RFK Jr: Teaming up With Trump, Pavel Durov’s Arrest, CIA, and the Fall of the Democrat Party
Summary
TLDRIn a compelling interview, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discusses his endorsement of Donald Trump, expressing concern over the Democratic Party's shift towards elitism and its departure from traditional environmentalism. He criticizes the party's focus on carbon orthodoxy, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the impact of these changes on democracy and the environment. Kennedy Jr. also shares his views on the importance of nature conservation and the spiritual connection to the environment, advocating for a return to the core values of the environmental movement.
Takeaways
- 🎟️ J.D. Vance, the vice presidential nominee, is confirmed for a live tour stop in Hershey, Pennsylvania, with tickets available at Tucker Carlson's website.
- 🗣️ Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s interview discusses his endorsement of Donald Trump, highlighting a shared theme of challenging corruption within the American ruling class.
- 🔄 Kennedy Jr. speaks on political realignments throughout American history and the current transformation of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
- 🏭 He criticizes the Democratic Party for its focus on carbon orthodoxy, benefiting oil companies and financial institutions, rather than true environmental conservation.
- 🤝 Kennedy Jr. aligns with Trump due to their mutual disdain for the corrupt merger of state and corporate power, and the subversion of democracy by industry-influenced regulatory agencies.
- 👴 Reflecting on his family's values, Kennedy Jr. emphasizes the importance of defending policies eloquently and the dangers of a presidential candidate unable to do so.
- 🌎 He discusses America's role as a template for democracy and the current perception of its democratic practices, influenced by the selection of candidates and their ability to articulate a vision.
- 💬 The conversation touches on the Democratic Party's shift towards censorship and control, which Kennedy Jr. sees as incompatible with democratic values.
- 🔒 Kennedy Jr. expresses concern about the loss of online privacy and the power of tech companies and governments to access and sell personal data, advocating for strong encryption as a solution.
- 🤝 The interview concludes with Kennedy Jr.'s commitment to work towards the election of Donald Trump, focusing on policy issues and the potential role in a unity government.
Q & A
What is the main topic of discussion in the interview?
-The main topic of discussion in the interview is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Donald Trump, his views on the current state of American politics, and his concerns about environmental issues, censorship, and the health of American children.
Why did Robert F. Kennedy Jr. decide to endorse Donald Trump?
-Robert F. Kennedy Jr. decided to endorse Donald Trump due to shared concerns about political corruption, the need for environmental protection beyond carbon orthodoxy, stopping censorship, and addressing the chronic disease epidemic among children.
What does Kennedy see as the current corruption within the American ruling class?
-Kennedy sees the current corruption within the American ruling class as a corrupt merger of state and corporate power, with regulatory agencies being manipulated by industries they are supposed to regulate, leading to a subversion of democracy.
What is Kennedy's view on the Democratic Party's stance on environmental issues?
-Kennedy believes that the Democratic Party has become subsumed in carbon orthodoxy, focusing only on carbon capture and offshore wind projects that benefit certain corporations rather than true environmental conservation and habitat protection.
How does Kennedy describe the transformation of the Republican Party?
-Kennedy describes the transformation of the Republican Party into the party of environmentalism, which he sees as a significant realignment in American political history.
What does Kennedy see as the role of the CIA in American politics today?
-Kennedy sees the CIA as being involved in American politics, including the censorship of political speech and the tampering of the 2020 presidential election through the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Why does Kennedy believe the CIA is implicated in his uncle's murder?
-Kennedy believes the CIA is implicated in his uncle's murder due to the continued classification of documents related to the assassination, which he sees as an attempt to protect the agency rather than national security.
What is Kennedy's view on the current state of free speech in America?
-Kennedy is deeply concerned about the censorship of free speech in America, particularly the suppression of political speech by federal agencies and big tech companies, which he sees as an existential threat to democracy.
How does Kennedy perceive the use of the judiciary against political candidates?
-Kennedy perceives the use of the judiciary against political candidates, such as attempts to remove him from the ballot or to jail President Trump, as a weaponization of the courts for political purposes.
What does Kennedy suggest as a solution for climate change?
-Kennedy suggests that the best solution for climate change is to restore the soils, which can absorb carbon, prevent flooding, and provide healthy food, rather than focusing solely on carbon capture technologies.
What is Kennedy's perspective on the current environmental movement in the United States?
-Kennedy feels that the current environmental movement in the United States has strayed from its roots, focusing on profit-driven projects that harm the environment rather than true conservation and protection of natural habitats.
Outlines
🎉 Announcement of J.D. Vance's Tour and Interview with Bobby Kennedy Jr.
The script begins with an announcement of a live tour stop featuring J.D. Vance, the vice presidential nominee, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, with tickets available at Tucker Carlson's website. The announcement is followed by an interview with Bobby Kennedy Jr., his first since endorsing Donald Trump. The interview delves into political realignments, corruption within the American ruling class, and the transformation of political parties, particularly the Democratic Party's shift towards environmentalism that benefits large corporations rather than focusing on habitat protection and wildlife conservation.
🔍 Discussion on Democratic Party's Transformation and Censorship
This paragraph continues the conversation with Bobby Kennedy Jr., discussing the Democratic Party's transformation and its move towards a more corporate and less democratic structure. The discussion highlights the party's shift away from its traditional base and the rise of a corrupt merger of state and corporate power. The conversation also touches on the importance of free speech and the dangers of censorship, which are seen as incompatible with democracy. The paragraph concludes with a critique of the Democratic Party's handling of the nomination process and its lack of transparency and faith in the people.
🗣️ Concerns Over Free Speech and Censorship in Democracy
The third paragraph focuses on the critical issue of free speech and censorship within democratic societies. It emphasizes the incompatibility of censorship with democratic values and the historical precedent of censorship leading to totalitarianism. The conversation includes the role of social media platforms and the government's influence over them, as well as the importance of encryption in protecting online privacy. The paragraph also mentions the use of strong encryption tools like ExpressVPN to safeguard online activities from prying eyes, including those of the government and foreign entities.
🤔 Reflections on Political Tribalism and the Impact on Democracy
In this paragraph, the discussion turns to the topic of political tribalism and its effects on democracy. It explores the biological and psychological underpinnings of tribalism and how it influences political beliefs and behaviors. The conversation delves into the challenges of breaking free from established orthodoxies and the potential for polarization to be exacerbated by social media algorithms. The paragraph also touches on the personal implications of political decisions, as illustrated by the speaker's endorsement of Donald Trump and the subsequent impact on his family and personal life.
🏛️ Concerns Over Government Overreach and the Erosion of Democratic Values
The fifth paragraph discusses the perceived overreach of government agencies and the erosion of democratic values. It talks about the use of government power to target political opponents and the potential dangers of government surveillance. The conversation also addresses the issue of government-mandated censorship and the potential for it to be used as a tool for political control. The paragraph highlights the importance of protecting democratic institutions and the need for vigilance against their subversion.
🌱 A Call to Protect Nature and the Environment
This paragraph shifts the focus to environmental issues, emphasizing the spiritual and intrinsic value of nature and the environment. It criticizes the current approach to environmentalism that focuses on carbon footprints and quantification, arguing that it misses the deeper spiritual connection humans have with nature. The speaker advocates for a holistic understanding of environmental protection that respects the interconnectedness of all life and the divine presence in nature.
🛑 The Perils of Chemical Disruptors and Their Impact on Health
The sixth paragraph discusses the harmful effects of chemical disruptors on human health and the environment. It highlights the role of these chemicals in causing hormonal changes, affecting fertility, and potentially leading to early puberty in children. The conversation underscores the need for greater awareness and action against the use of such chemicals, which are pervasive in the environment and pose a significant threat to public health.
🤝 Collaborating for Change: Working with Trump's Campaign
In this paragraph, the speaker describes his collaboration with Donald Trump's campaign, focusing on shared policy goals and the intention to work together for the betterment of the country. He mentions his involvement in the transition team and the opportunity to help select key government officials. The speaker expresses his commitment to working towards the election of Donald Trump, despite potential personal risks and the challenges that may arise from differing political views.
🌳 The Importance of Soil Restoration in Climate Policy
The final paragraph emphasizes the critical role of soil restoration in addressing climate change. It argues that focusing on soil health can help absorb carbon emissions, prevent flooding, and promote the growth of healthy food. The speaker advocates for national policies that prioritize soil restoration as a sustainable and effective solution to environmental challenges.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Vice Presidential Nominee
💡Endorsement
💡American Ruling Class
💡Political Realignment
💡Carbon Orthodoxy
💡Censorship
💡Democracy
💡Environmental Movement
💡Neocons
💡Habitat Protection
💡Chronic Disease Epidemic
Highlights
Announcement of J.D. Vance's confirmed live tour stop in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Tickets for the event are available on Tucker Carlson's website.
Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s first interview since endorsing Donald Trump.
Discussion on political realignments throughout American history and the current state of both political parties.
Critique of the Democratic Party's stance on environmental issues, particularly carbon orthodoxy.
Allegations of corruption within the American ruling class and the impact on democracy.
Kennedy Jr.'s views on the transformation of the Republican Party and its focus on environmentalism.
Concerns about the Democratic Party's selection process for presidential candidates.
Analysis of the importance of free speech in a democracy and the current state of censorship.
Kennedy Jr.'s reflections on his family's political history and the role of debate in democracy.
Criticism of the Biden administration's approach to speech censorship and its implications for democracy.
Kennedy Jr.'s lawsuit against the Biden administration for censorship of speech.
Discussion on the role of social media algorithms in polarizing society.
Kennedy Jr.'s personal decision to endorse Trump and its impact on his family and political standing.
Concerns about the rising chronic disease rates among children and potential contributing factors.
Kennedy Jr.'s campaign focus on ending foreign wars, stopping censorship, and protecting children's health.
The significance of the Country of Origin Labeling Act repeal and its impact on consumer choices.
Kennedy Jr.'s views on the current state of the American environmental movement and its departure from nature conservation.
Plans for a nationwide tour to promote free speech and engage with the public directly.
Transcripts
We're honored to announce that J.D.
Vance, the vice presidential
nominee, is confirmed for a live
tour stop in Hershey, Pennsylvania,
next month.
Tickets are on sale at Tucker
carlson.com.
We hope to see you there will be in
cities all across the country
starting next week.
But first our interview with Bobby
Kennedy Jr. His first since
endorsing Donald Trump on Friday.
Here it is.
So people were shocked.
I know a lot of people you know
well, we're shocked when you endorse
Trump. I was not shocked because
for all the areas where you disagree
on specific issues, there's
a consistent theme that I've noticed
in both of your lives, which is
you've both spent the majority of
your life, well, in your case, your
whole life in the American ruling
class.
And both of you decided
that it was corrupt and that you
were going to say so out loud at
great risk, at great risk
to both of you. And so it was
probably just a matter of time
before you aligned in some way.
Is that how you see it?
Yeah. I mean, I
you know, I think there's been a
bunch of realignments about
political realignments by about 4 or
5 throughout American history.
And I think we're going through one
right now with the Democratic Party
and with both political parties
really changing in a very dramatic
way. And you and I talked,
earlier about
the transformation of a Republican
Party into the party of
environmentalism.
Yeah. And, you know, the Democratic
Party has one out, one environmental
issue, which is carbon orthodoxy,
which ends up benefiting,
you know, the oil companies and
Blackrock and, Goldman
Sachs with offshore
wind and carbon capture,
you know, $100 billion carbon
capture projects,
which is just a strip mining
in the middle class.
And that's the only issue you can
talk about in the Democratic Party.
I got into the environmental
movement to do habitat protection
and to do wildlife conservation,
to get toxics out of our kids.
Amen.
And none of these are issues
that Democrats.
It's a party itself.
Democrats care about them, but the
party itself doesn't.
There's been these big, profound
realignments. And it's not only on
that issue. It's really
the, you know, the domination
of, this,
this corrupt merger of
state corporate power.
And it's happening in Washington, DC
now, where,
our democracy has really been
subverted by
the industries that have taken over
the regulatory agencies and they
and transform them into sock
puppets or
corporate profit taking and,
and basically wholly owned
subsidiaries of the industries
they're supposed to regulate.
And the Democrats, for
a variety of reasons.
And I watch it happen over many,
many years,
have, have clung
to this
illusion of these democratic
institutions that they're still
democratic and they have a we
all have the capacity
to judge ourselves on our intentions
rather than our actions.
Right.
And I've been there.
So and the Democratic
Party judged itself.
It sees itself, my friends
who are Democrats see
themselves as part of the
the good guys, the white hats
and that, you know,
it's kind of like the, the
good guys who are in Fort Apache
surrounded by,
you know, the, the
forces of barbarism that are about
to storm the gate.
And they're the only ones the only
way to keep it at bay
is to elect a president
who, has dementia.
And because you're voting for the
apparatus.
Yes. And you're not voting for, you
know, even or another,
than to handpick a presidential
candidate without any elections,
to basically get rid of democracy
in order to save it and
handpick a candidate
who in 40
days now has not given
a single interview
on any media outlet.
And I think about one my uncle and
father would think about that.
You know, they prided themselves on
on being able to go on and
debate was the centerpiece.
You know, that a whole,
you know, function of democracy was
to a kneel ideas in the furnace of
debate and, and have
them rise up and, you know, the
marketplace of ideas
and the idea
that, you know, and
this British tradition of
Churchill and the others and the
House of Commons, you know, and,
being able to defend their policies
and being forced to defend their
policy articulately, eloquently.
And, you know, my uncle and father
just thought we should.
Ideas are important and we
should be able to defend them.
And if you can't defend them,
there's something wrong with you.
Yes. And you know why.
Oh, so we have,
a, presidential candidate
that was selected by the Democratic
Party who can't do that.
And, you know, one of the things
that my uncle and father were always
thinking about is how do we look to
the rest of the world?
Right?
They they.
Were conscious that America was
the template for democracy.
When we created our modern
democracy in 1789
or 1791, when
the Bill of rights was ratified.
We were the only democracy on earth.
I, 1865,
during that endless civil war, there
were five, and they were all modeled
on America.
And by the time my uncle took
office, it was about
150.
And by the time by the end of the
690,
they're all based on an
American model.
And, you know, we very much
were the exemplary
nation. We were the example of
democracy around the globe and
people. And they were very
conscious. They were, you know, they
were embarrassed at first by the
civil rights movement because
they said, what is the rest of the
world going to think about it?
And then they realized what we
better correct.
You know the problem.
Yeah. Because, but
they everything that they did,
they were conscious.
They were being watched.
Well, what is the rest of the world
think of American democracy right
now that, you know, we
have in one party,
selected a man with
dementia to
lead the free world
and then turned around,
and picked a person, I
mean, who cannot
give an interview.
She cannot defend American
her vision or America's
right going in the world.
And she
gave this, you know, vice President
Harris gave this speech, that
convention that
was written by neocons.
And they had CIA directors
talking at the at the Democratic
Convention, military people talking
at the Democratic convention.
My father and my uncle were the
party of anti-war.
I an uncle, was asked by his best
friend, Bill Ben Bradley,
one of his two best friends who ran
the Washington Post.
Yeah. What do you want on your
graves? On your epitaph?
And my uncle said immediately
he kept the peace.
He said the primary job of a
president of the United States was
to keep the country out of war.
He said he didn't want children
in Africa and Latin America and
Asia.
When they heard about the United
States of America to think of a man
with a gun, they wanted him
to think of a Peace Corps volunteer
and the Alliance for progress and
USAID,
which were programs that he created
to build the middle class, to end
run the oligarchs and run the
military hunters.
They used to receive U.S.
aid and it said,
go to the poor and build
institutions, education and
health and and
all of the institutions of democracy
to continue to model it for the rest
of the world and live up to what
we're supposed to be doing,
which is to encourage the growth
of, of democratic
rule. So now
you have a, you know, we have
a system that's produced,
people who, you know,
candidate in the, in the, the, the,
the Democratic Party who,
who can't even defend
America's record in the world and
who was who is parroting
this kind of war mongering,
you know, military domination
ideology that's got us in
such trouble.
It's it's caused a calamity in
our country.
It's gutted the middle class.
It's made us a pariah around the
globe. It's great.
And it led to the rise of
BRICs.
It's leading to the rise of
totalitarianism all over the world.
And, you know, I'd say this
finally at them,
if you really look at what's
happening in the Democratic Party
today, it's a party
that the word diem us in
Greek means people,
but it's a party that has faith in
the people.
It's a party that needs.
Ironclad control.
So they didn't trust anybody
to have a real election.
They got rid of the primaries
because they didn't trust the
people.
They then picked hand-picked
Vice President Harris.
With no election and even pretense
of election. Because they didn't
trust the people.
And, you know, you have
and they're the party now of
censorship.
And how can you.
Have a democracy with censorship?
You cannot have a democracy.
And they're absolutely
incompatible. And everybody knew
that. Everybody, you know, you and I
were raised reading or.
Well, and Alice Huxley
and, and,
you know, Robert Heinlein and
Alexander Solzhenitsyn and,
and all of these other books that
were part of classical literature
that was taught in every American
classroom.
It said the first step to
totalitarianism is always
begins with censorship.
It's the first step down that
slippery slope.
And there's no time that we look
back in history and say that people
who are censoring speech were the
good guys, are always
the bad guys, because we
knew, you know, we know they're the
guys who are going to end up
cracking the whip on us all.
And and you know, being our,
our overlords.
And so and then, you know,
a whole thing about like
you and I talked about
that clip of,
of, Tim what
I'm saying that
government should be the ultimate
arbiter of what is
protected speech and what is not.
You know, he's a if something that
the First Amendment does not protect
misinformation and disinformation,
but it does.
The First Amendment was was
written to protect
not only true speech, but false
speech and speech.
I not not it wasn't
there. And it's unnecessary
to protect the kind of speech that
everybody wants to hear.
It's there to protect the kind of
speech that nobody wants to hear.
Right. And especially speech
that is critical of the people in
charge.
Exactly. So in their current
formulation, misinformation is
defined as any speech that
criticizes the guard that they're
doing. So with that in mind, you
see the Biden administration
encouraging France, Macron
to arrest the
owner and founder of telegram, Pavel
Durov, who's now as right now
in a French prison.
That seems like I mean,
that's the hallmark of dictatorship,
it sounds to me.
Yeah. Well, you know, we've
lost Europe.
Europe is now had
does not have free speech.
You know, look what's happened to
Elon Musk. And here Elon Musk should
be here. Or the Democratic Party,
the old Democratic Party would be
the hero.
Somehow he became a villain because
he was actually the only
the only platform that would allow
this free speech on his platform.
And he's now become a villain
because of it, because the
Democratic Party does not believe in
the people. If you don't, if you
if you if you don't believe in free
speech, it means because you don't
trust the people, you don't trust
them to figure
it out on their own in order to
to have information
on which they can base their ideas
and their notions and their beliefs.
And their votes.....
And their votes.
And that the government has to,
has to protect them from dangerous
information, things
that might put bad ideas into their
heads.
And it's very patronizing, but it's
also very
manipulative and conniving.
And really, it's exactly
the opposite of democracy.
And you will not find
a single Democrat
who will, who will
criticize. It's really astonishing
to me because.
The Democrats always liked them.
You know, when I endorsed
Trump, the big, you know,
kind of the the fulcrum at the
centerpiece of that tax of
hatred that I just kind of
seething anger
I'm so many Democrats was well, look
what he did on January 6th.
Okay. January 6th
was a bad day in American history.
And what President Trump did
and my view was, was,
was very bad.
It was reprehensible.
But it was was
the Republic really at risk?
You know, we have the U.S.
military with the National
Guard. You have you know, they have
all the institutions.
We have Congress, we have
all these institutions of
government. And and there was a mob
people, most of them
probably didn't know what was
happening. Some of them were very
badly intentioned.
We're breaking the law,
but it wasn't
a threat to the Republic.
What is a threat?
And this is what I you cannot
explain to a Democrat now.
And it's astonishing to me
what is threat is when the
government is censoring your speech
or political speech.
And, you know, I just won Tucker
last week, but that.
Was the centerpiece of
democratic ideology, was free
speech.
Exactly. I mean, the word liberal
means free speech.
That's where it comes from.
Oh, is that must be weird for
you being named Robert
F Kennedy Jr and spending your
entire life in this world like
what he said, like.
It, it.
I mean, I you know, I.
Let me just say this.
I won a lawsuit.
I want a new
judgment. And my lawsuit.
Kennedy versus Biden last week.
And and Kennedy versus Biden
is part of two lawsuits
that were brought, one
by the attorney generals of Missouri
and Louisiana and the other by me
for the same issue, which was the
Biden administration's censorship
of speech. And so there's a series
of decisions.
There's a 155 page decision,
the the attorney general's case,
one up to the Supreme Court
and was rejected because they,
the Supreme Court found that those
attorney generals didn't have
standing to. So because they weren't
directly arm my
case this week, the federal judge
Doty said Kennedy doesn't
say any to so, and
he reinforced recently
issued his injunction against the
Biden administration.
So I have an administrative,
an injunction right now against the
Biden White House and join
them from censoring me, which
they've been doing.
They the the 155
page decision by Judge Doty details
everything that happened
37 hours after he took the
oath of office.
President Biden's White House opened
up a portal for the FBI
to begin to
have access to social media
posts on all the different social
media sites, and
they the FBI, then invited
in the CIA.
DHS, the
IRS, and
PSI.
PSI say is this new agency
that is the center of the
censorship industrial complex
that is in charge of making sure
Americans don't hear things that
their government doesn't want them
to hear?
And those agencies
and other agencies, including
the health agencies like CDC,
were given access to go into
the social media sites and change
posts and slow
walk things and, and
shadow ban
pose that it was part of that
effort. And they removed my
Instagram account.
I had almost a million followers.
I they say it was for
misinformation, but they could not
point to a single post
that I ever made that was
factually erroneous.
And they actually
Facebook pushback and the email
chain. You can see Facebook pushing
back at the white House and saying,
well, wait a minute.
He's not this
isn't misinformation and this
is not actually erroneous.
What they're saying is actually
true.
And they had to invent a new word
which is called mal information,
which is information that is
factually true but nevertheless
inconvenient for the government.
And that became disinformation,
misinformation and mal information.
That's what that is.
So that everybody
and-
Isn't that that's a lie.
And yet and the emails show
that Facebook the people
said this these they were
saying about the white House in
their private emails with each
other.
These people are cynical,
you know, terrible people.
And they knew what they were doing
was breaking the law,
but they were under tremendous
pressure. Facebook has all these
deals with the government and, you
know, as do all the media companies
with the intelligence agencies
and and elsewhere.
Last they were the
white House was
overtly telling them
that they were going to,
if they didn't comply,
that their section 230
immunity was in jeopardy.
A section 30 immunity, as
they, you know, is, is,
and just so that your listeners
know what it is,
I used to write for the New York
Times regularly.
Every time I wrote
an article, lawyers would call
me and fact check everything
in that article, because
if I wrote something that was the
obituary in that article
and somebody was defamed,
that person could sue me.
But they could also say The New York
Times.
Oh, the social media side
said, we cannot hire lawyers
to look at every post
and call the people and check on it
when, you know, on Facebook or
Instagram.
So if this industry is going to
function, we need to
be able to not be liable
for what is published on our site.
And that is called section 230,
the Communications Act,
a Congress that if you are just
a platform, a media platform
that, for other
people to publish, like Facebook
is like Instagram, like Twitter
or act that
you you're immune.
Nobody can sue you.
They can sue the person who wrote
the post.
They can't sue.
Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg said if they take
away our Facebook, our section
230 immunity, it is existential,
meaning we will no longer exist.
And so they were terrified because
Congress was actually considering
removing section 230 immunity,
and the white House was telling
them, if you don't censor our
political critics,
we're going to take away your
section 3230 a minute
if President Trump did that.
The Democrats would go berserk.
Well, that's criminal behavior.
It's criminal. Does that is a
criminal right there.
Right there, violating the
First Amendment of the Constitution,
for starters.
Yeah.
And, so that's what
happened. And
the you know, my my
idea is that if somebody does
something bad, it shouldn't matter
whether they're Democrat or
Republican. I agree it is.
You know, we should all be going
after them and we should be going
after them as a society.
How much does it cost you to use
the internet?
Well, it's free, right?
Google's free.
Facebook is free.
Instagram totally free.
That's what you've been convinced
of. But it's a trick.
None of it is free.
In fact, you are paying
with your data.
Everything you do online can
be seen and sold
not just to companies, but to
governments, including foreign
governments, and often is.
So how do you reclaim your online
privacy? It's important.
Well, there is one way.
It's called encryption.
Strong encryption protects your
right to privacy online and
defends you from your many potential
enemies online, including your own
government.
And it gives you back the freedom
to read what you want right what
you want, without prying
eyes spying on you.
So how do you get this freedom
through encryption?
We'll tell you how we do it.
ExpressVPN
ExpressVPN reroutes
100% of our online
activity to secure encrypted
servers.
Now, normally, if we didn't use it,
internet providers would be able to
read and see everything
that we do online in the United
States. They could even sell it, as
we said.
But because we use ExpressVPN, they
can't see any of it 0%
approximately.
We also use it when we travel
abroad, because that same encryption
shuts out hackers who might try and
steal what we're doing things like
passwords or credit card details
over sketchy Wi-Fi free Wi-Fi
that's not free, either.
It also shuts out foreign
governments. It might try and spy on
us or censor what we're doing
online.
What we especially like about
ExpressVPN is there not a
black box?
It promises privacy and tech
solutions. We have to trust them.
They've actually opened up their
servers to professional auditors at
UC and KPMG, as well
as independent security experts, to
evaluate the claims they're making
about what they're doing, their
privacy policy and their trusted
server technology.
So people are watching them.
So it's a carefully designed
server architecture that runs on
volatile memory only.
That means it never stores user data
because it cannot store user
data. It's impossible.
It's private by design.
They couldn't keep your stuff if
they wanted to.
So in a world where it seems like
every corporation wants more and
more of your private information to
sell and manipulate,
it's nice to find a company that
actually goes the extra mile to
protect it. That's their business.
Protecting your privacy.
So if you want freedom online
and freedom means privacy.
There's never been a better time to
get it through ExpressVPN.
You can use our special links to get
three extra months of ExpressVPN
for free.
Expressvpn.com/trucker.
That's Express Xpress
vpn.com/tucker.
What I don't understand, and it is
baffling to me having known a lot of
Democrats.
But you've been in that world your
whole life.
Like how do they not see that?
How do people who say
they believe in civil liberties
suddenly think it's okay
for the government to
prosecute its political opponents
and silence them?
How do they think that?
You know, to me, it's a it's
a I've, I've thought a lot about
that I bet.
And it's about it's
about tribalism and,
you know, that people put themselves
in these tribal categories and we're
hardwired for tribalism.
That's why orthodoxies are so
popular that, you know, people
get sucked into various kinds of
orthodoxies, whether it's
ideological orthodoxy or religious
orthodoxies.
And, and that impulse
is really is not a religious
impulse. It's a biological
handballs. And it's an impulse
that's hard wired in us.
On the 20,000 generations
we spent wandering the African
savanna and tiny little groups that
were warring each other, where there
was always a male leader,
where at where, you know, the women
were traded as chattels because you
couldn't marry your sister.
So you knew from the beginning she
was going to be a trade.
Good.
And you were going to trade her for
somebody else.
She was had no power.
And, and where
you all had to ascribe to an
orthodoxy and see no problems
with people who were within your,
your in-group and
people who were outside were
subhuman, and they could be killed.
And if they made a mistake, you
know, you wanted to talk about,
everybody would talk about it.
We're all hardwired that way
because that's where our, you know,
our, our wiring comes from.
And when somebody gets subsumed in
our orthodoxy,
it's very, very difficult to
unravel. And there are all kinds
of psychiatric
treatises about how do you
deprogrammed somebody, you know,
how do you,
how do you talk somebody out of an
orthodoxy and and you know
what, the little that I know about
it is that if
you challenge them directly,
you challenge their beliefs, and it
puts concrete on it, and it
makes them less
able to move off,
they get very defensive.
And, you know, the way to approach
them, there are ways to approach
them. There's deprogramming,
protocols.
And they usually include a lot of
Socratic method of asking them
questions about their belief.
But it's a one on one,
it's one on one project enterprise.
And it's not something that you can
do the whole Democratic Party
overnight. Something has to happen
that's going to make this, you know,
this, this tribal thinking
unravel because it's really
destroying our country.
And the polarization which is
happening on both sides
is, is put on steroids
by these social media
algorithms that,
that reward people
for staying on the
side as long as possible.
So they the algorithm or
the algorithm knows this.
I've got to keep as many
eyeballs on that side as possible.
It turns out that the way
people stay on this site is if you
fortify their existing opinion.
Of course, if you feed them and
if you feed them information that
consolidates their worldview.
Yes. And so, you know,
we have this problem now where it's
not just polarization like the Civil
War, but it's polarization on
steroids, because you've got
machines that are
that are manipulating us to hate
each other more every single day.
So knowing all this as you do and
have for a long time, the,
you know, the most radical step
you can make if you're a Democrat
is endorsing Donald Trump.
So there are political calculations
involved. There are ideological
calculations, but they're also, of
course, personal calculations.
How you so, you know, once
you do that, you've burned your
boats like that's it.
You're not going back to wherever
you were ten years ago.
How hard a decision was that for you
personally?
It was a very it was an obvious
decision for me.
It should have been.
But it was a very, very difficult
decision. And we had you know, I
have a very, very good team around
me. And,
I was most worried about my
wife.
What was I about, Sheryl?
You know,
well, you know, it was
not comfortable, but.
And she is a, you know,
a lifelong Democrat, she comes from
not the aristocracy.
She comes from a very, you know,
I would say poor family
and in Florida.
But she.
She found her way through.
Through idealism to the
Democratic Party.
And that And
she shares a lot of those values.
And her industry is very,
very much,
aligned with the Democratic Party,
probably more than any industry in
our country and more than any,
town in our country.
This, but
for me was like, you know, have huge
impacts on her. And ultimately, if
she had told me
you can't do this, I wouldn't have
done it.
So, but,
I'm very I'm very
grateful
that she overcame.
She allowed me to do what she was,
embracing it.
But she said, I understand
why you have to do this.
And,
her. And we had a four
day meeting and up in Hyannis
Port, my, my aunt, everybody,
my family members, my kids,
many other people, Tony
Robbins,
attended remotely and
a number of other kind of spiritual
leaders, just
people who cared deeply about our
country,
chimed in and and made
the case on both sides.
And people from the organizers that
campaign organization that,
he here was a calculus that
ultimately was persuasive for me.
My, if
I all of our internal
polling showed from the outset
and if I say in, in the Democratic
Party, I was going to
get, president, vice
President Harris elected
57 to 60% and
even more, sometimes
up to 66%
of my voters.
My followers said that if
I withdrew from the election, they
were going to vote for Trump,
which is ironic, by the way, Tucker,
because President Trump
and the RNC did nothing to prevent
me from being on the ballots.
They didn't have a big
major organization and
Senate private and private eyes
out. You know, I the Democratic
Party was interviewing
literally everybody I've ever
met in 70 years.
It dawned on me, I,
I got a.
Call. They've been doing that.
I know for a fact for over a year,
as you know.
Yeah. And they had they were open
about this. What we're going to do,
they put a person in charge of it
named Liz Smith, who is, you
know, who's
I just the kind of person she is.
She. This is what she know.
She does negative research on people
and tries to characterize Smith.
Eliot Spitzer's old girlfriend.
Yes.
And she was in charge of that team.
And then there was other people as
well. Mary Beth Cahill and my Uncle
Daddy's chief of staff, who I know,
and Liz Smith was in charge of that.
You know, the negative reviews or
what they call negative research
euphemistically.
And I got calls from,
you know, for example, a guy that I
met at an AA
meeting 40 years ago
and he received a call.
Oh, most of my family members
received calls on contacts, either
texts or telephone
calls from people who said, I'm
doing intelligence for the DNC.
And, you know, we'd like to
talk to you about Robert Kennedy and
if you have any negative information
about him.
Oh, I was getting of,
you know.
What could possibly the
justification for that?
Well, they didn't want me running.
And that's the thing is, it's not
democratic.
It wasn't. You know.
That's such a mafia tactic.
Yeah.
Yeah. So I mean,
but the point is,
it was weird.
It was it was not smart because
I was actually helping the
Democrats. And if they just let me
stay and they didn't run
this campaign against me, they
probably would win this election.
And because I was hurting
Trump, oddly,
Trump didn't do anything about it.
He's you know, he was kind of,
he made a couple of statements about
me that I was a communist, etc.,
that they were sort of good natured,
you know, the stuff that you
that you're like, okay, that's
okay.
They weren't like calling my old
girlfriends, saying, you know.
What? You know, what did he tell
her? Or, you know, whatever
what they were, ask him.
Oh,
but the DNC was up to
that.
And.
And were you shocked by
that?
Was I shocked?
I don't know.
I mean,
I feel like I'm
in a place now.
Nothing surprises me.
I bet you are.
oh.
But.
I don't know. I mean, I, I anyway,
so they're going to.
Drop all that stuff now, obviously.
Right.
What?
You know, get rid of Liz Smith and
put her on some other project.
I don't know.
I just you sort of wonder how will
Smith live with her.
I mean, that's so repulsive.
Like, how does she justify that to
herself?
I have to. I mean, I matter,
she's not stupid.
But that is disgusting.
No, I mean, you've
lived a life famously, and
if you have a team of researchers
digging into it, and.
I have not led a careful life, by
the way. I know.
I said, you know, my first.
I was mad during my announcement
speech. I said, you know, I had told
my wife and Charlotte a couple
days before. I said, I have so many
skeletons in my closet that if they
could vote, I could run for the
world.
Oh, I know, I know, stuff
is going to come out about maybe
because I let let me put it a
colorful life.
Yeah.
And, and, you know, people
have all kinds of stories about me,
but so I was I'm
ready for, you know, I'm ready
for I was I never done anything
criminal in terms of, like,
stealing money or self-enrichment.
I did a lot of stupid stuff and a
lot of.
Have you gotten rich off pointless
foreign wars?
No, I have not done that.
Oh you haven't. Okay.
You haven't force people to inject
substances in their bodies.
Okay. I've never done that.
But anyway, so
it became clear to me that.
If if Kamala got elected,
the issues that I cared about, which
is ending the foreign wars,
you know, the the unjust wars
in World war is the wars of choice,
like Ukraine.
Stopping the censorship, which I
think is existential for our
democracy and then
protecting children from this
extraordinary exploding
chronic disease epidemic.
Those are the three reasons that got
me into the campaign.
That's why I ran for president.
Those three reasons.
I think if you got elected, I'm
70 years old, that
eight years from now, our kids are
going to be lost and that
and if she's president for eight
years, my chance to do anything
about it would be gone.
Yes. And that.
And then I got
a contact from Kathleen Means who
you know. Well, you've, you know,
made one of the best of the best
shows, ever put
on TV ever aired.
Was your interview with Galloway and
his wife, Casey
and Carly? For those of you who
haven't seen this,
his show is a,
is an expert, a genius,
brilliant, articulate,
eloquent, and
incredibly encyclopedic knowledge
on the food system and what is
corrupting it. What is causing the
corruption at FDA,
at USDA,
that the capture of those
agencies by the processed food
industry, by the chemical industry,
by that pharmaceutical industry
that actually on sick children,
one of the things that Carly says,
there is nothing more profitable
in our society in a sick child
because it all of these
entities are making money on them.
The insurance companies, the
hospitals, the medical cartel,
the pharmaceutical companies have a
lifetime annuities.
I mean, any child that and their
earlier that kid is sick.
They don't want to kill them.
I want them sick for the rest of
their lives. And we have now a whole
generation. When my uncle was,
6% of Americans had chronic
disease. They had 60%
when my uncle was president.
You know what the
the, the cause, the annual
cost of treating chronic diseases
was in this country.
Zero.
There weren't even any drugs
invented for it.
Zero.
Today, it's about $4.3 trillion.
When your uncle-
Is President, none of it is
necessary.
What was the autism rate in 1962?
Now, in 1960, the autism
rate was about
four five stories.
And the the the the
highest rates say about 1
in 25, 1 in 1500,
1 in 2500, 1 in
10,000.
oh.
So that, you know, it was it was
somewhere between one 1501,
in 10,000.
Today, it's one in every 34 kids,
according to the CDC.
And in some states, like California,
I think maybe Utah and New Jersey,
one at 22, 1 in
22 kids. And, you know,
these kids should be healthy.
These kids shouldn't be harmed.
Our highest performing kids and
A and Z are,
you know, have this extraordinary
disability that's going to give them
dependance, and
not, you know, a lot of these
if you're full blown autism,
you know, it's a nonverbal, non
toilet trained, headbanging,
stimming, talking.
These are kids that will never, ever
throw a baseball.
They'll never graduate high
school. They'll never go out.
Take a girl on a date.
I'll never use the toilet alone.
They'll never write a play.
They'll never write a poem.
They'll never vote.
Never have children.
Never pay taxes.
Here's something you may not have
known. Back in 2015,
the Congress of the United States
repealed something called the
Country of Origin Labeling
Act. Now, why is this relevant to
you?
Well, it means, among other things,
that when you buy beef at the
supermarket, it says made in the
USA, it may not
actually be.
In fact, it could be likely is
from a foreign country.
It means that repackaging foreign
meat can be enough
to get the made in USA designation.
It's a lie.
It's an absolute lie.
Most people don't even know what's
happening.
So how can you be sure that the meat
you're eating is from the United
States and has been raised with the
highest quality standards, and is
the tastiest.
It's truly made here.
Well, it's simple.
You can go to our friends at
Merriweather Farms.
Merriweather farms is an American
small business that's based in
Riverton, Wyoming.
We know the people run it, and
they're great people and they have
great meat.
They shipped the highest quality
meat, raised free from growth
hormones and antibiotics
directly to your doorstep.
It's delicious. We eat it a lot,
including at this table.
These are Americans.
These are American made products.
And because you're cutting out the
grocery store middlemen, their
prices are actually cheaper.
10 to 30% cheaper for the best
meat. They are the real deal.
Again, we eat that meat at this
table from Riverton, Wyoming.
They're the best. Meriweather
farms.com.
Use the discount code Tucker ten
and you get an extra 10% off.
Again, that's Meriwether Farms
MERS.
I ate
air farms.com.
It's worth it.
So that just seems like such
an emergency for me.
For me? Like, if I could save one
of these kids, it would be worth
giving my life for.
I'm 70 years old.
To save one kid at birth.
It would be worth dying for.
And the opportunity
and it need
are made to save all of these
kids.
I would do anything for.
I would literally do anything for
it.
We are talking breakfast.
I'm sure your perception is
different because we're talking
about you.
But, you know, for 15
years anyway, there was not a single
story about you that didn't
dismiss you as a dangerous crackpot
for questioning why
autism is much more common than it
once was. Much more, I mean,
exponentially more common.
And you've written a lot about this,
and you were attacked.
I don't see those attacks very much
anymore.
Well, they're still in the
mainstream media.
That's still part of the,
you know, the litany of, of
of my crimes.
But, you know, anybody who uses
their any innate and that's one
of the reasons they won't let me
speak on the media.
I mean, when, when Ross
Perot ran, he
he was running for ten months.
He was on mainstream media 34
times. Interviews.
And you remember him?
He was on it seemed like he was on
Larry King every week.
Worse.
But. And I in 16
months, I had to have interviews on
all of those networks ABC, NBC,
CBS, CNN, MSNBC,
two, and
I and the and,
you know, they're just basically
mouthpieces now for the DNC.
And there was this obligatory
litany of defamation and pejorative
that were used to describe me
anytime I mentioned my name was
mentioned, you know, and I was I'm
not a crackpot.
And, you know, it's like a
supervillain.
And I'm not complaining because
that's that's just, you know,
I knew what I was getting into.
But anyway, the idea
had, you know, I had these
meetings with President Trump, and
they were partly because of you,
you know, you were the one who I,
Carly Maines, called me about.
I'd say three hours after
President Trump was shot.
Ally means call, although it doesn't
seem possible because
I think it was only three hours
after the shooting.
And Saturday night.
Yeah. Saturday night.
And and and Kelly
said to me,
you know, he told me he'd call.
He'd been advising me for a long
time.
And my campaign, he
told me that night, I've also been,
I've been advising President
Trump, which
delighted me because I thought, oh,
my gosh, there's another candidate
beside me that is is listening
to the truth.
And, he
said that, that there
was interest in the Trump
campaign by the press and of,
of including me and it
he talked about vice president.
Which I wasn't interested in.
And but he
said, you know, would you be
interested in talking with the
Trump, with President
Trump?
And I said, I don't think so.
And then and part of this was I
just thought it was an onslaught.
It was Cheryl and
I called Cheryl up and she,
said to me,
you should hear them out.
I immediately called Carla.
I texted Carly back and said,
I'm interested.
And then I got a text from you.
Well, then you and I have each other
cell phones.
And you had an unknown cell phone
number, which you would like me
into, which was President Trump's
number. And you said, you know, he's
waiting for your call.
And so I called him and I had a
great conversation with him.
And,
he and he has
we decided to talk.
And I met him the next day.
He was at that point at,
Bedminster, which is, is
golf course and home
in new Jersey.
And he had he driven there from
Butler where he had been shot.
And then I went to,
and so I flew out to many
Minneapolis the next day,
and I had a,
probably a two hour meeting with
him.
And Amaryllis is my daughter in law
who is running my campaign, the
smartest person I've ever met,
and Cheryl and Susie Wiles
and and it was a really
interesting meeting because
he was so open
about.
I'm about, first of all,
not liking the neocons.
Yeah.
And, you know, I never imagined that
because I, you know, for me, he was
the guy who brought John Bolton and
Mike Pompeo into office
and, you know,
but he was,
really, disillusioned
with them, to say the least,
you know?
And then, you know, he was
he was, deeply interested
and and well-informed,
as he is on, you know,
as much as he is on any subject,
about what was happening to our
kids, chronic disease.
And then he was absolutely adamant
about stopping that censorship
and, you know, and making sure
that we had free speech.
And so we talked a little
then and,
didn't really come to any, you
know, talked about the possibility
of working together
after that and that.
But then we we put it
on hold. They wanted me to do
something. I had the convention.
I said, now I'm not going
to do that.
And and we
still at that point, there was still
a chance that I could get into the
debate, although
I chance was diminishing
and because I was not allowed on
any media and
because, you
know, my really my only chance of
winning the election, I believe I
would want to find him on the debate
stage.
And my only chance was again on the
debate stage.
And it was that was that,
possibility was vanishing.
And, so I
was looking at kind of my options.
I then contacted
Harrison's campaign because I
thought I should talk to
them and see if they're interested
in any of these issues, which I
suspect they were not, because
a camera is still an empty,
you know, an empty slate.
Kamala. Excuse me?
It was empty slate.
So, you know, it just.
Pronounced it both ways herself.
So it's okay.
It's it's,
you know, I want to.
I want to respect people
and give them. Yes.
You know,
so.
I reached out to
her and I reached
out through a number of people,
including some relatives of mine,
very, very close
to her personally and at the
Democratic Party.
And they just said, that's a
nonstarter.
There's no way in the world that
she's going to talk to you. And they
said, you can.
We can get you a meeting with a low
level campaign official.
And I said I'm
okay.
I'm not interested in that.
Why wouldn't that's.
That's interesting. Why wouldn't
Kamala Harris meet with you?
Maybe the same reason that she
hasn't given an interview.
And I think it seems to me
that there's a lot of handlers
involved and
that and, you know, even when you
talk to Democrats about,
you know, do you really think it's a
good idea to be electing
somebody who can I give an
interview?
They say, well, you're not electing
or you're electing the people around
here. You're letting the apparatus
and the apparatus, but the
apparatus, apparatus I don't have
any faith in. It's an apparatus
running that are neocons, like,
you know, like
Anthony Blinken and,
and who are, you know, running us
right up into a World War three,
and they're people who, you know,
who masterminded the censorship from
inside the white House.
That's the apparatus
that they want to reelect.
And to me, that's an apparatus
that has no it believes that people
are censoring the people who try to
throw me out of the party who
canceled the primaries.
That's the apparatus.
You know, if it was a Democrat who's
had I can think on my own.
I understand what this country is
supposed to look like, understand
what democracy is supposed to look
like.
And I, you know, and I think that's
great. Great.
Let's do.
That. But it's just it's strange
from her perspective.
First of all, electing apparatus is
not how democracy works.
That's an oligarchy, just in
point of fact.
But as a political calculation,
your presence in the race running
third party hurt Trump.
No one disputes that.
The polling is really clear on that.
So if you're the Harris campaign,
kind of a win, right, to get
some alignment with you,
why even human
curiosity you'd think would compel
her to want to meet with you, like
take a meeting, like, why do you
care?
But she didn't even talk to you.
I think that's I think it's very
weird.
It's weird, but not I mean,
I can't stress that not not
being able to give an interview.
I mean, your
your whole life is in public life.
That's what you do.
That is the.
Currency.
Right? I give, I
give, you know, this day
is a religious holiday because I'm
doing one interview with, you know,
and on a typical day I do about
7 or 8 interviews, some days
10 or 12.
And I do that every day and
every 16 months.
I if anybody else wants
me, I mean, we have less now 4000
people. I interview me, but we're
I'm interviewing as many people
as possible.
So I want to get my voice out, my
vision out, my concerns out.
And I
it's incomprehensible to me,
that you would be
in public life.
And President Trump does the same
thing.
He's not scared of an interview.
No.
He likes to see of on.
Yeah, he's on you.
He said he does.
Anybody he does.
People who don't agree with them.
He's not he's not censoring.
You know he's
doing you know, he's talking to
reporters who write
crappy articles about him all the
time, you know, from,
New York Magazine.
Maggie Haberman at the New York.
Times, New York Maggie Haberman
has never written a nice word about
Donald Trump, and he talks to her.
I often a lot.
Yeah, a lot.
So, you know,
it's an.
You know, my Uncle daddy,
who was exactly
opposite of Ronald Reagan
ideologically.
And he ran against Carter.
Yeah. Daddy, dad and Carter.
And he had an antipathy
toward each other that was almost
like nothing I'd ever seen.
Teddy. Really?
That he didn't hate people, but
he really, I would say, loathed
Carter. He just had.
He had complete disdain for him and
I. And he.
Then why he liked Reagan
and because I was more ideologically
aligned at that point.
I was I'd say, you know, why
do you like Reagan?
And he said, because
even though I don't agree with
anything, he said he was able to
invigorate our country.
He was able to inspire people.
He got people
excited about his vision and proud
to be Americans.
And that is one of the functions
of a president is
to explain to us why
we should be proud of each other,
and why we are part of a community,
and why our country is great.
And you know what
our future is going to look like and
get us and, you know, inspire
all of us with that vision.
And that is what a real leader
does.
How in the world can you do that if
you cannot give an interview
to it, to a news
worker, to a.
Friendly news, or to a.
Friendly news?
It can't even do a set up interview
in 40 days.
I saw the only interview
she did that was unscripted
was when she got off a plane.
I think it was the Andrews Air Force
Base. And and so there
was a reporter waiting there and
that, you know, and one question,
what are you going to do an
interview? She said, I've told my
team that to try to get one done
before September.
This was the 3rd of August.
And I'm doing, I'm doing, you
know, 7 or 8 interviews a day.
Tells you a lot.
And I'm.
And I'm not, you know, blowing
my own horn or anything.
I'm just saying that's what you do
if you're in public life.
And what's the point of being in
public life if you don't want to
promote your vision,
if you have other people?
Yeah.
Well, that I mean, so,
it yeah, I, I'm sure this
is a sense of shock, but I can't
help but notice that you
ran for 15
months with no Secret Service
protection role. You were denied
that by the Biden administration.
Yeah.
Trump during the convention in
Milwaukee last month noted
that in public they immediately
under pressure responding, gave you
Secret Service. Yes.
Now they've withdrawn it.
You're without it again?
Yeah. Is that true?
Yes. Meanwhile, Tony
Fauci has it.
He's not a federal employee anymore.
I think Mike Pompeo has Secret
Service protection.
Former CIA director.
But you don't.
How is that?
I think the,
you know, I'm technically still
running for president.
I'm running for president in 30,
say, 40 states.
So, I'm not
you know, I did not,
I did not terminate my
my campaign.
Did you know.
That? No, I didn't.
Yeah. So, you know, I'm
running in the I
there's there's ten states where I
heard President Trump and they're
battleground states.
Oh, I've taken my name off the
ballot in those ten states.
But in the blue states, all blue
states are red states.
I'm on the ballot.
And I could technically win a
contingency election if the other
two vote, you know, and and
a the other two get
269 apiece.
And, and then Congress
cannot work out a compromise, which
is entirely possible.
They have to go to the third vote
getter, which would be me.
And that's why I left my name on the
ballot in those states.
And so,
you know, that's highly unlikely to
happen, but it has happened
twice before in American history.
And actually and our polling
now shows them at exactly
269 to 269.
Oh, it is possible that it would
happen in this.
So and so.
All right. So and I you know, we
work this out with the Trump
campaign. They only want it off in
ten states.
That's what you heard.
I mean the other states
people can vote for me.
And and they're not going to hurt
their candidate.
They if they can vote for me, even
if they like president Vice
President Harris and without her
hurting her.
And they can vote for me if they
like President Trump without hurting
em, because we already know what's
going to happen in those states.
Yes.
I'm.
So all the more reason that you
should have what Tony Fauci has
and what Mike Pompeo has in a lot
of other, by the way, non-current
federal employees have, which is
government bodyguards, but they
withdrew them immediately from you.
So what's the message of that?
Well, the message, I think is a bad
message, which is
that our of our
federal enforcement agencies have
been weaponized against the American
people.
I mean, again, politically
weaponized politically, not against
the American people, politically.
When my father took
office in the Justice Department,
and my father was appointed
U.S. Attorney general in 1961
by my uncle, his brother
and my father, the first week in
office, he had run my uncle's
campaign. So he was a political guy.
He called together all the division
chairs, all the, branch
chiefs in the DOJ.
And he made it into his big,
cavernous office.
And he said to them, we're going
to make one rule here, which is
there is no politics.
We never ask whether a potential
defendant is Democrat or Republican.
The people of this country have to
know that
they're enforcement institutions,
the Department of Justice, as are,
our are the justices blind?
Here we are,
free of any kind of political
prejudice or Ipob
or bias or
favoritism.
And they started putting in jail.
He prosecuted my uncle on
my mother's side, for
antitrust violations.
And he prosecuted
friends of his friends of his
father's. And father did not want
him to prosecute.
And they just said it doesn't
matter. We've got it.
We've kind of applied it even
handily, because the American people
need to understand
that their institutions are
are free. We need to respect
them and know that they're not
biased in one way.
And we're losing that now in our
country. And the Biden
administration has
really accelerated at the most.
The most shocking thing to me, and
Democrats can't even hear this story
because it touches
so many sort of culture war buttons.
But it's it's a true story.
People, we don't need to understand
it and appreciate it.
In a 2020 election,
when,
when a Hunter Biden's laptop a
week before that
and we only know this, this whole
story.
Recently, because of a release
of documents.
But the one
President Biden's 100
by Biden's laptop suddenly became
an issue about a week before the
debate.
And Anthony Blinken
was now that secretary of state
and who was then the director
of President Biden's campaign,
went to Gina Haspel,
who is the head of this director of
the CIA, and and said to
her, we need help with this.
She then got 51
CIA, current and former
CIA officers
to sign a public letter, which they
published, I think, in The New York
Times. But they published it
somewhere that,
that said that Hunter Biden's laptop
was a Russian hoax.
That was part of a Russian
discernment, disinformation effort
to tamper with the,
with the presidential election
campaign.
So you had the CIA,
which is forbidden by its charter.
From involving itself in
any American politics.
And you had 51 top
officers, former and
current,
who now do a disinformation campaign
against the American public to
tamper with the election while
accusing the Russians of tampering
with the election.
And then a week later,
President Biden, when he's asked
about his laptop on the
debate, he says that has
been debunked by the CIA.
I think you CIA officers.
And that was the end of the issue,
as it was about all the newspapers
picked that up.
And it's highly likely that that
had an impact on the election.
So, you know, we
that was the on tray of President
Biden getting into office.
And again, there's you know,
Democrats who hear me say that story
are going to say, oh, he's just
saying that because, you know, he's
a Republican now right.
Which I'm not. But that's what they
say.
But it's not that.
It's just that this was wrong.
The big tech companies censor our
content.
I hate to tell you that it's still
going on in 2024, but you know what?
They can't censor live
events.
And that's why we are hitting the
road on a full tour
for the entire month of September.
Coast to coast will be in cities
across United States.
We'll be in Phenix with Russell
Brand, Anaheim, California, with Vic
Ramaswamy, Colorado Springs
with Tulsi Gabbard, Salt Lake
City with Glenn Beck, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, with Dan Bongino, Kansas
City with Megan Kelly, Wichita
with Charlie Kirk, Milwaukee, with
Larry Elder Rosenberg, Texas,
with Jesse Kelly, Grand Rapids,
with kid Rock, Hershey,
Pennsylvania, with JD Vance.
Redding, Pennsylvania, with Alex
Jones. Fort Worth, Texas, with
Roseanne Barr.
Greenville, South Carolina, with
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Sunrise, Florida, with John Rich.
Jacksonville, Florida, with Donald
Trump, Jr.
You can get tickets at Tucker
carlson.com.
Hope to see you there.
And so the CIA, I mean, a lot of
roads lead back, unfortunately,
to our most powerful intelligence
agency would, if you were
asked, would you run it?
Would you become CIA director?
If you were.
Asked, I would never get,
yes, I would, but I would never get
Senate confirmation.
As you know, the intelligence
agency, are protected
by, by very,
very powerful committees in the
Senate and in the House
that are already into the project.
And the people who serve on those
committees are,
are are people who wouldn't,
you know, they would not they they
would. There's a safeguarding that
director. I mean, I would be very,
very dangerous for those,
this committee. So I don't think
that, and yet.
In his, you know,
in your joint, appearance on Friday,
President Trump introduced you by
saying that he plans
to, if elected,
establish a commission to declassify
the remaining documents on your
uncle's murder in 1963.
Yeah.
And I and I think everyone at this
point knows the truth, which is the
CIA is implicated in that.
Those documents protect CIA, maybe
among others.
Well, whether they do or not,
I mean, it's odd that they've not
allowed them to be released,
because.
What could possibly be.
The case more than six years after
my uncle's 65 years,
oh, 62 years after his death,
and none of the people
who were implicated
in that crime are alive now.
Yeah, the last ones have died
off as a year or so
and so
and it clearly is.
And, to protect the institution.
Yes. And that's wrong.
Is is wrong and as wrong
for a Democrat as wrong for
Republic.
It's just interesting, though, that
a bipartisan list
of presidents lo these, these six
decades have kept those
files classified.
Well, you and I have both.
I was astonished that Trump,
didn't declassify him because he
promised during the campaign.
That was Mike Pompeo who did that.
Yeah. And that and that.
I talked to President Trump for the
first time about that this week.
And what do you say?
He said that,
he said that Mike Pompeo
begged him to,
and I don't think I'm telling tales
out school. No, I think they told
the same thing to you.
That's true.
But he said Mike Pompeo had called
him and said this wouldn't be a
catastrophe. To release it, you
need to not do it.
And that and.
I want to say again, I think Mike
Pompeo was a criminal.
So that's my view.
He threatened to sue me for saying
that, but I hope he will, because
it's true.
But that that kind of tells the
whole story right there, right?
That the CIA.
Is. Oh, yeah.
So that's why would the CIA be
trying to keep these files
classified if they had nothing to do
with the murder? I don't really get
that.
Yeah. And the subject we were
talking about was the weaponization
of federal agency, and that's just
one of them. And then
then they get, you know,
then they open up these censorship
portals. The 37 hours
after President Biden takes office,
where how are you of the FBI
involved in American politics?
And, you know, which, we ran them
out in the 60s, you know, because
we were outraged that they were even
or bugging Martin Luther King
in the Black Panther Party.
And Americans were indignant
about that.
Why are they think there's I mean,
why have we gotten to the
point where it's so normalized and
now we're okay with the FBI
running a portal to censor
political speech our country and
then inviting him, the CIA and
say, I and the IRS,
I don't know what they were doing in
there.
And I h and, you know, CDC
and all these other agencies,
DHS,
which all had a hand in censoring
American speech.
So that was another thing.
And then the
use, you know, which we saw
for the first time in American
history of the, of
the judiciary, to,
to to get rid of candidates,
you know, what they tried to do to
me? They're suing me now, and I and
a dozen states I've,
I've been in trials for the past
three weeks.
You know, I've spent most of my time
not campaigning,
but being a sitting in court,
in cases that are trying to get me
off the ballot. So, like, well, I
had a million people, a
million American citizens
sign petitions,
more than any candidate in history.
Everybody said, I'd never do this.
The impossible would be in the
ballot in $0.50.
Well, guess what we got on the
ballot in 50 states,
and we did it by getting a
million citizens
to sign a petition saying that they
wanted to vote for me.
And the Democratic Party now
is suing me. And although stage,
to make sure that those people
cannot vote for the person they
wanted. When I was growing up, the
Democratic Party, oh,
well, RFK and
JFK was the
party that was fighting for voting
rights. It was.
Heading to make sure that every
American could vote
for the candidate of their choice,
no matter whether you're black or
white, or whether they lived a
Democrat. Republican.
Now the Democratic Party, today's
Democratic Party,
feels so unconfident
about the candidates that it's
putting forward,
and it feels the only way it can win
the election is by getting
rid of the opponents.
And, and, you know, either using
the courts against President Trump
to lock him in jail and
embarrass and humiliate and
discredit him, or
using the courts against me
to, just to throw me off
the ballot. Even though
the voters in New York said
I had to get 45,000
ballot signatures and
13 congressional districts, I
got, I got
137,000
and all,
26 congressional districts.
I did twice what anybody wants.
And we did it easy because people
wanted to see him on the ballot.
New Yorkers wanted to see me on the
ballot.
Why is the Democratic Party suing
me in frivolous cases?
What? And a whole week in in
a trial for that case,
for two cases they brought and
another week in another trial or
another.
Can you to pay for this?
It's causing me $10 million
to defend myself.
But on what grounds are they suing
you like you don't?
They don't like you. So you don't
have a right to be on the ballot or
what?
What where in New York State
are suing me
by they they can't challenge
our signatures because we got five
times as many signatures as we
required. So, you know, normally
what they were doing in the first
place or taking
out the signatures and they were
calling everybody,
they can get their numbers and they
can get their, you know, cell
phones, etc.
and we're contacting everybody in
the segment and trying to talk them
out of it, trying to say, get them
to say, you know, you're hurting
democracy.
And, you know, you should, you know,
weren't you fooled when you did as
to try to, they they never
succeeded.
Oh, they're they're in New York
State.
They're suing me because they
say that I did not.
I don't live in New York State.
I don't I have
three residences.
One is in New York, one
is in my home in Massachusetts,
which, you know, is part of my
family compound that we've on for,
you know, 100
years and,
and, and in
California, where I live,
which I also I moved to Charlotte,
California in
2014.
So ten years ago
an I lived in New York all my
life. I lived there since I was ten.
My father ran for Senate there and
was the senator.
I moved there when I was ten.
I've only voted in New York.
I've always considered myself a New
York resident. I've lived in the
same town
for 40 years in Bedford.
I've lived in 13 different residents
in that town at various times.
And but I always wanted to stay
there. And when I moved out west
with Cheryl,
I made an agreement with her
that, you know, when she retires,
I'm back to New York because I feel
like I'm a New Yorker.
I didn't I didn't want to vote in
California because I don't know
anything about the politics of.
I was raised in New York.
I know all the politics, all the
politicians.
And so I wanted to vote.
I kept an address there.
I voted that address.
That's my only place I've ever
voted.
I my car is registered
there, my driver's license is
there, my
law office is there.
I pay income tax almost
all my entire income taxes from
New York State.
My all licenses there.
I don't have a law license in
California.
And, my hunting license
is there, my fishing license.
Most importantly, I-
Falconry license there.
So I have all my birds
there. You know, I keep them there.
And so, you know, there's
telling me saying I'm not a real New
Yorker. I'm, I'm, you know,
I can drive the address out
of fraud and it's a sham.
And, here's
the thing is, and
I consulted a lawyer when I, when
we declared independent, began
getting ballot signatures, I consult
the best ballot access attorney
in the country, Paul Rossi.
And I said, I get these three
different residences.
Which one do I put on the ballot?
You have to put the same residents
in all 50 states.
So you can't choose another
resident. You know you can't.
I can't put California in one state
and Massachusetts and others in New
York. I have to tell the people.
Otherwise I'm lying to somebody,
right? Right.
So in a couple of states,
for example, Maine, where we are
right now, and
in New Hampshire, those states
say the only place you can put down
is your domicile is the place where
you vote.
And in New Hampshire, I actually
had to take an oath
in front of a notary
that I voted in New York
because otherwise I could not put it
down.
So I had to put New York in
every state, because I had to put it
in Maine and New Hampshire and a
bunch of others, because you have to
put the place you vote.
Anyway, the DNC is suing me,
saying I defrauded the public
because I really live in California.
And they got a, you know, they
got a judge who is,
you know, right out of the
Democratic machine
and who violated the Constitution
and every president
to say, yeah, they're right.
So, you know, I lodged in the lower
court, which is what happens.
We're doing that we're losing in
these lower courts. And then we
within the appeals, there's a 100%
chance of winning the appeal.
But they don't care because
it's going to take me a while.
And they got the headlines and he
was thrown off for fraud.
So these I mean, I saw Kamala
Harris just the other night, and her
convention speech, talk about how
voting access is like a.
I know
that I was in court in New
York, you
know, trying to get on a ballot
while she.
Well, that are the tired
the judge.
The John Lewis voting access Act
we're going to get through.
Everybody has a right to vote.
Yeah.
It's not except for their opponents.
So does this.
It feels to me like this is,
you know, obviously it's a big
political story. You're endorsing
Trump. It's a big, big change
in your life as a lifelong Democrat,
still a Democrat.
But, it also feels
like, as you said at the outset.
I'm an independent Out.so,
I registered as an independent when
I ran. And when I talk with
President Trump, the
you know, the thing that we talked
about is that,
you know, we were going to do a
unity government,
with the independent,
not not the kind of endorsement that
a lot of people make
on an endorsement, like
Abraham Lincoln's team of rivals,
where we would be able to continue
to differ publicly on issues,
but that we would on the issues
that we agree on, that
we were going to strive to get into
government together in order to make
sure that those issues are,
you know, or, you know, are the
priority for our country.
And, you know, he was really good
about that and about, you know, me
being able to continue on.
There's some issues.
There's a lot of issues like the
border where we agree and,
you know, censorship, the wars,
the neo cons that, you know, forever
wars, child
health epidemics, those are the most
important issues.
There's other issues that I and I'm
going to disagree on with President
Trump. But he was happy with that.
And that's how our country ought to
be. We ought to be able to.
So what is this realignment that you
mentioned at the outset?
Because this does feel like
it's bigger than just this November?
Yeah, I mean, there's been a series
of these realignments
throughout American history.
And, you know, there there's history
books that are written about, you
know, the the realignment of I
think there's about five of them.
And, and
I one of those is clearly happening
now because you,
you see, on so
many issues, you know, the
he you've had an inversion.
The Democratic Party has become the
party of the elites,
used to be the party, the poor and
the working class.
In fact, there was a study
that came out just recently that I,
saw that showed
that 70% that the people
who voted for Biden on 70%
of the wealth in this country, the
people voted for Trump on 30%.
And, and so.
I believe.
That. Right.
So you're seeing this realignment
happened where the elites where
Wall Street or the big tech,
big pharma,
the big banking houses are all
now democratic,
and that the,
and that the working class, the
middle class, the cops, the
firefighters, Sean
O'Brien out of the Teamsters union.
You know, this guy had just that
great guy, great, great guy.
Really love him.
But he he spoke at the Democratic
convention, I mean, the Republican
convention, rather the Democratic
convention. So you're
seeing this just this bigger
alignment and even on environmental
issues, it's so
weird to me because
the Democrats have become subsumed
in this carbon orthodox in you.
And I have talked about this,
that the only issue is carbon.
And what that's.
One is, it's forced them to do
something that you should never do.
If you're an environmentalist,
which is to commoditize and quantify
everything. So everything is
measured by its carbon footprint,
how many tonnes of carbon it
produces. And,
you know, you're basically,
you're, you're putting everything in
that kind of
box of of being able to
quantify it and explain its value
by, you know, by a
numerically.
And the reason that we protect the
environment is just the opposite of
that. The reason that we protect the
environment is because there's a
spiritual connection.
There's a, you know,
there's a love that we have we
you know, I got into the environment
because I
wanted, you know, this connection
to the fishes and the birds and the
wildlife and, and the whales
and,
and the purple mountains, Majesty.
And that, you know, I understood
that the way, you know, God
talks to human beings.
There are many factors through each
other, through organized religion,
through the great prophets or the
wise people, the great books
of those religion and nowhere
with the kind of detail on
texture and grace and joy
as through creation.
And when we destroy nature,
we diminish our capacity to sense
the divine, understand
who God is and what our own
potential is and duties
are as human beings.
And that I hope what you
just said, by the way, is chopped up
and put all over every social media
platform in the world.
When we destroy nature, we degrade
our own ability to experience
the divine.
Yeah. And that that, you know,
it's not about quantifying stuff.
That's what the devil does.
He quantifies everything.
Right? And that is, you know, what
he wants us doing with a number
on it.
And the reason we're preserving
these things is not is
because we love our children,
you know, and it's because
we we get nature
enriches us rich as economically
and spiritually and culturally and
historically.
It connects us to those 10,000
generations of human beings that
were here before there were laptops.
And, you know, and it connects us
that the most important
spiritual asset of everything,
every all
of the organized religions
in, you know, that that we know
of today, the central
revelation of every one of those
religions always occurred in the
wilderness.
You know, Moses had to go into that
wilderness to, to
to listen, to hear God's voice
and see the burning bush.
He had to go to the wilderness at
Mount Sinai
to get the commandments.
Muhammad had to he was a city boy
from Mecca, had to go to the
wilderness and Mount Harar on a
camping trip with its kids
and wrestle the angel Gabriel in the
middle of the night. Have the first
stanzas of the series
of the Koran squeeze from an
Buddha had to go into the wilderness
to sit under the, you know, and
wander for years, and then sit
under the buddy guy a tree
to get his first revelation of
nirvana.
And Christ had to spend 40
days. And I want this
to discover its divinity for the
first time.
And his mentor was John the Baptist,
who lived in a cave in the Jordan
Valley, a honey of
wild bees and locusts and,
you know, and then all of Christ's
parables come from nature.
I'm the vine. You are the branch
mustard seed, the little swallows,
the scattering seeds on the ground,
because that is where we center the
divine. God talks to us through
the fishes, the birds, the leaves.
They're all, you know, words from
our creator.
And that is why we preserve
nature. Yes.
It's not because of that,
you know. It's not because that
you know the quantity of carbon.
And by the way.
I feel what you said so deeply, I
can hardly even express it.
And thank you for saying that.
And by the way, we,
the best thing that you can do for
climate is to restore
the soils.
The soils are the solution.
Everything.
The soil will absorb all that
carmine. If you know if
and it'll absorb the water, it'll
stop the flooding.
It'll give us healthy food.
And that's what our national policy
has to be. It has to be restoring
the soil. And that is, you know,
everybody listen.
If you talk, if you want to unite
America and
talk about these things, talk about
the fishes, the bird, the wildlife,
and talk about ending
mountaintop removal mining,
talk about ending that mountain
cutting, talk about
getting rid of, you know, the
Democrats are putting these
these offshore wind
farms that are exterminating
the whales. I know most of us got
into this because of the whales,
and they're about to extinguish the
right whales, the last
ones on Earth
with these monstrous.
And he just that, you know that our
cost has three times the amount.
We don't need them.
It costs $0.33 a kilowatt
hour when you can get an onshore
wind for $0.10 a kilowatt hour.
And who's making the money?
Goldman Sachs, Blackrock,
foreign governments.
And the other thing that they're
funding hundreds of billions of
dollars. This is what they're
calling. This is what climate has
turned into is these
climate capture pipelines
and are wreaking havoc with the
agricultural lands across the
Midwest, stealing people's property
rights with, you know, eminent
domain and who's
making the money?
Blackrock. And it's a useless
technology that does not work.
It's just all a boondoggle.
And that's what's become the
environmental movement in this
country. And if you depart from that
orthodoxy, you're expelled from it.
If you if you want to make
Americans fight each other,
talk about carbon.
If you want to bring Americans
together, talk about habitat
protection.
Yeah, nature.
And, you know, it's.
A little weird.
I mean, you literally spent your
life Riverkeeper as an
environmentalist, environmental
lawyer in the environmental
movement. I mean, that that's the
that's that's your life work
product.
All right. Have you been expelled
from the movement?
Pretty much.
Yeah.
You know, the weird thing is I think
of you as a radical
environmentalist.
Well, I definitely am.
Yeah.
You are.
I haven't showered inside in ten
years. Yeah, yeah. No, I feel it so
strongly.
Also, you know, you love nature.
You're against these big projects
that are destroying it.
And, you know, you you
talked about toxics and the American
environmental movement no longer
talks about toxics anymore.
They don't care about it.
I don't care that we're mass
poisoning our children.
It's so weird to me.
And a.
And, you know, I saw you,
I for for
40 years I've been fighting
to get against
crime disruptors.
And disruptors are a class
of chemicals that
can they alter us
hormonally and they change
our.
I can change sexual conduct.
I can change,
sexual development.
They can affect, fertility.
And we've already lost 50% of our
sperm count.
You know, we're having, girls
in this country that are achieving
puberty, on average, between 10 and
13 years old. That's six years
less younger
than they were, you know, 80
years ago.
We we we have the lowest
puberty levels on any continent
in the world here because we're
just bombarding our children with
crying disruptors.
And, and, you know, they're,
they're chemicals like
he Seabees.
I like chlorinated IV and also
atrazine, which can turn
male frogs into
females and produce
fertile eggs.
That's how potent they are
as an underground disruptor.
And it's in 63% of our water
supply,
PCBs, which I've been fighting
since the day I became an
environmental lawyer and getting
them out of the Hudson.
So. And and for 40
years, I've been trying to get
Republicans to talk about it.
I talk with Roger Ailes all
the time of both of us now.
oh.
Who would let me occasionally on to
Fox News to talk about it.
But there was so much hostility from
the Republican Party because it was
like, you're attacking corporate
profit taking.
And these are chemicals.
They're they're molecules.
Who cares? You know, they can't hurt
you.
And that was just.
And then you do this incredible
show on anti-crime disruptors.
And I'm like, oh my God, Tucker
Carlson. And just on the best
show that's ever been done
showing, you know, what's happening
with underground disruptors, how
they're just destroying us.
And the Democrats went after
you and the environmental movement.
And I'm like, what?
You know, we've been trying to get
for 40 years, Republicans
care about these issues.
And they said, oh, he's saying that
chemicals turn people gay and
he's anti-gay and all this stuff.
And that wasn't what you said at
all. And that's not what anybody
said.
And what what we're saying is
we're we're destroying our children.
That's what we're saying.
Yeah. And God's creation, which is
not ours to history.
Your description of why we
protect nature and its role in
our lives, and what happens when
you're cut off from nature and
animals. But yeah, being part
of nature is the best I've ever
heard. Ever.
And I think, you know, I mean it.
And when that,
you know, when it becomes a matter
of quantifying things for profit,
then that kind of corrupts the whole
enterprise. So where do
you my last question, what happens
now? You had this kind of amazing
announcement with Donald Trump on
Friday. It's now Monday.
I think it was just three days ago.
How do you spend from here until
Election Day?
I'm going to work to get him
elected.
And, and, you know, I'm working
with the campaign.
We're working on policy issues
together.
I will, I've been
asked to go on the transition team,
and, you know, to help pick the
people who will be running
the government.
And, I'm,
I'm looking forward to that.
And I, you know, I'm I'm going
to fight.
I don't know what would happen to me
if we lose.
Well, that's that was that's kind of
I mean, a lot of people I know
personally and I'm friends with have
gone to prison. One of them is in
prison right now, Pavel Durov.
There are others,
like, what happens if he loses
to you?
If, you mean if.
Trump loses and Kamala Harris
becomes.
Oh, I don't know.
But I mean, listen, I know I
don't I never
really think about that.
I want to I think it's good, but
I think it's okay.
Here's what I to do today.
And, you know, get up every day and
say reporting for duty, sir.
And then go do that.
And, you know, nothing's
a crisis. Everything's a task.
Right. And,
and so that's what I'm going to be
kind of a happy warrior and, you
know, I'm, I,
I know what I have to do is I'm
going to do it.
Robert F Kennedy junior.
Thank you.
That was really. That was a
blessing. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
To watch the rest unlock our entire
vast library of content.
You can visit TuckerCarlson.com
and activate your membership today
in the name of free speech.
We hope you will.
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
EXCLUSIVE: RFK JR On RISING!
'No brainer for me': Former GOP congressman Adam Kinzinger on why he is endorsing Biden
Corruption in food and health
DEMS are P*SSED! RFK Dropping Out and Endorsing Trump | Redacted w Natali and Clayton Morris
Dementia doctor explains what is happening to Trump
'This is 2nd liberation of Bangladesh',says Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus as Sheikh Hasina resigns
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)