33

the Minsk accords. Even

52:35

when Dombaz and Lukas voted

52:38

to leave Ukraine, he said no. They

52:41

voted 90 to 10 to leave. He said no. You

52:44

stay part of Ukraine, but let's make

52:46

a deal to keep, to protect

52:48

you from, you know, from the violence by

52:51

the government that, you know, the U.S. installed

52:53

in Ukraine in 2014 and

52:57

let's keep

52:59

NATO out of Ukraine, which was the existential

53:01

threat that they were most frightened about. The

53:04

U.S. kept saying we're going to put NATO into

53:06

Ukraine. We're going

53:09

to violate all of our promises not to do that.

53:12

And then we torpedoed

53:15

the Minsk accords. France

53:17

agreed to it. Germany agreed to it. Russia

53:19

agreed to it. Zelensky ran in 2019 saying

53:23

that anyone 70 percent

53:25

vote a comedian

53:27

wins with no political experience. It's

53:30

like, David, you ran for president, promising

53:33

peace. And because God help us all

53:35

that you got elected

53:38

and then you change your mind.

53:40

Right. That's what happened. Something

53:42

changed his mind. Actually he was threatened

53:44

with murder by

53:47

nationalists, ultra-nationalists within the Ukrainian

53:50

government and threatened with

53:52

a cut off by Victoria Nulan, the people,

53:54

you know, the neocons in the White House

53:56

and the State Department. So then

53:58

what we now know.

53:59

know is that in April of 2022

54:02

they signed a peace agreement modeled

54:04

on the Minsk Accords. Putin

54:07

signed it

54:07

and Zelensky signed it. And

54:10

the Russians were acting in good faith by withdrawing

54:12

all

54:13

their forces from the Ukraine. What

54:16

happens, we sent the White House,

54:18

since Boris Johnson over there, to

54:20

torpedo that agreement. So we wanted

54:23

this war and we wanted it for something

54:25

that had nothing to do with Ukraine. Well

54:28

now

54:29

the neocons are getting cold feet

54:31

and there is division within the neocons. Richard

54:34

Haas, who's one of the oldest neocons, is now

54:37

saying, you know, Biden administration

54:40

sent cluster bombs. They're going to try

54:42

to let Ukraine into NATO. What's

54:45

going to happen then?

54:47

Right, then we're bound.

54:49

Then what will really happen,

54:51

Dave, is this. We then have

54:54

to then NATO.

54:57

NATO is going to throw Russia out of the Ukraine,

54:59

including Crimea.

55:01

Russia will never leave. It

55:03

would be like us being defeated by Mexico.

55:06

It's not going to happen. You saw,

55:08

I mean, you remember what happened to

55:11

Stalingrad, the sacrifice

55:13

the Russians were willing to make during World War II.

55:16

The Russians are unbeatable.

55:19

They're killing Ukrainians right now at a 7 to 1

55:21

ratio. We've killed 350,000 Ukrainians,

55:25

completely unnecessarily. They're

55:28

butchering. We've turned that country into

55:30

an abattoir of death for the flower of Ukrainian

55:32

youth. But now,

55:35

if we let them into NATO, the

55:38

defeat that they've

55:40

now suffered now, all of NATO

55:42

is going to go in there.

55:44

But here's what really is going to happen. Many

55:49

of the NATO countries are going

55:51

to refuse. Greece

55:54

will never go to war against Russia. It'll be us,

55:56

in essence.

56:00

And what it will do is it will expose

56:04

Title V, which is the agreement that

56:06

where they all have, and if one of them goes

56:08

to war, they all have to go to war. It

56:10

will expose that as a paper tiger

56:13

and all of NATO then will fall apart. So

56:15

the Neocons in the White House are

56:17

now divided because some of

56:19

them, the smarter ones

56:21

are terrified that this will be the end of NATO.

56:25

And so they're now saying, you know, they're now

56:27

telling President Biden you can't

56:30

let Ukraine and

56:32

to NATO.

56:35

And you know, who knows what he's going

56:37

to do? Because who knows

56:40

how much of

56:42

these decision making is actually taking

56:44

place in Joe Biden's

56:46

brain and how much of it is

56:49

just being told to him, you know,

56:51

do this, do that. And

56:53

it's unclear.

56:54

I would say I would say it's probably

56:57

very, very little in Joe Biden's brain. So let

56:59

me just let's just follow up on that. And then I just have one

57:01

more for you and then we're good. So

57:03

what would you do? I mean, how so now it's

57:05

January 25. What what are you

57:08

doing on day one to make sure that

57:10

this thing doesn't escalate? And negotiate a peace

57:12

with Putin.

57:14

You know, it's our war. It's

57:16

a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.

57:19

And I'll negotiate a peace. And

57:21

of course, the Ukrainians will be part of

57:23

that. And you know, but let's

57:25

negotiate a peace with Putin's wanted to negotiate

57:28

from the beginning. We haven't talked to the Russians

57:30

for at least six months.

57:33

Why are we talking to them every day?

57:36

And by the way, you know, the new

57:39

these neocons like Richard Oz are

57:41

secretly talking to the Russian leadership

57:43

because they want to get out of there. Now they

57:46

understand that they made a huge, huge

57:48

mistake. The right, you

57:50

know, put by our own way,

57:52

you know, we do polling over there. The U.S. firms

57:54

do polling and our government does polling. And

57:57

those polls are showing.

58:00

an extraordinary popularity. Putin

58:03

is now stronger than ever. He's

58:05

got 90% popularity and approval

58:08

ratings among the Russian people. Oh,

58:11

you know, they have not weakened him.

58:13

They've strengthened him. And the

58:16

Russian people are resolved and

58:18

they are not gonna lose this war.

58:22

I wanna ask you just one other thing because people

58:25

have heard you talk about some of the reasons you

58:27

like Trump and some of the reasons you dislike Trump and obviously

58:29

you've laid out here some of your frustrations

58:32

with Biden and the Democrat party. But

58:34

the one other guy that seems to be in the mix here, I don't know that I've heard

58:36

you talk about it all actually, is DeSantis.

58:39

He's a huge reason why I moved my family and

58:41

two companies here to Florida and I see what the

58:43

results of governing right are.

58:46

I see you guys sort of lined up on COVID.

58:48

I see you kind of lined up on the agencies,

58:51

certainly on the border. I saw the video

58:53

you did at the

58:55

wall in Mexico just watching hundreds of people from

58:57

as you said, dozens of countries just walk

59:00

right through. I'm wondering, do you see any touch

59:02

points there or and what maybe are

59:04

the chasms there that I'm not seeing?

59:07

I thought what he did during COVID

59:09

was really real leadership.

59:14

He broke with the dominant

59:16

theology and he did

59:19

exactly what a leader should do

59:21

is he contacted

59:24

the best scientists in the world. The

59:26

scientists from Stanford,

59:29

from Harvard, from Oxford, he

59:32

flew them into Florida and had them sit down and say,

59:34

what actually should we be doing?

59:37

And he asked the right questions

59:39

and I think Florida ended

59:42

up with a much better record than any of the other

59:44

states, even though Florida has this

59:47

population, the most vulnerable population,

59:50

because it has a lot of seniors,

59:53

disproportionate number of seniors in Florida and

59:55

yet they still did a lot better than

59:57

particularly comparable states, high states.

59:59

California with

1:00:02

many fewer seniors. And

1:00:04

so I thought he did really well in

1:00:06

that. I don't know.

1:00:11

I feel like some of

1:00:14

the stuff that he's done since

1:00:16

then has kind of a mean side to it,

1:00:21

which I don't like. It

1:00:24

feels like bullying.

1:00:27

But I don't know. I mean, my I've

1:00:30

talked, I've met with him twice and

1:00:33

both of our meetings were very, very friendly.

1:00:38

And I and I really, really like

1:00:40

his wife, Casey. I think she's fantastic.

1:00:44

And so, you know,

1:00:46

I guess

1:00:49

things to think about and more to be seen.

1:00:52

Robert, I will leave you with this because I say it on the

1:00:54

show whenever we play your clips that

1:00:57

if the Democrats will not put you on that

1:00:59

debate stage, I don't know if it's too late, but

1:01:01

I have a feeling that the Republicans would. So

1:01:04

either way, I wish you a lot of luck and I

1:01:06

thank you for taking the time. Thanks, Dave. Thanks

1:01:09

so much for having me.

1:01:19

Thanks for tuning into The Rubin Report. Don't

1:01:21

forget to review, share and subscribe

1:01:23

to this podcast. If you're looking for early

1:01:25

and exclusive content, you can join me

1:01:27

on Locals at RubinReport.Locals.com.