Rep. Thomas Massie: Battling the Treachery of Trump’s Republican Party, AIPAC, and the Epstein Class

So, how's your Iran war been so far? You enjoying  the Iran war? Well, that really depends on who you. are. We like to think as Americans that we're  all in this together. And big events like wars. or economic booms or crises or natural disasters  affect all of us equally. But that's not true. And it never has been true. How you experience  something big really depends on where you sit. And again, that's been true since the beginning  of time. When Rome fell in 476, September 476,

it of course was a history-changing disaster that  we're still talking about. Books have been written. about it ever since, more than 1500 years. And for  most people, it was really the end. It was the end. of a civilization, the world's largest empire.  But there were some people, you can imagine, on New Year's Eve 476 sitting around the table  with their families assessing the year that just. went by and they looked around the table and  said, you know, that was the best year we ever.

had. Of course, Germanic hordes are plundering  the city of Rome, but for us, honestly, it was. pretty great. And that's just the nature of it.  Not anything inherently wrong with that. It's just. a fact. You saw it during CO. COVID was a massive  disaster for most Americans, for most people in. the West. Addiction rates went up, suicide rates,  divorce, kids didn't get educated for over a year. It destroyed a whole generation of young people,  affected them badly. Anyway, on the other hand, if you were fortunate enough to have a second  home, like a weekend house in a rural area.

that didn't have CO restrictions or enforcement  officers capable of enforcing them, it was pretty. great. If you lived in a traditional world, like  say where your wife didn't work because she didn't. have to because you made enough money, you could  live a kind of 1950s family existence and you had. a coherent family and children who still liked  you sort of and they were all home for months. It was like the best time you had in the last 20  years. People don't like to say that out loud,

but that's real. And the Iran war is a little  bit like that. It's an event that is affecting. our lives right now are certain to define our  lives in important ways going forward. An event. that's changing the world for all time. An event  that people will write books about. And for most, it is a disaster. A true disaster. Not just  for the thousands who've already been killed. or the dozen countries that have been bombed or  for the hundreds of thousands of Britain in the. UK who've dropped below the poverty line already  two months in, etc., etc., etc. It's a disaster.

But for some small select group of people, it's  been awesome. Let's check in with our old friend, hedge fund manager, Bill Aman. This was him two  days ago in CNBC. Here's how his war is going. Iran has been, I think, a major uh funer of sort  of anti-American protests and kind of otherwise. Um I think, you know, that that that war is a is  a very good one. And uh the war is a very good.

one. Yeah, it's I think we've It's very unpopular  though. I don't know. I don't know who surveys to. trust. Look, I think most Republicans uh many  Republicans support the president and it's it. shouldn't be a bipartisan issue. The Iran war is  a very good one. Really? Says the interviewer on. CNBC. No, really. Yeah, it's a very good one. Is  it an unpopular? I don't know about that. And the. truth is Blackman probably doesn't know. He may  not know anyone personally who thinks this is a.

disaster because for Bill Aman and his friends  the Epstein class it's been a massive win and. that's been pretty obvious increasingly if you're  following markets. So there's this phenomenon that. people are starting to catch on to where a  certain certain news organization predicts. serially many times in a row over the past 20 or  so days an imminent peace agreement between Iran. and the United States. Now, that agreement has  not materialized. Apparently, we're not actually. close to getting one. But at the moment when  that's announced, every single time you've seen.

a massive move in global energy markets and in  equity market, stock market, because people are. betting that that will have direct effects on the  value of stocks andor oil or other commodities. And a little bit before that announcement, every  single time you have seen massive bets made on oil. futures, you've seen billions of dollars change  hands and you can surmise that somebody is getting.

rich doing this. In fact, you can be absolutely  certain. Now, you you don't know who. Well, the. only thing you know is a it's happening and b no  one will ever be held to account for it. Now, how. do you know that? Cuz we've seen this a lot. In  fact, we saw it and no one ever wants to remember. this on 9/11. Shortly before 9/11, somebody  somebody put big bets in shorts against airline. and bank stocks. Those are two businesses that  were directly affected by the events of 9/11. Now,

we know this happened because these are public  markets, so there's a record of it. But we also. know because they admitted it, the FBI figured  out who did it, but the FBI never got around to. telling us their identity. So the largest federal  law enforcement agency has known for 25 years. who had foreign knowledge of 9/11 and that's  demonstrable cuz they bet against the events. of that day before the rest of us experienced  them and has never divulged their identities. Now we can guess as to why that is. Why would the  FBI be protecting people with foreign knowledge.

of 9/11? We don't know for certain what the  answer is, but we do know that they are doing. it. They did it and they're still doing it. So,  if the identities of people who bet against 9/11, who shorted airline stocks before 9/11, are  somehow classified on national security grounds. and you're allowed to know them, then we can bet  safely that whoever is profiting from the Iran war. in public markets probably isn't going to get any  kind of insider trading violation. Probably not.

But one thing we also have learned is that  these markets are much more vulnerable, susceptible, maybe based on manipulation than  we ever thought. And if you think about it, that's kind of a surprise. Even people who  complained about how central the stock market is. to the American economy, and you can argue whether  we have a real economy, if it's based on anything. That's a academic argument. But even people who  thought, "Wow, we seem a little bit overinvested.

in public equities markets kind of assumed they  were real." And market's pretty straightforward. proposition. I've got something to sell. You  want to buy it? I'll sell it for what you'll. buy it for. And vice versa. It's transparent by  its nature. It's self-correcting. That's the basis. of our economic system. Capitalism, free market  capitalism. It always finds the right level, the rational level, because it's based  on the free exchange of money for assets.

But that's not what we're seeing now. Not  at all. Markets are doing things you would. not expect markets to do if they were behaving  rationally in a free way. If they weren't rigged, you would see, well, certain commodities prices,  including oil, go up a lot more. They have, gold, go up a lot more than it has. And yet gold and oil  and other commodities have stayed far lower than. you would rationally expect them to stay after 60  days of terrible news out of the world's center of.

global energy production. So the street of formuz  has been closed for months now in effect. And yet. oil as of airtime tonight was under a hundred  bucks a barrel, much lower than it was in say. 2008. That is bizarre. But it's more than bizarre.  It's fake. It is obvious. It's become too obvious. to deny over the past couple of months that public  markets are not what they told us they were,

which is to say open and free and equal for  everyone to participate in. It's going to take a. long time for that understanding to percolate  down to level of retail investors. But the. knowledge is there and you can't kind of deny it  that some people are getting rich from this and. most people aren't. And it's not exactly clear  the mechanisms mechanisms by which they are, but. it's very obvious that it's happening. We're not  accusing Bill Aman of participating in this. It's.

not like Bill Aman would talk down share prices  in publicly traded companies to make money. Oh, wait. He's done that his whole life. But in this  specific case, we have no evidence of a crime, assuming it still is a crime. But we can say  with great confidence that in this, as in every. other war, some people will do just fine. In fact,  they will greatly benefit from it, which is one of. the reasons we keep having wars because they are  enormously profitable. It's hard for normal people.

to appreciate that that could possibly be true.  People die, innocents die in foreign countries, your own country becomes poor, your own service  members die so you can get rich. Could anyone be. that dark? Yeah. And we're watching it now. So  there is a part of the population that thinks. this has been a very good war and isn't even  aware that it might be unpopular with anybody. else because I haven't met anyone in in the famous  words of polling Kale who didn't vote for George.

McGovern who lost very badly in 1972. We all  live in our own worlds. So Bill Aman doesn't. know anyone who doesn't think this is a great a  great thing. It's a great war. So how's the rest. of the country doing? Well, the chairman of  the White House Council on Economic Advisors, Kevin Hasset, was called to the lawn today to  give an account of the American economy. And. that's a tough thing to do. And we say this with  great sympathy and no personal animist toward Mr. Hasset at all. But here's the tape. Here's what  he said. So, the consumer is really really firing.

on all cylinders just like the corporate sector  you're seeing in the earnings reports. And they're. doing that because they have so much more money  in their pockets. In fact, I had the head of one. of the big five banks in my office yesterday going  through the credit card data and just as Secretary. Vessence said, uh, credit card spending is through  the roof. They're spending more on gasoline, but they're spending more on everything else, too.  Credit card spending is through the roof. That. is now again, you feel bad for the man who has to  present those data those data to the public as if.

they're a win. But think about this for a second.  The average interest rate on a credit card, not even a new credit card, but an existing  credit card, which is to say a credit card. held by someone with a track record of paying  money every month to the credit card companies. These are not high-risisk credit cards. These are  normal credit cards. The average interest rate in. the United States right now is 23%. 23%. And by  the way, that goes up to 36%, probably higher.

probably higher than 36%, but officially 36% is  the highest rate any mainstream credit card will. charge you. You could go get a personal bank loan  for 11%. So, you could borrow money at less than. half the rate than you're getting from your credit  card company. So, why would anybody use a credit. card and roll over the interest? 40% of American  adults cannot repay their credit card balance.

That's 111 million people and they are paying on  average 23% interest. So that's not a win. That's. a sign of desperation and impending poverty. And  keep in mind we are living right now in the final. moments before whatever AI is going to bring us.  those data centers being erected in your town,

the ones that you are paying for through higher  energy costs, through the legacy environmental. cleanup, you're definitely on the hook for those  data centers are being constructed in order to. eliminate half of all American white collar  jobs. So, you hate to use the hackneed cliche. digging your own grave, but it's not entirely  an overstatement at this point. those data.

centers going in, destroying the landscape in your  town, eating up fertile farmland in some cases, certainly making everything uglier and providing  almost no jobs. Those are going up in order to. facilitate AI. And the one thing, really the  only thing we know about AI is that it's going. to eliminate half of all productive work in  the United States. That hasn't happened yet. It's beginning to happen. But all forecasts from  the people who are developing it, who have every.

incentive to downplay the negative effects of the  technology they're creating, all the forecasts. suggest in the next 2 or 3 years, we're going to  see economic disruption on a scale we've never. even conceived of. Keep in mind that economic  change always precipitates, always causes, forces econom forces political change. And if the  economic change is profound and abrupt enough, it.

causes revolution. The first and second world wars  were a reaction to the industrial revolution. Of. course, Marxism was a reaction to the industrial  revolution, but no technological change in all of. history matches the abrupt and radical change  now being promised by the developers of AI. So all of this, the conversation we're having  about the American economy and how much money. people have and how much they owe, all of that  is taking place in the final moments before the.

economic cataclysm we've been promised  by artificial intelligence. So it's not. like we can wait 10 years for this whole thing to  self-correct, for markets to become honest again, and for people to make a wage sufficient to buy  a home and raise children. This is all happening, which is to say people are getting poorer and  far more indebted on the eve of what we should. all be staying up late worrying about and trying  to fix. But instead, no one is worried about it.

in any position of authority. People seem to be  wholly focused on cashing in on it. Build the. 40,000 acre data center as soon as you possibly  can. get taxpayers to pay for it in effect by. shouldering the cost of running it through higher  utilities and take as much money off the table as. you can while you can. That's what it looks like.  Now, maybe that's an ungenerous interpretation. Maybe there are a lot of people who really trying  to build a better tomorrow through AI and Deltas.

There are some of those, but big picture that  does seem to be what's going on. And you know. that because no one has explained to you how  this is going to be good for you. Instead, they're telling you that borrowing money on your  credit card is a sign of economic health. It's a. sign that we're on the right track. We have more  money to spend. That's why we're buying more on. our credit cards. No, people have more money to  spend buy things. People who have no money to. spend buy essentials on credit. And that's exactly  what is happening. Now, some of that is a reaction.

to the economic changes already wrought 2  months in by the war with Iran. Some of it. is the downstream effect of years of bad economic  planning, years of living in an economy where Bill. Aman makes $8 billion or something with an IQ of  105 with no track record of improving the country. or creating anything. Basically just leeching off  the existing system, plundering it effectively. He.

hates it when you say that, but he's he's never  explained how what he does for a living is good. for the United States or productive in any sense.  It's merely extractive, probably worse than lead. mining. But all the gains, the substantial gains  over the last 20 years have not been broadly. shared by Americans. They've gone upward. Now,  that's a moral problem, maybe, probably, but it's.

certainly a management problem. It is a problem of  governance at a certain point because it means a. huge number of Americans, let's just go with the  111 million, the number that can't repay their. credit card debt, who have no vested interest in  the system. They have a negative net worth. They. don't own anything. They are living here, but  they don't see a future for themselves or their. families, or they may not have families, and they  certainly don't own anything worth protecting. And.

so, what does that add up to? social and political  volatility. So you would think the people in. charge of the country who are benefiting the most,  the people like Bill Aman who think it's been a. really good war would be very concerned about this  and they would not want to put any more economic. pressure on this belleaguered population and  particularly on young people who seem to bear the. brunt of it probably because they have the least  political power. So nobody cares what they think. healthy society would be totally focused on what  young people think because they are building the.

society that will outlive the current leadership  of that society. But they're ignored. So if you. were thinking longitudinally, if you were thinking  about what's best over time for your country, your civilization, you'd be focused on them  and you would not casually add to their burden. But what we're watching is a kind of  frenzy of carelessness, of thoughtlessness, of callousness toward people whose lives have  not gotten better over the past 30 years,

but gotten measurably worse in every category  of measurement. Now, you hate to pile on and. you hate to take the president literally because  as I've said many times, Trump is not meant to. be taken literally. Sort of like reading poetry.  The theme is what matters. The feeling it evokes. is what matters. I've made that argument and it's  often true. But at some point, particularly when.

you're talking about hard numbers, the prices of  commodities, for example, in the middle of a war. that is affecting those prices, it is worth paying  attention to the president's own estimates of the. costs of this voluntary war that he started at  the demand of Israel. So, here is the president, I think yesterday, explaining his view on oil  prices. I also thought oil would go up to 200, 250, maybe 300, and I knew it would be short term,  but I thought it would go I I look today it's.

like at 102 and that's a very small price to pay  for getting rid of a nuclear weapon from people. that are really mentally deranged. It's a 100. It  could I thought it was going to go to 200 or 300? Really? What would $200 a barrel oil mean? Well,  we've never had it. We've never had in the and.

this is these are adjusted numbers. We've never  had $200 a barrel Brent crude period in world. history. But what would happen if we did? Well,  I don't know, $10 a gallon for unled at the pump, more for diesel, much more for jet fuel. What  would that mean? Well, it would mean inflation, possibly hyperinflation. What would $300 a barrel  oil, which the president said he imagined we could. have, what would that mean? Well, it's not even  worth guessing because no one's even modeled it.

out. No one's even taken the time to write  out the formula or guess as to what effect. $300 a barrel oil would have on human  civilization. But you can be absolutely. certain it would be the end of a lot of things  that we take for granted. Certainly air travel, jobs. It would be a true disaster on the level of,  I don't know, a national tsunami or hurricane. It.

would affect every person in the United States  making less than a million dollars a year. It. would crush people already at a hundred bucks in  the US. $100 oil. You just heard the president. say it's 97 something like that. People around the  world are worrying about famine because of course. oil is not just used to produce gasoline and jet  fuel and asphalt and kerosene and all the familiar.

products. It's also used to produce fertilizer.  All kinds of petrochemicals used in manufacturing. but fertilizer and without it crop yields go down  and people starve in the most populated continent. in the world which would be subseran Africa. So  already you are seeing a massive human cost not. well reported in American media to a relatively  small spike in global oil prices. And here you.

have the president saying I thought it could  be 300 bucks. That's that's like saying, "Well, I I thought they might drop a neutron bomb on  Chicago, but you know, I was willing to risk it.". No president should ever be willing to  talk that casually about the economic. destruction of his nation. The justification  for it. It's worth it, said the president, because Iran had nuclear weapons and you can't let  crazy people have nuclear weapons. So, it's almost.

not worth rebutting that with the facts, which are  as follows. Iran did not have a nuclear weapon. It did not have ICBMs to deliver that weapon  here or anywhere near here. It did not have an. active nuclear weapons program and the American  intelligence community. All 18 separate agencies. determined that conclusively after studying it for  years and with the motivation to find said nuclear. program. They couldn't. So no, Iran did not have  a nuclear weapon. It was nowhere near getting a.

nuclear weapon. Despite the lying you have often  heard that was not even an imminent threat. It was. not close to an imminent threat despite the fact  the Israelis had told us and the US Congress for. over 20 years that it was an imminent threat.  That was a lie. But you have to ask yourself, even if if it was true, would that justify  destroying the American economy? Would it justify, I don't know, driving 200,000 Britons into poverty  in 2 months? And that's just the opening salvo.

Would it justify a famine in Africa? No one  wants to say it. There are a lot of countries. nuclear weapons. You don't want any of them to  have nuclear weapons because any normal person. thinks nuclear weapons are bad because they are  by definition weapons of mass destruction that. kill innocents. So they are bad as a category.  But there are a lot of countries that have them. including countries with well leaderships that are  filled with religious extremists like Israel and. Pakistan and in a way North Korea. And the world  has been able to continue for now almost 30 years.

with a nuclear armed Pakistan. It's not ideal.  Maybe we should have done something during the. Clinton administration to stop it. But we haven't  had to destroy the American economy in order to do. something about it since then. Of course not. And  in fact, the deeper truth is that there is a kind. of stability as bad as nuclear weapons are when  rival nations possess them. India and Pakistan,

which are countries with a long almost 80-year  history of hating each other and many wars in the. interim, have managed to fight fairly bitter  conflicts since 1947 without using nuclear. weapons against each other. How is that possible?  Well, the mutually assured destruction principle, which as ugly as it sounds, is real. It's  absolutely real. What you don't want is a nation.

that feels no constraints whatsoever. That feels  it can do whatever it wants. It feels it can roll. into its neighbors sovereign territory and expel  the population and kill people. This is exactly we. thought the lesson of World War II. That's bad.  But that's kind of what you get when you have a. country that feels it has unconstrained power.  It can do whatever it wants. What does it tend. to do? Well, whatever it wants. And so you could  at least make the case academically even if you.

disagreed with the whole idea of nuclear weapons  and thought they were probably inherently evil. Even if you wondered where they came from in the  first place, even if you had dark suspicions about. the genesis of nuclear weapons, and some of us  do, you could still make the case on a pragmatic. basis that look at the effects. Look at the  effects. They are less bad than this. So that's. the explanation from the president. You can see  why in an administration that had higher levels.

of support from young people a year and a half ago  than any Republican in memory, young people came. out for Donald Trump to vote for Donald Trump. Why  did they do that? Because they are dissatisfied. with the system as it is. They understand it is  rigged against them, because it is. And they felt. here was one man strong enough to stand up against  that system. They tried to put him in jail. They. tried to impeach him twice. Here was a guy who  understood he was up against and would take it.

on and was brave enough to do that. And a year  and a half in, what they've seen is a guy who. got in office and immediately took the side of  the people who persecuted him for the preceding. eight years. He took their side and became their  most valiant champion and began to persecute their. enemies as he himself had once been persecuted.  he switched teams. And they look at this and they. may not understand all of the details, but they  look at this in horror and they feel betrayed.

And that is obvious from the polling numbers. And  these are polling numbers that are so stark that. you can't actually lie about them. You can't spin  them. Donald Trump's drop in support among voters. under 30 is precipitous. It's off a cliff. And  there are a lot of reasons for this. the Iran war, the refusal to release the Epstein files, the  mounting debt that most of them carry. How's.

your average 27year-old 5 years out of college,  hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt from. this four-year college was supposed to make the  difference between getting ahead and staying in. your hometown and stagnating in some dead-end job?  That kid likely has a negative net worth 5 years. out of college. And in many cases, they're told,  "Point blank, we can't hire you because of how. you look." How do you think kids like that feel  about Donald Trump? Well, you should talk to some.

So, at this point, you have to ask, what's the  solution? What are people like that, voters like. that, young people, not exclusively, but heavily  young people, what are they looking for? Well, probably what all people are looking for. honesty,  fairness, decency, a sense of humor, courage, a willingness to actually stand up and fight  entrenched power. That's what they're looking.

for. And who do they look to? Well, there aren't  many. One of them is a guy called Thomas Massie. He's a member of Congress from the Commonwealth  of Kentucky. Not the most important state in the. union. Not one you hear about too much. He's  a member of Congress, one of 435. You may have. heard his name. Why? Thomas Massie is in his  district and probably nationally, but certainly. we know for a fact in his district, the most  popular person among young voters. 80% approval.

rating among young voters. Why is that? Well, once  again, because Thomas Massie has made good on the. promises that Donald Trump made to the nation, to  these very same people who supported him in 2024, and he stuck with it. Thomas Massie is a better  standardbearer for Trumpism, for the America first. ideology that Donald Trump ran on three times than  Donald Trump is. A far better spokesman for that. because he has not changed. And moreover, he's a  thoroughly decent man. Cheerful, kind, loves his.

family, his children love him. He's self-reliant.  He is in short the American they told us we should. aspire to be a man who doesn't brag about himself  who says what he means who stays true to his word. and who in the end if it all falls apart could  take care of himself and his family that's the.

American ideal and that is Thomas Massie that's  not fake that's real and that's obvious in the way. that he behaves in public as a member of Congress  and it's obvious in the way that he lives at home. in the farm he lives in in the house that he  built with his hands. He is the man you want. your son to be. And so you would think at this  point Thomas Massie would have the full support. of the Republican establishment in Washington.  Oh no, just the opposite. Thomas Massie has like.

three allies in the House of Representatives. a  lot of people who like him personally, but only. a very few who are willing to support him publicly  because he has become the number one enemy of the. Trump administration. Well, how did that happen?  How did a guy who ran for office on a clearer, more precise version of Trump's own platform, who  had 75% approval in the last election from his own. voters? How did that guy become the number one  person the Trump administration wants to destroy.

13 days from today in the Republican primary in  Kentucky? How did that happen? Well, there are a. lot of reasons, but it seems pretty obvious this  all began in this room on this show almost exactly. 2 years ago in a two-hour long interview we did  with Thomas Massie about a bunch of different. topics, including his off-grid homestead  that he built with himself, his own hands. He at one point described the experience of  serving in Congress and being asked to carry.

water for a foreign power, Israel. Thomas Massie  has never been hot on the topic of Israel. Thomas. Massie probably hasn't spent 20 minutes in his  entire life talking about Israel or thinking. about Israel. He doesn't hate Israel now. Its  leadership, Israelis, he he's kind of agnostic. on the whole question even now. But at the time,  two years ago, Thomas Massie committed probably. the most dangerous sin you can commit in  Washington. He explained how the process.

works. How is it that members of Congress arrive  there with a plan to help their constituents and. their nation and wind up spending such a huge  percentage of their time doing the bidding of a. tiny Middle Eastern country of 9 million people?  How does that happen? Well, part of the process. revolves around a group called Apac, the American  Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here is Thomas. Massiey's fateful description of the process in  Congress. Watch. There's a foreign interest group. called Apac that's, you know, got the ear of this  current speaker and demanded 16 votes in April on.

on Israel or the Middle East. We haven't had 16  votes in April on the United States in Congress. It's a group of Americans who lobby on behalf  of Israel. They're for anything Israel. Um, and they're a very effective lobbying group. They  get in there, they u they try to get me to write. a white paper as a candidate, for instance, for  Congress. They almost get on on what on Israel.

Like, and I wouldn't do it. And they said, "Why?"  And I'm like, "I don't do homework for lobbyists, right?" I'm like, "I didn't I didn't like writing  term papers at college. I'm not writing one for. you." What did they say? They said, "Oh, well,  here just copy Rand Paul's term paper and put your. name on it. We'll accept that." And I'm like, "No,  I'm still not cribbing somebody else's homework to. do homework." I'm not turning in my homework for  you. And And what I You're laughing, but you know.

what? I bet um I may be the only Republican in  Congress who hasn't done homework for Apac. And. it's just what it is. It's conditioning. They want  you to do something very simple and benign and you. know for them. They don't really they don't  really grade your term paper. They just want. to know that you'll do something for them. And  if you'll do something for them as a candidate, you're more likely to do something for them  as as a congressman when you get in there. You will never hear the Israel lobby describe more  precisely the humiliation rituals included which.

are a key part of the process to base yourself  and then you serve us always. But you'll never. hear it described more precisely, but also more  good-naturedly. Massie isn't mad. He finds the. whole thing hilarious. I'm a member of Congress.  I'm not doing homework for you. And he laughs and. he means it. And his cheerfulness is real. It's  not a pose. He's not angry at Apac. He's just not. playing along. He's an American. He doesn't have  to play along. Get out of my way. Stop. He smiles.

Moves on to the things he cares about, like  keeping the United States from going bankrupt. That is the way. That is the way right there.  That reveals a total unwillingness to play along. with someone else's charade to become someone  else's servant or slave without any hatred at. all. Thomas Massie isn't mad because he knows  he can't be controlled. He's not a rich man, but you can't bribe him. He has everything he  wants. He's not mad at you. You've got your.

agenda, but he's not going to serve it under any  circumstances. go away. Because Thomas Massie is. not a hater, because his position is rooted  in principle and good-natured cheerfulness. and American self-reliance and decency, and that's  so obvious to everyone who watches him, he became. the number one threat. And next thing you know,  the president's favorite political consultant,

Chris Losa, Chris Lassita, is tweeting that Thomas  Massie is quote, "garbage." Garbage. You just call. that man garbage. A political consultant has  the brass to call that man garbage. A guy who. literally sells his allegiance to whoever will  pay him is calling that man garbage. Yes. Now, why would Chrisvita say that? Well, because he's  been hired by an Israeli called Miriam Adlesen,

a woman who was married to the late Sheldon  Adlesen, who made billions in the gambling. industry, now mostly in China, who was one of,  if not the single biggest contributor to Donald. Trump's campaign last time. Now, she may be an  American citizen, but she was asked point blank. by the president on camera, "What country are you  more loyal to, the United States or Israel?" And. she indicated very clearly Israel, which is her  right, of course, but she kind of in stating that.

gives up her right to influence American politics.  People with loyalties, self-p profofessed. loyalties to other nations should not be involved  in our politics. They certain certainly shouldn't. be central players in our politics. And yet  now she is, as she was in the last election. Miriam Adlesen, who's not clear has ever been to  Kentucky, is spending through Chris Law Sevita, the president's political consultant, who has  decided Thomas Massie is garbage, human garbage,

whatever it takes to take the seat away from him  because he committed the crime of describing how. things actually work in the US Congress. And that  cannot be allowed. And as a lesson to others, future Thomas Massies, anyone who gets the idea  that maybe I'll get to Congress and tell the truth. about how things actually work. Maybe I'll put  my own country, my own community, my own people. ahead of other concerns that have nothing to do  with this country or its people. Maybe I'll let.

those people know, don't bother because you'll be  crushed. You won't win. And if you do, there'll. be Chris Lovita out there calling you garbage,  attacking your wife as they have spending tens. of millions of dollars against you just to make  sure that no one else tries to be you ever. All. of which leads to where we are right now, which is  a moment where a Republican congressional primary.

in Kentucky is the single most important political  race of the year. Because if they are successful. in doing this, crushing a man, defaming a man,  slandering a man, attacking his family purely for. the crime of telling the truth about them, about  how they operate, about the nature of the Epstein. class, then you have to wonder why are we voting  in the first place? What is the point of all. of this? Is there a reason to participate in the  process if in the end some Israeli casino lady can.

come in and just determine the outcome with Chris  Sevita? That's not democracy. It's it's it's not. even it's not even a poor faximile of democracy.  It's just straight up teethbeared oligarchy. It's shut up and obey. It's a foretaste of life  under AI. It's the control grid actually. And so,

while we can, it's probably worth doing whatever  it takes within the bounds of the law to prevent. that from happening. Not because Thomas Massie is  going to change the system single-handedly. He's. not, and he's happy to admit that, but because  crushing Thomas Massie for the crime of telling. the truth is itself a moral crime. You can never  punish people for telling the truth. And yet in. Washington, the only people who are punished are  those who told the truth. And at some point that. has to stop or the system itself lacks all  legitimacy. If you think companies like Dr.

Squatch and Berts Bees are small and wholesome,  think again. Like so many great companies, they've. now been bought by mega corporations and private  equity firms who hijack the brands and fill them. with the same corporate garbage that everybody  else sells. That's where we're excited to partner. with a company that is doing things differently.  The Van Man Company. What a cool name. They. started the tallow trend a few years back with  their grass-fed tallow moisturizers. They've. been crushing it ever since. Clean, nearly edible  solutions to your everyday product needs. Here's.

the thing about tallow. It's the best moisturizer  on earth because the fatty acids in tallow are. pretty much identical to the oils in your own  skin. Your body recognizes that. Use it once and. you feel the difference. your skin feel softer and  smoother than anything you've gotten from a bottle. full of chemicals and fillers cuz there's nothing  in there that's bad for you. You can practically. eat it and this stuff actually lasts. Talibomb  isn't just a moisturizer though. It can replace. your lotion, your night cream, even Neosporin  and diaper bomb. It is powerful enough to heal.

the skin yet safe enough to spread on your toast.  Not that you should, but you could because the. ingredients are real. So, if you're ready to ditch  corporate chemicals, visit vanman.shop/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 15% off your first  order. That's vanman.shop/tucker. Code Tucker. 15% off your first order. Real ingredients,  zero exceptions. And so, for the second time. in two years, here is Thomas Massie in his own  words. Thomas Massie, thank you for doing this.

You've got a primary in less than two weeks,  13 days. And so to take the time to come here, we're we're grateful for it. Um it seems like  this is this primary is more than a primary. It's a window into what MAGA has become and it's  a referendum I would argue on democracy uh itself. And so just to to frame the conversation um around  that idea, what was your margin of victory in the.

last race in Kentucky? In the last race primary,  I got 75% of the vote. There was somebody that got. 13% and somebody that got 12. 75% of the vote. And  in the race before that, I got 76% and then the. race before that I got 81%. 81%. Now, the race the  race you get 81% you were already having conflict. with Trump at the time, right? Yeah. At the  time, he was saying to throw me out of the party, called me a third rate grandstander, to which  I claim I'm at least second rate. Fair. Uh,

so I'm going through this because I think it it it  leads to today and it makes a really interesting. point. So what is the current polling in your  race? It's a single point lead for me. Um, it's. not very fluid. They've spent $10 million against  me. And when I say they, I hope we get into they. Yes. Um, and uh, it's going to be close. It's just  going to b it the result is going to be based on.

who turns out. So it was 81% margin 76 75 like  fullon blowouts in the Republican primary in your. district in Kentucky and now it's within a couple  of points and you could lose. Correct. And the. difference is they have spent $10 million against  you. Um so I don't think anyone would dispute. that. That's the difference. the money poured into  this race from outside of Kentucky is basically. pushing you to the point of almost losing and you  may lose. Uh where'd that money come from? Well,

um it didn't come from regular people. It's  come from billionaires and it 95% of it at. least 95% has come from the Israeli lobby.  So, um I'll give you their proxies. the RJC, which is the Republican Jewish Coalition, Apac,  the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Miriam Adles, Paul Singer, and John Pollson went  together. They funded a pack called MAGA Kentucky,

which is neither MAGA nor Kentucky, but the any of  them live know who are those three people? I they. have been u Miriam Adlesen is the gambling magnet  who's ironically makes money from the Chinese now. gambling and not in Las Vegas. She's literally  an Israeli. Yeah. She was born there. Um she's. given over $200 million to the president. He puts  her on the stage. He says that she's influenced. his own policy and attitudes toward Israel. And  so she's trying to buy a congressional seat in.

Kentucky along with the rest of these groups that  are probably, by the way, getting her money as. well. There's there's also another interesting  faction called Christians United for Israel. They're really just another wing of Apac and  RJC that's been used to co-opt Christians into. supporting their position. And their position is  more war, it's more strife, um it's more bombs, it's send more foreign aid. And those are  the things that I've been voting against. So.

the real reason that this race is a serious race  and I may lose is because a foreign lobby is has. fully funded to the extent that they've never  done in any Republican race ever before um my. opponent. It's interesting because you're not I  don't think of you as an opponent of Israel or a. hater of Jews, an anti-semite, a man with hate in  his heart or anything. I don't I don't think those.

topics have defined your terms in Congress so far,  have they? No, you can't go find even a xenophobic. tweet or Facebook post from me in my entire  life. I I'm the least xenophobic. Um, you know, I went to MIT, which is a real melting pot of of  different nationalities and races and ethnicities, and it was a meritocracy. And that's what I'm used  to is just, you know, come to me with your ideas. I don't care what color your skin is or who your  parents were and um let's talk about things. But.

it turns out that I've never voted for foreign  aid. And in fact, I've for Israel, for Israel, for Egypt, for Ukraine, for anybody for anybody.  In fact, I've offered amendments as soon as I. got to Congress in 2013. I had an amendment to  defund the foreign aid to Egypt, which seemed. like a good idea at the time because they were in  the middle of a coup. This is how ridiculous our. foreign aid is. We didn't even know who was going  to control the capital. There were tanks in the.

streets and we didn't know who the leader was and  my colleagues insisted on sending the billions of. dollars to Egypt anyway. The question is who's  going to cash the check when it gets there? So, I've got a complete track record of voting  against all foreign aid. But it turns out. there's one lobby that's very upset about that  and that's the Israeli lobby. And so you're right, this is a referendum. It's a referendum. The  question we're putting to the people is, are.

you going to let a foreign country or lobbyists  for that foreign country um buy a seat in Kentucky. from and and displace the one congressman who will  tell you what's in the bills, who will explain his. votes, I explain all of my votes, uh especially  on controversial bills on social media to where. anybody can see. So your position is that it's  not your position as much as it's the fact you're. willing to disclose what's actually happening  behind the scenes. Correct. So to add evidence.

to that claim, the last time you were on this show  was almost exactly 2 years ago. It was a little. later in May, I think. You had just won your  primary 75%. Yes. And so you decide to come up. here and we have this amazing conversation mostly  about you and your life and the self-sufficiency. with which you live and how you built your house  and it's amazing story. We're going to repost that. video soon cuz I want people to see it before the  primary. But in the middle of that conversation,

you said, "Yeah, there's this group called Apac  and here's how they go about corelling support. in the Congress and they have minders that follow  you around and I just don't hate Israel. I don't. support foreign aid to anybody and I don't  have an APAC minder. And I remember thinking, boy, I've never heard anybody explain how this  works in the way that you did. I felt like that. conversation was a pivot point in your political  life. It was. And you know what's interesting? In.

the two years that have transpired since then, not  one of my colleagues has said I'm wrong. Right? Did anybody come out and say, "Oh, he's full  of it. I don't have an Apac person that I go to. dinner with every time they come to DC and back  in the district. Nobody said that. They I mean. they all have an Apac person. Now, some of them  may not, you know, know it's their Apac person, but they've all got an Apac person. And by by the  way, I I have a lot of Jewish friends and since.

that interview, they joke that they're they're  secretly my Apac person, right? When in fact, they're not. But that see it wasn't just that  you voted against Apex priorities or some of them. anyway which you did because there are people  who have done that before but you described. and you opened to public view the process. You  pulled the curtain back. Correct. And that was. the crime. Right. The crime is transparency. It's  not obstructionism because the votes they're most.

upset about me for were 420 to1 or 421 to1 or 410  to five, right? Like show me in any of those cases. where my single vote out of, you know, 435 if  everybody had been present was obstructionist. It wasn't. What happened though is people said,  "Who's the one person that voted against that?". And then they go to my social media and then they  read the bill and then they're like, "What the.

hell? Why did my congressman vote for that? What's  what are the other 420 smoking?" Right? And so, or what are they getting for that vote? Why did  they take that vote? Why why were they intimidated. into taking that vote? And that's the problem  that I'm causing this foreign lobby is I'm causing. people to ask questions for the first time. Who  is my congressman's Apac person? for instance, how much money do they get from Apac? Why did  they vote for that bill that bans passages in.

the New Testament? You know, that infringement on  the First Amendment. Now, we care about supporting. companies whose values align with ours. We do not  want to shill for sleazy companies. It is better. to give business to like-minded Americans than  people who hate us. That's our rule. And that's. one of the reasons we like Charity Mobile.  When you make the switch to charity mobile, the company sends 5% of your monthly price plan to  pro-life, pro-f family charities of your choice. That's millions of dollars in counting  sent to pro- family philanthropies. Okay, you're probably thinking that sounds great,  but Charity Mobile must be super expensive to.

pay for that. But no, they've literally never  raised their mobile planes and no plan exceeds. $50 per month. Charity Mobile is a good company  with good service and good prices, so it's all. good. Switch day and try it. Keep your number  with a compatible phone, no compromise on quality, and support a truly great company and a good cause  at the same time. Promo code Tucker to get a free. phone with free activation, free shipping, and a  free gift with every new line of service. Visit. charitymobile.com/tucker. So, because you revealed  that, you got this swarm of big donors laying down.

big money to get you out of your seat. And you  said basically it revolves around three Paulson. Singer and Aden. Have they described why they're  doing this? Why would a casino magnet or a hedge. fund manager hedge fund manager, private equity  guy, distressed debt buyer like Paul Singer, like. why would they care what happens in a Republican  primary in Kentucky of all places? It's it's.

um to silence me. It's so that I shut up. Look,  if I lose on May 19th, I'll be out of Congress. on January 3rd of next year, and nobody's going  to follow my Twitter. Nobody's going to go to my. Facebook page to see what's going on. I won't  be invited down into the secret skiffs to read. the secret interpretations of the laws that the uh  that the executive branch is using to spy on you.

I'll be gone. The the one whistleblower, if you  will, in Congress will be gone. And let me tell. you who's on the other side of this, who's funding  me. I've got, and this is miraculous, I think, you know, you called it a referendum. I think it  may be a movement within the MAGA movement is what. we're seeing because I've got over 33,000 donors  and the average donation is less than 94 bucks. These people, they don't have a lot of money to  give, but they can't be intimidated, right, by the.

White House. They can't have their environmental  permits pulled on a big data center. The the the. government of Washington DC doesn't have that kind  of leverage on individual normal people. So those. are the people who are funding me in this race.  And if you and if you want to be one of them, you. can go to massmoneybomb.com. massimmoneybomb.com.  Yeah. because we we've raised almost $200,000 in. the last 2 days just by going out there and  saying, you know, help me fight back. Um,

we've got to have some ads to run against these  billionaires. So, what do you think the the full. money breakdown is? And without getting boring  about it, I don't think people understand exactly. how these campaigns are funded. So, there's you  can send money to someone running for office, but there are limits to how much you can send.  You can send to something called a super PAC, and there are no limits at all. So, it's  hard to kind of figure out, isn't it, exactly how much being spent? Yeah. I think it'll  be after the race when people finally are able to. compile the spreadsheets and look at the money. A  lot of the donors won't be disclosed until July,

the super PAC donors, because they're on a  six-month reporting cycle, whereas I have to. disclose big donors every two days now once  we get inside of a window with the campaign. But um you got super PACs on each side and  there's a super PAC helping me. Not as large as. the Israeli super PACs, which of which there are  three. Um but there's a super PAC helping me. Now, as far as hard dollar campaign money from real  people, I've raised over $5 million this election.

cycle, which is probably more than I've raised  in the entire time that I've been in Congress. Really? Oh, yeah. I usually raise a couple hundred  thousand, maybe $400,000 election cycle. This time. I've raised over five million. It's because  this situation is dire. Now the other side, you might say, okay, well, how much money has he  raised for his campaign? He's raised about one or. 1.2 million per quarter for two quarters. So he's  maybe raised 2.5 million at most. But if you go.

look at where did that money come from, u I think  because of the show I did with you two years ago, Apac sort of gone in hiding and they're trying to  secretly funnel money to campaigns. And what we've. uh realized and deduced is that they're funneling  money, hard dollars, not the super PAC dollars, but they're funn funneling money from their  donors to his campaign through a vendor, a payment vendor called Democracy Engine. It  was started by one of the people who started.

Act Blue. It's not a conservative, if you will.  Act Blue, the Democratic Yep. bundler. Yeah. So, it's primarily a left-leaning payment vendor. I  use a payment vendor called Anod, and some people. use Win Red. Probably you're familiar with that.  I am. So, when you see something come through a. a payment vendor called uh Democracy Engine,  you you particularly $50,000 per quarter. So, if somebody's reported $50,000 of expenses to  Democracy Engine, and if the payment vendor,

Democracy Engine, has been charging 5%. That  means a million dollars of money came through that. payment vendor. And we've seen that in both of his  quarters. So, basically, as as far as we can tell, um about a million dollars of his 1.2 2 million  every quarter that you would think may have come. from grandmas who are digging deep in their  pockets when they get an email from Trump. that says give to this guy. That's not where  his money's coming from. It's coming from Apac.

donors. And then Apac donors were using a  Democratic fundraising operation to get the. money to your opponent. Correct. And by the way,  one of these super PACs that's aligned against me, United Democracy Project, UDP, they are  a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, um, left, like not just left-leaning, like majorly leftist  super PAC, and they are fullon in my race funding. my opponent against me. This is insane. It is  insane. I do think it might be a couple years from.

now when AI gets smart enough and honest enough  in the in the competition of AIS that it will tell. you exactly what happened in this race whether  whether I win or lose it can go back look at the. data and and tell you well here's what happened  a congressman from Kentucky was challenged and 95. or 99% of the money came from an Israeli lobby  to take him out for merely telling the truth.

and not even attacking Israel. I mean, that's  that's the thing. You didn't even attack Israel. You're not even hostile toward Israel. I I You're  not muttering about the Jews. It has nothing to. do with that at all. It's just you just don't  think the US government should be sending money. to foreign countries. Right. I mean, right. And by  the way, that's the position of my constituents. So, what kind of TV ads are they running  against me back in Kentucky? Are they saying. Congressman Massie doesn't vote to give money to  foreign countries? you know, let's fire him. No,

they don't run that ad. They run ads that  distort my record. They'll take a bill that. had 3,000 pages in it, pull a page out of that  bill, and say he voted against this. You know, it could be a pay raise for the soldiers or  something like that to try and turn you into. a liberal. Correct. That's what they want to make  it look like, which is hilarious. Um, if I, by the. way, if I could make one reform to Congress, so  I I voted for balanced budget amendment. I voted.

for term limits, but the biggest constraint, the  most helpful thing for our republic would be if. every bill had to address only a single issue.  Amen. Amen. Because right now we take we take. thousands of votes, but they're post offices and  non-binding resolutions and things like that to. make it look like we're busy all year round. But  it usually boils down to two or three votes every. year that are consequential, must pass pieces  of legislation that have everything in them.

And that's the problem. Let me give you an example  on the big beautiful bill there. By the way, there. are maybe three or four sins, and I'll put that  in air quotes, that I committed against the swamp. um that got me into this situation. And um one of  those is I was the only Republican who didn't vote. for Mike Johnson to be the speaker. Um the second  was you were the only Republican. Mike Johnson. turned out to be the worst speaker of the house  in the history of this country ever. And we've had.

some bad ones. Yes. No one compares. Yeah. Um,  so I didn't vote for the speaker there. Twice, at least twice, they brought up a continuing  resolution of Joe Biden's budget. And I'm like, wait, I thought we control the House, the Senate,  and the White House. Why are we just going to keep. going on autopilot with all the things Joe Biden  did? Yet, they did. And I voted against those. things. And in fact, in one of those bills, they  attached an amendment that had nothing to do with.

the budget to kill the hemp industry in Kentucky.  Like the hemp industry is almost dead. It's like, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars,  thousands of jobs wiped out in one continuing. resolution because everybody was afraid not to  vote for it. And I voted against it because number. one, it was Joe Biden's budget. Number two, it  killed the entire hemp industry in Kentucky. Um, that was another of my crimes against the swamp.  and and when I voted against the big bill,

they're using they're they're picking things out  of it to run ads against me right now. Let me give. you an example. So the the draft version,  the first version that passed the House of. Representatives defunded transgender surgery,  sex changes basically for minors. I that there. was lots of good stuff and lots of bad stuff  in that bill, but I voted against it because. I said it'll bankrupt the country. Okay? But it  had that good provision in it. the the Senate. took the good provision out that defunded sex  changes for minors and then everybody voted for.

the big beautiful bill again except for me, but  it had the money for sex change for minors. So, because I voted no against both versions, they  prefer to use the first version and run ads and. say that I voted not to defund sex changes for  minors when in fact everybody who voted for that. damn bill in the end put the money back in for  sex changes for minors. What liars? It's a total. liar. Who put out that ad saying that? Um, these  super PACs again, they're not talking. They're.

taking they're distorting my record instead of  telling you why they're trying to flush me out. of Congress. They want to flush me out of Congress  cuz I don't vote for foreign aid. As a gun owner, you know the dilemma. You want to be prepared  for breakins or any moment where you might need a. firearm, but you also need to keep those firearms  secure out of the hands of kids, for example. So for years that meant choosing between a gun  safe that takes a long time to open, pretty. impossible in an emergency, or leaving something  accessible but unsafe. And neither option is a.

good option. And that's why we are thrilled to  partner with Stopbox. We're not exaggerating. when we say that using Stopbox changes everything.  Here's what makes it different. The Stopbox Pro is. completely mechanical. No keys, no batteries. It  does not fail. It's got five buttons designed for. muscle memory. This is one that we keep here in  the studio. You program your own code, practice. it a couple of times, and your fingers remember  it. And that means you get immediate access to.

your firearm when you need it, and everyone  else can't get it. And here's something else. It is TSA compliant. You can check your firearm  safely and legally when you fly. No drama at the. airport. Plus, it's made in the United States.  No tariffs. Real American jobs and quality you. can trust. And that we do trust. Stopbox offers  a range of products designed to make for an array. of needs. Take the new Stopbox UK, which uses  the same mechanical system as the Pro, but is a. much bigger storage capacity, room for guns, ammo,  targets, everything you want. For a limited time,

our listeners get 10% off using the code Tucker  at checkout. Visit stopboxusa.com. Use the code. Tucker for 10% off your whole order. Now, if  you purchase, feel free to mention that you. heard about it right here on this show, which just  it's just I guess what I find um head spinning, bewildering, and honestly infuriating is that a  bunch of serious committed liberals are trying to. kick you out of Congress on the basis of the lie  that you are a liberal. Liberals are calling you.

a liberal. Correct. these um you know if you  look at Chris Lassvita who's a liberal who's. the pre you know the president's consultant  is calling you a liberal and he's too liberal. for the district says the guy whose values have  no connection at all to your district well look. at Miriam Aden Paul Singer and John Pollson the  three people that fund MAGA Kentucky u they funded. transgender activism partnered with George Soros  they've funded abortion candidates they've done.

fundraisers for Chuck Schumer like they it's true  they are Republican super mega donors, right? But. um they've given money to Liz Cheney after she  voted to impeach Trump and now they've cozied up. to Trump and they're in influencing foreign policy  of the United States and trying to take me out. They're controlling foreign policy to the United  States and and I never got resolution of the big. question. I'm sorry. What do you think the total  oh your opponent has received both directly and on.

his behalf to the super PAC is? I I think all in  um they've spent about 10 million their super PACs. and their campaign. All in we've probably spent  about 8 million so far and I would guess all in. by the time this is over there's going to be $30  million spent in a Republican primary. It's It's. right now the most expensive Republican primary  for Congress in the history of Kentucky. Um,

by the time it's done, right now I hear it's the  second most expensive primary in the United States. for Congress, but I believe by the time it's done  it'll be the most expensive primary in the United. States. That's just absolutely incredible to  me. The commercials have commercial breaks in. Kentucky now. There's so many damn commercials.  So, I just I just saw a spot they put up. Um, and you tell me who did this, but it was AI  generated video of you with Elon Omar and. Alexandria Kaziocortez suggesting that you were  having sex with both of them. Um, and basically.

saying you've got the same politics they do.  Yeah. It's a 30 secondond spot created with AI. There's a disclaimer at the beginning in font that  nobody over the age of 65 could possibly see on. the TV that says it's AI and it's not cartoony  at all. It looks like a real camera, you know, recordings that shows me walking handinand with  the two of them, dining with the two of them, and checking into a hotel with the two of them  and uses the word throppple. I'm hoping it will.

backfire on the the just horrible individuals  who've come up with this idea and think that. it will get their rubber stamp, their puppet for  Israel into Congress. It's disgusting. Who is So, we haven't even named the man running against you.  Not that I guess it matters, right? It doesn't.

really matter. Who is this? Who is running against  you? What we've found out, he looks good on paper. He's a he served in the Navy Seals. Um he's a, you  know, a boomer originally from Kentucky. Um and he. looks great on paper, but the president call says  he's from central casting and that he's a warm. body. And I don't think the president understands  those are not like terms of endearment. And the the most That's true though. Here's the  most interesting thing. Yeah, he is a warm body.

and he u he may be able to fog a mirror, but  he can't put three sentences together. His own. commercials don't even have him talking to camera.  He's turned down eight debates with me and in two. of these debates or televised debates, they went  ahead and had the debate and I went and debated. the moderator um because I'm comfortable with what  he's accepted no debates with you at all. Zero. debates. And conventional wisdom is if you're  me, if you're the incumbent and you're ahead,

even by a small amount that you should never  debate the challenger because you're just giving. him a platform and giving him some notoriety and  status to speak and a chance to take you out. I'm. willing to debate this guy anywhere. I've said  I'll I'll let President Trump moderate the debate. and I'll still win it because this guy doesn't  know what he believes in. He won't fill out any. of the questionnaires from the pro-life groups,  from the pro-sec amendment groups. those are. sitting in his basement. He um won't tell anybody  where he stands. Is he for exceptions on abortion?

Is he for red flag laws? Because those are the  president's positions. So, he's caught in a in. a tough position right now. And he's not really he  doesn't have an ideology, I don't think. In fact, he was in the Republican party until 2016 when  Donald Trump got the nomination for president. He, my opponent, left the party for five years  while Donald Trump was president. He wouldn't even. call himself a Republican while Donald Trump was  president. When Joe Biden won the election, that's.

when my opponent came back after Donald Trump lost  and called himself a Republican again. So, he's. got a lot of questions to answer. So they found a  liberal guy who's taking money from liberal guys. to beat I know you call yourself a libertarian  or whatever, but I mean conventionally you're one. of the most conservative America first candidates  the Congress has had in my lifetime. So basically.

you're running against a liberal. Yes. And let me  let me talk about the association of my donors and. his donors with Democrats. So they started saying,  "Oh, Massiey's taking money from people that also. give to Democrats." So we went and we did a core  sample. We looked at the people who give me money. Um, and we looked at all the max donors. Turns  out 37% of the people who've donated to me have. also given to Democrats. I went and we went and  looked at his numbers. It's 85% of his donors have.

given to Democrats. And it's because it's a core  sample of Apac donors. And that's why you've got. 85% overlap in his donors with Democrat donors is  because it's just a core sample of Apac. In fact, he's given to Lindsey Graham eventually. Yes. Like  500 or a,000 bucks. Like he was so inspired by. Lindsey Graham that he gave him his own personal  money, not from his campaign uh before he was. campaigning. And think about this. He's promising  to He's promising to be a rubber stamp for the.

Republican party. This is the main charge that's  been leveled against me that I don't vote with the. party enough. I vote with the party 90% of the  time. But listen, there's 10% of the time where. I don't care who the president is, I'm not going  to change the position that I promise to take to. my constituents. So, for instance, when the party  votes for warrantless spying on Americans, I don't. vote for that. when the party votes to warrantless  spying on Americans. Yes, it's And by the way,

each of the in all of these circumstances that I'm  going to describe to you, uh, where I don't vote. with the party, I'm actually taking a position  that Donald Trump had less than two years ago, he was against the Foreign Intelligence  Surveillance Act being used to spy on Americans. without a warrant because it was used against him,  he found out. So, I'm sticking with that position. that you need a warrant that the Fourth Amendment  hasn't expired to the Constitution um when.

they're covering up for pedophiles. Look, the the  president's own children, the vice president, the. FBI director, and the president himself said that  they would release the Epstein files and now I. worked harder than anybody else to get it done and  got it done. And that's part of the 10% where they. say, "I have betrayed the Republican party because  you voted to disclose Epstein's crimes." Correct. So, it's now a core tenant of the Republican party  that you have to hide the crimes of a left-wing. Democrat who was touching kids. It seems to be  and the president himself and has said it's a.

hostile act. This was before he signed my bill. He  ultimately did agree with me and now it seems like. the first lady agrees with me that Jeffrey Epstein  did not act alone and the files show that he did. not act alone. And you've got a prince who's  lost his title and been indicted. You've got. the British prime minister to the United States.  Uh you've got the former prime minister of Norway, the minister of culture in France. There's  accountability. All those people have been.

arrested or indicted or being investigated.  But nobody in the United States where Jeffrey. Epstein lived and worked. Yes. Where he spent 99%  of his time. Even the US Virgin Islands is part of. the United States where Epstein Island is. I just  want to linger on this for I mean there's so much. to talk about. Um I just want to linger on the  Ebstein question. So um why was that important to. you to push for disclosure? It so there's a claim  that I didn't care about it before President Trump.

was president. I want to clear that up. You can  go find on my social media at least three times. where I posted about it. And um I always assumed  that Pam Bondi would release the files, right? People are like, "Well, why weren't you interested  sooner? Why didn't you try harder sooner?" Because. I've heard the FBI director say he was going to do  it. I heard the attorney general say she was going. to do it. Um, and then I found out the binders  were a farce. I serve on the judiciary committee,

which this is the committee that Jim Jordan  chairs, which by the way has authority over DOJ, the attorney general for instance, and FBI. And  so we went on a dinner to the DOJ to Pam Bondi's. office, every Republican member of the judiciary  committee. This was in April of last year, about a year ago. And um I told Jim Jordan on the  way over, he said, "Everybody gets one question.

You can ask the attorney general a question."  I said, "I want to ask her about phase two. of the Epstein files. Would that be uh too too  confrontational?" And Jim said, "I'm not going. to tell you what you can and can't ask. Go ahead."  So, I was one of the first people as we finished. dinner to ask a question. And I asked Pam Bondi  where the rest of the files were and when would. they be released. And she said there was nothing  left but child pornography and nobody wants to. see that. It made it sound sort of like I was a  voyer or a pedophile myself if I were creepy for.

asking. Yeah. That I was creepy for asking. And so  I didn't ask any more about it. Then I saw in the. news as things played out, the story kept shifting  and I said, "Well, there's some there there." And. um I introduced my resolution, which is a  discharge petition. I would need to get 218. votes on it to force a vote on whether to release  the files or not. I did that in July. And um we.

did a press conference. The reason I'm telling you  all this is my motivation changed part of the way. through this. Can I just ask you something? If  it was child pornography, did you get a sense. that there was any effort to find out who these  children were, who shot the videos, like who's. responsible for this? They said most of it was  um stuff he had downloaded from the internet, not. original, you know, crimes of his. But even so,  right, wouldn't wouldn't that stuff be things that.

you would investigate? Even if he hadn't created  it, if he had got it from a friend or some black, you know, black site on the internet, wouldn't  you want to, you know, the dark web, wouldn't you. want to go find out where this stuff comes from?  Did you get a sense that they were doing anything. about any of this? No. In fact, this is what this  was the final straw for me. A day or two before I. introduced the discharge petition, the uh it was  either the attorney general or the FBI director.

said they were closing all the cases. They were  done with Epstein and there would be no more. And. then so what happened is after August recess, we  came back and Roana and I held a press conference. with the survivors and it was to motivate this  issue in Washington DC and to give these women a. platform to tell their stories. And in fact, women  who had never spoken up before came to this and. spoke up. And women who had fought all their lives  to be heard and believed and to say their story.

and they gave witness to the FBI and it all got  suppressed. Um, they came and told their stories. and a a strange thing happened. I had intended  to motivate my colleagues and I was brought to. tears by their stories and became doubly motivated  to get this done because at that point it became. more about justice for them than even before. You  know it does. And somebody may say, "Well, that. sounds pretty cold. You mean you weren't doing it  for them to start with?" Well, I was doing it to.

uncover the creeps, right? And the pedophiles  and the rapists and the sex traffickers. But. once I met the survivors, it became even more  personal to get justice for them. Well, of course, it's less academic and more real. So then you  initiate a discharge petition and to force to. force a vote on this. And what was the response  you got from the White House? Um, so I actually. had at least a dozen co-sponsors on my Epstein  Files Transparency Act and um I thought, well,

I've got I'll get a dozen rep dozen, by the way,  dozen Republican co-sponsors. I thought, well, this will be easy. I've already got a dozen who  will sign the discharge petition. Well, it turns. out most of those people chickened out, would not  sign the discharge petition under pressure from. the president. In fact, I ran into the legislative  affairs director for the White House on the. street on Independence Avenue, Jeff Freeland, just  randomly while I was trying to get more signatures.

and while he was trying to keep people from  signing it, we just randomly met at a crosswalk. and I said, "Listen, I know what your job I know  you're just doing your job and I'll be with you. 90% of the time, but in this instance, I'm I'm I'm  compelled to do this and um I said, "And by the. way, I made a mistake. I got co-sponsors on this  bill. So now you got your whip list. I know you're.

going to the 12 people who originally co-sponsored  it. If I ever do this again, I'm not getting. co-sponsors and showing you my road map." And  um there was, you know, there was mutual respect. there as two people working on two different  things. He was he said to me, he said, "You're. moving too fast for me." Like he couldn't keep up.  There was only one of him and I was moving around. and and getting people to put their names on it  and getting people not to take their names off. By the way, I have to give credit to the three  absolute three bravest there. There's nobody If I.

go back to Congress next week and somebody comes  up to me and says, "I saw you on Tucker Carlson. and you didn't say I was brave." I'll say, "Too  bad cuz you weren't." There's there's three women, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Lauren  Boowart, who signed their names on that discharge. petition and all suffered. Marjorie practically  gave up her political career over this. Yes,

she did. Um she got she and her children got  death threats over this. Not from the left, from. the right. Um and then and she went to President  Trump and said, "My one of my children is getting. death threats." And he said, "That's your fault."  Yeah. Despicable. He also told her that if she. insisted on following through this with this,  she was going to hurt his friends. She told me. the day he told her that. Hurt whose friends? Um,  the President Trump's friends? His friends. Um,

and I suppose some of them have been hurt. Howard  Lutnik was shown to be a bald-faced liar, right? Um, and it turns out that uh John Pollson, one of  the three billionaires who put money into MAGA, Kentucky, is was in Epstein's phone book, but  also was implicated in these files, is doing a. a fundraiser and reaching out to Jeffrey Epstein  to get money from him to honor Howard Lutnik. Um,

so it's, by the way, it's just a really small  world when you get into the billionaires. Um, and. they're not partisans. They're above party. Right?  The Epstein class, they don't associate themselves. as Republicans or Democrats so much as they do  among a class of billionaires who are above all. of that, above the judges. They they've they've  got visa waiverss. They fly private planes. They. don't mingle with the public, whether it's on a  plane or in a courtroom. And um so anyways, that's.

my hats off to to Marjorie for taking on those  threats. Lauren Boowbert. Um they took her over to. the situation room, right? Like this is where if  they're trying to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, this is where they are at the White House. They  took her into the situation room and tried to whip. her into taking her name off of the discharge  petition over Epstein. Over Epstein. Yep. And. then the president vetoed a bill that would have  brought water to a large portion of Colorado like.

over Epstein. Over Epstein. And this isn't even  at this point. It's not just about Lauren Boower. Why are people in Colorado deprived of water?  Because their representative wants to expose a. sex trafficking ring. I mean, none of this makes  any sense at all because it's a losing issue for. Trump and has been that was the beginning of the  end really for I mean, I think we're at the end. of the 2024 campaign. It's just total betrayal of  everything. But that that began with Ebstein last.

summer and Trump's now famous attack on his own  voters. If you think this is important to know. more about Ebstein, I don't want your support. Why  do you think Ebstein of all issues is the one that. Donald Trump was willing to destroy his presidency  over? I don't know. It's I mean I did it because. it was the right thing to do. Of course, I  understand your motive, but the president. push back now he's endorsed this campaign against  you and your family and but really just sort of.

hurt himself on behalf of the memory of Jeffrey  Epstein. Like what? There's something here. No, like what is this? Uh I think he's he's changed  some and he's part he the promise of Donald Trump. he's willing to negotiate on anything including  immigration. It's like no problem we'll give them. citizenship. But when it comes to Epstein it's  like no. And it does raise questions about like. how did Ebste die and who signed off on that and  why was Epstein rearrested actually for crimes.

he'd already been convicted of and brought back  from France to the United States and then gets. murdered in prison less than two months later.  Like what is that? And maybe there's a connection. I don't know. I'm just guessing like what is this?  It's the people who are funding the ballroom, the people who are funding the arch, the people  who are funding the rebranding of the Kennedy. Center. These are the people who are also funding  my opponent. These are the people who have the.

ear of the president. These are the people who are  changing dominating our foreign policy decisions. They're the billionaires. And these are also  the same people who are in the Epstein files. by large part or their friends are they're social.  I just want to say stop and I I I want everyone to. just stop and rewind the tape when you said that.  Okay, maybe you just answered the question. I. think I did. I tried to answer the question. The  hair of my arms just went up. Um Okay. So, by the.

way, by the way, you touched on something I that  I want to comment on there. There are still a lot. of files that haven't been released. I don't care  whether it's three million files or whether it's. 300 files that they still need to get out there.  But the kind of files they haven't released, they. are breaking the law by not releasing them. They  they you mean Department of Justice? Department of. Justice, Todd Blanch. Now, and he's he he by the  way could be criminally prosecuted by the next. attorney general. This is the great thing about  passing a law instead of issuing a subpoena. This.

they didn't do this in Watergate. They didn't  do this in Iran Contra. They had commissions, they had committees, they had subpoenas, whether  it was u you know Bill Clinton's issue. This is. the first time the Epstein Files Transparency  Act where a member of Congress or members of. Congress got a law passed passed in the House and  the Senate, signed by the president to compel the. release of documents. What does that mean? Why  is it different? Because every subpoena from.

Congress expires at the end of Congress. This  law never expires. This law, unless they can. get a house and a senate and a president to repeal  it, is in effect for infinity. 50 years from now, if there's an attorney general who is like  cleaning out a drawer and find some Epstein files, they have 30 days to release them. It's it's  incumbent on we didn't name Pam Bondi. We said the. attorney general of the United States. As long as  there is an attorney general of the United States, that cabinet position may go away before the  Epstein files transparency act goes away.

um cuz it's forever. But let me tell you the  category of documents that will eventually be. released that haven't been released that you  touched on. Um we said in the Epstein Files. Transparency Act that you have to the DOJ, FBI and  US attorneys have to release internal memos and. emails about decisions on whether to prosecute  or not prosecute, about decisions on whether. to investigate or not investigate. And right now  the attorney general is claiming something called.

deliberative process privilege that they use  when they want to keep Freedom of Information. Act files from getting out or to redact them. They  say that and it's a long-standing rule for Freedom. of Information Act that the government only has to  give you the final work product. They don't have. to show you their math, the internal deliberations  of a policy. They just have to give you the end. point. But anticipating this and having served  on the judiciary committee for a long time and.

having had Merrick Garland and Christopher Ray  tell me, "Well, that's the subject of an ongoing. investigation and we don't have to give you that  or that's deliberative process and we don't have. to give you that." Anticipating that. I put  into law that they have to give me that and. the president signed that law and yet they are  asserting that my law doesn't apply to their. deliberative process privilege and they're wrong.  it won't withstand 30 minutes in a courtroom, their legal thesis. Every first year law  student knows that new laws overwrite the ones.

that existed before. And so I think eventually  there will be a forum. Some survivor will sue. the attorney general or the government for not  releasing those particular files and it'll get. adjudicated and we'll get more files. Did do  you ever ask anyone in the administration or. the Congress like why is this a hard thing for  a Republican administration that was elected to. quote drain the swamp to do? Why would it be hard?  You would think since most people identified in.

the Epstein files were partisan Democrats and  donors to the Democratic party. You'd think. be pretty easy for Republicans to be like, "Yeah,  this the other guys did this." And there were some. Republicans, but not really. It's mostly Democrats  in those files. So why would it why is it so hard? Like what the hell are we w what is this? Well,  Pam Bondi, when I cross-examined her in a hearing. while she was still attorney general about the  Epstein files, she protested to me that, you know,

this also went on under the Biden administration.  And I said, "Of course it did." Oh, right. And. it went on under the Obama administration and  the Bush administration. Like, it spanned four. administrations, five administrations, counting  Trump twice. And I told her, "You're just. responsible for this portion of the cover up."  Right? So the reason they I think they don't want. to admit that they have covered this up is then  they admit that there are two tiers of justice. in this country and that every administration at  least every attorney general has been in on it.

That is exactly right. There are two tiers of  justice and some people seem to be immune from. law and some people are just henpecked to death  by the law. Um, and and that's why I want to know. their decision process because then we'll find  out in 2008. Why did they give Jeffrey Epstein. a light sentence when they had him dead to rights  to lock him up? We'll find out. I think eventually.

cuz the law goes forever. And I think just by  random selection, we'll eventually end up with. an attorney general if they don't delete the files  before that attorney general sits in the seat, whoever that may be. Do you have any sense of  how much hasn't been released from that case? Um, well, I know that set of particular files  haven't been released. I know that they put some. files up and took them back down and they've  not put them back up again. And you may say, well, don't you didn't people get archives of  those files while they were up? Why do you care.

that the files haven't been put up again? Yes,  it's because I have the ability to go look at. unredacted files over at the DOJ and some of the  files that I wanted to look at unredacted because. I believe they implicate co-conspirators with  Jeffrey Epstein haven't been put back up onto. the public site nor the private site. So, I can't  go look at documents unredacted that may contain. the names of co-conspirators until they put  those files back in. What's justification for.

protecting co-conspirators? Well, they said  they're protecting uh victims. Okay. But if. you're protecting victims and so you had to take  the document down, then what you do is you redact. all the information that would hurt the victim  and then you put it back up. But they haven't. put it back up. So I haven't been able to look  at that. Then there are files over there. The DOJ. claims were redacted before they came into their  possession. And so when I try to unredact them, I. can't see beyond the redactions. And the DOJ says,  "Sorry, that's just the way we received them.".

Well, the fact of the matter is they need to go  back to the US attorneys and the FBI that gave. them those redacted documents and say, "Give us  the unredacted documents." But they haven't done. that yet. And then there's another category  of files that are missing. In talking to the. survivors lawyers, um the survivors have indicated  that there's no evidence of their testimony in. these files. Like they know it exists. They  sat down with the FBI. They did an interview. and the FBI agents are obligated to summarize  that interview, at least provide a summary in a.

302 form. Well, they can't even find their own 302  forms in the in the uh release of information. So, we know not everything has been released.  And I also know they're releasing more stuff, just quietly doing it because when I go over there  and look for things and find that they've redacted. a man's name who may be a co-conspirator and  threaten on the internet that they've done this, then they have released files. For instance, with  Leslie Wexner, he's the billionaire who resides.

in Ohio. Pam Bondi, when I pointed out to her  that she had redacted his name from the files, she said, "Well, we've his name appears thousands  of times in the files." I said, "Yes, but in the. one instance where it appears on an FBI document  listing him as a co-conspirator in a child sex. trafficking ring, his name has been redacted.  In the only one place where it implicates him, you redacted it." And so I know what your question  is. It was my question to her. Who redacted it? They're not giving interns a bucket of Sharpies  and a bunch of documents spread out and saying,

"Go draw a line through anything you don't think  should be released." It's all on a computer and. you have to log in and every redaction belongs  to somebody. So what I want to know and I. asked Pam Bondi and she refused to tell me is who  particularly redacted that one instance of Leslie. Wexner. If you were going to if you were the least  bit curious, you'd want to know. Do you know if. the Department of Justice in this administration  has spoken to Leslie Wexner? Um the oversight.

committee called him over there and asked him some  questions. The Department of Justice did not. They. mysteriously lost interest in Leslie Waxner after  listing him as a co-conspirator. So they they. never even talked to him. Never. They they had  some correspondence with an attorney and decided. they didn't need to talk to him even though he  paid for the whole thing. Yeah. And um so the. you know they should be wondering like this is why  I want to know about that decision of not why did.

they not talk to Leslie Waxner that's in an email  or a memo somewhere and the clear language of the. law that I wrote requires them to release it and  they won't and they haven't and that's that's what. we need to know is why did they and why do they  continue to cover this stuff up? Do you ever have. conversations with your colleagues in the Congress  about this? Are others bothered by it? Um,

they're not bothered enough by it. Yeah, I mean  uh ultimately they voted 427 to1 to pass the bill. after fighting it for so many months and then  to the Senate realized it had been political. malpractice on the part of uh Mike Johnson to lead  the whole GOP conference against the Epstein files. release merely because the president wanted  him to. And so when it got to the Senate, they. passed it by unanimous consent before it even got  there. like the bill was still in the House and.

the Senate heard it was coming over and they made  a motion to pass the bill before it got there. So. they just said when it gets here we're going to  deem it passed so we don't even have to repeat the. name of it. So Mike Johnson really was leading the  charge to to hide the facts of the Epstein case. He was lying about my bill. He told everybody it  was dog crap. It was poorly drafted. it would hurt. the victims and then it would hurt the victims  when in fact the victims love my bill and but he.

would stand up he would say these lies to a whole  gaggle of cameras and then one day Mike Johnson. told the entire conference vote for Massiey's bill  what changed we won the argument in the public. like if there is hope and and I know I'm giving  people hope and this is one of the reason I'm. fighting so hard to win is there will be not tens  of thousands, hundreds of thousands if not several. million people who lose hope if I lose. But I  what gives me hope and frankly what gives me even.

u more religious conviction is that we in spite of  all the odds we got this bill passed and it became. law and 3 million documents came out after  we had been lied to and told that everything. but kitty porn had been released. Right. That  gives me hope. That was after Pam Bondi told. you everything had been released. Correct. Did she  ever explain? I think she was largely in the dark.

most of the time. I always have a a question. Is  it ignorance or is it malfeasance? Right. Right. Um when something's doing the wrong thing in her  part, on her part, I think it was ignorance and. blind allegiance. I think when she released those  binders, she really thought she was releasing the. Epstein files. I believe she thought that. And  then uh she found out very quickly. Somebody came.

and told her, "Oh, no, no, we we're not releasing  those. You're not going to do that." And then she. had to adopt blind allegiance without even in fact  really she at one point she said, "They're on my. desk for review." Do you remember that? Very well.  How do 3 million files sit on your desk? They were. not on her desk for review at any point. Also, um  I don't think Cash Patel can be the FBI director. and anything ever happened with these Epstein  files because he testified in the Senate to.

Senator Kennedy that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone.  Even Melania Trump does not believe that, right? But he testified that Epste acted alone. And then  the next day, he did. Yeah. And then the next day. he came to the House Judiciary Committee where  I asked him to double down and he said there's. no evidence in these files that anybody was a  co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein other than. Gelain Maxwell. So again, here we go. Ignorance  or malfeasants. He he's perjured himself in the.

Senate and the House. And so his his defense could  either be ignorance. That's his only defense is to. say, "Well, when I told you that, I didn't really  know what was in the files or the people working. for me misled me." Um, those are his only defense.  And then that's why I think you will never get to. the bottom of this as long as he's FBI director.  And by the way, the the Trump administration could. redeem themselves on this, but not by releasing  3 million more files. They've got to indict.

somebody. They've got to go in there. Look, tell  go in there and investigate um Leon Black or Jess. Staley. There's enough information even in the  redacted files that anybody with common sense. knows that there needs to be an investigation  of those two men. What? On what grounds? On. the witnesses said they were sexually abused by  those men. And they've never been investigated.

as so far as you know. As far as I know. And at  le by the way, on what grounds, that's a good. question. On what grounds did uh Prince Andrew  lose his title? Did the British ambassador have. to resign? Did the former prime minister of Norway  get indicted? On what grounds? Not for pedophilia. or sex trafficking, but for misabuse of state  power and state secrets and state authority. And. this gets to what I believe Epstein was. Um my  background is technology. Um, I'm not a hacker,

but I went to school with a lot of people who are  hackers, and I still know people who are hackers. It's actually very difficult through wires to  break into most of these systems. The the guys. who get the biggest breaches of data are able  to get a human on the phone and convince them. to give up their password or get a human on an  email, right? like fishing is. But if you can get. physical proximity to somebody's phone or their  computer, that's the go that's the holy grail of.

hacking. If once you get physical proximity or if  you can get somebody so comfortable, maybe they're. in another room having sex or doing a line of  cocaine and they leave their laptop in that room. without logging out, then that's the holy grail  of hacking. You don't have to be good. You got to. be lucky or have really good humid. And I believe  that's what Jeffrey Epstein was purveyor of was. direct access to individuals. He was interested  in meeting with market makers, people who were.

going to move markets, hedge fund managers,  that sort of thing. Um, and foreign, you know, officials and dignitaries who were going to make  laws and make decisions that would move markets. I mean, it seems pretty obvious that this  wasn't, you know, that Jeffrey Epstein was. not acting on his own. I mean, first of all,  there's no evidence he ever made any money, right? I It's not clear even now, 7 years after  his murder, what he did for a living. Like,

where where' the income come from? You know when  the probability in my mind that Jeffrey Epstein. killed himself went from 5% to 0% is when I heard  the recording that he serendipitously uh recorded. of Ahood Barack when he was about to leave as  defense minister of Israel. Jeffrey Epstein. was advising him on his next career steps. And in  this recording, just cool as a cucumber, he says,

"Make a list of everybody that owes you something  for all the things you did for them while you were. in government." And then go get on these boards  and draw a check and like he was explaining like. how Ahood Barack could make money once he  left the employ of the government of Israel. And this is a recording. It's it's a insight into  Jeffrey Epstein's mind that you don't really get. um otherwise even through emails and um it was it  was revealing to me Jeffrey Epstein strikes me as.

the kind of guy who wouldn't be that worried that  he was in prison. It was a I think in his mind it. was a temporary condition Yes. that he either  needed to blackmail somebody or maybe he had. enough blackmail or more likely than blackmail,  he just had enough connections that somebody would. spring him pretty soon and I don't think he would  have lost. So if he was murdered and I think it's.

I mean I I'm totally convinced he was murdered. It  seemed very obvious that he was murdered, but if. he was murdered in federal detention in Manhattan,  like how could that have happened without the. knowledge of highest level federal officials?  There was never an investigation into it. Who who are the highest level federal officials,  by the way? They're not always the elected people. Like when we talk about the deep state there, the  these are the Victoria Nuland of the world, right?

Those are the people who are causing coups and and  is that the highest level? Are we talking about. the highest level of the permanent government  or are we talking about ostensively the highest. level, the people who get elected and pretend to  wield power like Pam Bondi? Yes. Because she's. never been the highest level at the Department of  Justice. Who do you think is um I don't know, but.

Todd Blanch in a way is working for them. I think  it's the people directly below Todd Blanch. The. people that we were told Trump would fire and get  new people, the you know, the people that did all. the bad stuff on January 6, the people at the DOJ  who prosecuted those folks. Why are any of those. people still around? And they are. And they are.  and they shouldn't be. Is that true in other key. federal agencies? I think all federal agencies.  What do you think happened? How do you go from.

campaigning against all of this to becoming  its greatest champion as the president has? I I don't know. Um I do think and he by the way  he doesn't need to run again. Right. Right. Well, exactly. People argue that term limits will work  because once somebody knows they don't have to run. for election again, they'll do the right thing.  It'll be in their nature. Yes. And they won't be.

uh subject to taking money to get their, you know,  to win their next election or doing favors. They. could just act in their good conscience. I think  what's happened is they've convinced him that he. needs a ballroom, that he needs an arch, that he  needs a Kennedy Center renamed after him and and. multiple other things, and that these take private  money, and the order of magnitude of private money. that you need for these things obligates you to  those individuals. We think that's part of what.

has happened. I also think um he's aligned himself  with Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. These are. the neocons. He got he got close to this with John  Bolton and eventually got he tired of John Bolton, I think. Yes. Most people do. Some of us never  liked him. I'm with you. Um but I think he's. basically gone from pushing those people away,  the the Dick Cheney of the Republican party to.

inviting them in the tent. And it's given him  more power, interestingly, to align with these. folks on certain issues. Whether it's spying on  Americans without a warrant, whether it's spending. more than we can afford, whether it's starting  another war in the Middle East that's going to. be hard to end. Um, he's listening to too many of  those people right now. Why would the president, who was spied on illegally by the intelligence  and law enforcement agencies of this country,

back in 2015, 2016, 2017. Why would he put so  much of his authority behind more warrantless. spying on Americans? That's hard for me to  understand. Uh some people think it's because. he wants that ability to, you know, well, as long  as he's president, to use his own FBI and DOJ to. have these same tools. Um, but then that begs the  question, why would the Democrats, the Uni Party,

right, if you will, why would they want to give  President Trump this authority? You would think. they might agree to a three-year hiatus  on spying without warrants, right? But no, they don't want any lapse in the program, and the  president doesn't want any lapse in the program. But but if Democrats are so afraid of Trump, if  he's really Hitler, he's this authoritarian crazy. person who's going to eliminate civil liberties,  why would Democrats be giving that guy the power.

to spy without a warrant on American citizens?  That exactly. You've re rephrased it better. than I said it. Um, in fact, I found myself  in a really weird position last week on the. floor of the house on flyyou day. Most people uh  had already booked their planes to leave before. this debate was going to happen. The House of  Representatives uh sent the Senate a deal to.

reauthorize FISA if the Senate would ban central  bank digital currency. No, I would I would ban. central bank digital currency and not reauthorize  FISA, right? But the some of the freedom caucus. decided that was an okay trade to trade part  of the Fourth Amendment for another part of the. Fourth Amendment. And I am terrified of central  bank digital currency. It's an onoff switch for. your participation in society. Right. Of course.  Um they starve you to death if you disobey. Yeah. Just they won't let you put gas in the tank.  You won't be able to travel. Um they'll just,

you know, they can control everything. If they can  control the currency, it's bad enough. But we sent. that deal to the Senate. Um I didn't vote for that  deal, but some people did. It went to the Senate. and the Senate laughed at that deal. threw it in  the trash and sent a clean reauthorization of FISA. back to the House with the 45day ex expiration.  And everybody suggest everybody but me suggested. we should just let that pass by unanimous consent  and folks could get on their airplanes and go. home. And I said, I don't think so. Like an  infringement of the Constitution for 45 days.

is still an infringement of the Constitution. And  by the way, we've known about this problem for as. long as I've been in Congress. I've been offering  and passing amendments to defund this part of the. FISA program. It's not something new. It's like a  a florist being surprised by Valentine's Day. We. knew this date was coming. And so, um, I stood  up and I objected and they said, "Okay, well,

now we got to have a debate over this bill." and  Jim Jordan got 20 minutes and Jamie Raskin got. 20 minutes as the chair and the ranking member  of the committee of jurisdiction, the judiciary. committee. And at that point, I I stood up and  and told the speaker that I want 20 minutes in. actual opposition to the bill. Wait, I'm confused.  You have one of the most liberal Democrats in the. House, Jamie Rask, of Maryland. You have one of  the most conservative Republicans in the House, Jim Jordan of Ohio, but they're on the same side  on spying on Americans for at least 45 days.

They're on the same side. Well, how could Jim  Jordan, this ferociously conservative freedom guy, be in favor of spying on Americans without a  warrant? Well, the president told him to. Yeah, but that's like a core that's a core. It's always  been a core issue of his. And in the debate of his. specifically, correct? It was it was a condition  of being on the judiciary committee when I joined.

Like you had to believe that we needed warrants  on FISA or you couldn't be on the judiciary. committee that he chaired. That was like the first  interview question when you applied for judiciary. that the constitution is still real, right? and  particularly with FISA 702 this particular program. and he battled last Congress ferociously to get  warrants and it came down to a tie vote where Mike. Johnson was the deciding vote and we I don't know  why again because Biden was president but enough.

Republicans voted to let Biden have the power to  spy on Americans without a warrant because a lot. of that information that intelligence that's  spying on Americans goes directly to Israel. like fact absolutely right so that's what this is  really about is do we allow a foreign country to. spy? Does our government make it easier for a  foreign country to spy on Americans? It's like. the ultimate betrayal. Another fact, when uh X  decided to show you where accounts were based, where they were set up, and where they were  operated from, the DHS account showed Israel.

that it was set up the the US Department of  Homeland Security's X account was set up using. an IP address from Israel, using uh an Android app  for purchased in Israel. And that doesn't trouble. people. Like there should be an investigation  over why when the DHS set up its Twitter account, it was set up in Israel. Now they claim if you ask  Grock about this, he'll walk around the bush with.

you. Oh, of course. And and say that, well, there  were some glitches back in the old day and there. was some contractors involved and you can you can  never get to the bottom of it. So, but back to the. last week, um I was able to claim. So, but just  to be clear, Jordan was on the same side as Jamie. Raskin, correct? For the clean 45day. Did you  feel like your head was spinning as you watched. this? It Yes. But I've been here before where  it's me versus the uni party. And by the way,

um this when they call me an obstructionist,  you can put this in the column of things. that I try to obstruct like violations of your  fourth amendment. So, the speaker said, "Okay, each side gets 20 minutes." And I rose up and I  said, "Well, in fact, each side is for this." So, this is no kind of debate. Like, I want my 20  minutes. It's like the perfect metaphor. It's. like a fake debate where both sides agree, right?  Yeah. So, and it is in the House rules. They had. to give me 20 minutes. And so, then it was going  to be me with 20 minutes and Jim Jordan with 20.

minutes. Ironically, a guy that I like who has  been leading the charge to get warrants in FISA, but in this situation was for reauthorizing a  program for 40 days, 45 days without warrants. And at that moment, one of the staffers came  over to me, this is where it's getting surreal, and said, "Jim Jordan would like to give half of  his time to Jamie Rascin." This is the last scene.

in Animal Farm where the the farmers and the pigs  are like in it together. And they said, "Would. you object?" And I said, "No, what the hell? Let  them both have time." So I had 20 minutes and Jim. had 10 and Jamie Raskin had 10. And then u to  their credit, Keith Self from Texas, Chip Roy. from Texas and Warren Davidson from Ohio joined me  in this debate. Some other people in spirit came. and sat down to to offer their moral support.  They didn't need time to debate. And we had a a.

good debate on this issue. Look, the FBI has used  this program to uh basically run their dating app. prospects through the database to see what they  can find about them before they swipe right or. swipe left. What? Yeah. That's the kind of abuse  that's gone on. They've used it on on uh Congress. They've used it on the president. They've used  it on political parties. And people say, "Well,

if there's if you're not doing anything wrong, why  do you care if the government spies on you?" Well, it's the government's opinion of whether they like  what you're doing or not. Well, they used it on me. and they got caught and no one's punished. Yeah.  They've used it on Cheryl Atkinson spying on her, you know, spyware on her computer. Uh they  use it on the press. Like, this should concern. everybody. And we and right now we're in a 45day  extension because uh I did call for the vote and. um we had too many Republicans and too many  Democrats that voted for a clean extension. So let.

can we just go through the issues on which you've  disagreed with the president? So my read as a non-. Kentucky citizen is that this race comes down to  the question of who is more on board with Trump? Who's more the MAGA guy, you or the liberal you're  running against, funded by the casino owners, uh, funded by Israel? What are the issues that  have separated you and Trump? Can you just go. through the list where the big issues where you've  disagreed? Um, let me let me start with the ones I.

agree with just real quick. I voted to fund the  wall. I voted to keep men out of girls sports. in the Olympics. I have voted. Well, I've read  that you were totally for mass migration, illegal. migration, that you love transgenderism. You were  encouraging people to castrate their sons. That's. not true. Absolutely false. I signed a an amiki  brief to the Supreme Court to support the repeal. of birthright citizenship for illeg children of  illegals. Um, I I've done all of these. I voted.

for the SAVE Act, which is to require photo ID  in federal elections. Uh, if you want to run. for school board and or HOA, do whatever you want,  but if you're going to vote in a federal election, you got to have an ID and prove you're an American  citizen. I've voted for these things. Um, I voted. for Doge. I've voted for all of that stuff. Um,  but let's talk about the things where I have been. an obstructionist. Um, most recently they tried to  put immunity for pesticides and herbicides in the.

farm bill. Immunity. immunity from liability and a  ban on any state. Let's say a state finds out that. one of these chemicals causes cancer and if it's,  you know, applied in a certain way. Right now, they're trying to ban any state's ability to  warn its citizens that that product causes. cancer. What? Yes. So, it would be a violation  of the first amendment, um, a violation of the.

10th amendment. They had this in the base. Wait  a second. So if you say something crazy on this. show, you can be sued. But if you make some poison  that gives people cancer and kills their kids, you can't be sued because you have quote immunity  along with the vaccine makers given by Congress. Correct. And well, they were, by the way, that's  in front of the Supreme Court right now. I went. and listened to the oral arguments in the Supreme  Court on this issue and they said in the oral. arguments that Congress could decide this issue,  right? And so it was stuck in the farm bill and.

um I did work with Democrats to offer an amendment  to strip this out. Anna Paulina Luna offered an. identical amendment. Her amendment was allowed a  vote and we got enough Republicans and Democrats. to vote to take this out of the bill. So if you're  saying that I'm an obstructionist and I work with. Democrats, it is true if you're trying to poison  Americans that I will cross and then get immunity. from tort law. like why don't I get immunity which  is state law by the way this would be they're not.

they're the vaccine immunity is wrong it's bad  enough but at least they pretend there's some. federal court will take care of the problem here  they were pro proposing that nobody you could get. a venue nowhere by the way that's a violation of  the seventh amendment to the constitution it's in. the bill of rights that says you have a right to a  jury trial and they're taking away first amendment. 7th amendment and 10th amendment Why would Trump  want that? Uh it's I think he's a busy guy and.

I think um he's not paying attention to this.  Although I will caution listeners that when I. went to the Supreme Court, it was very much like  the debate that I had in Congress on FISA. There. were actually three attorneys, not two. Usually  in the Supreme Court there are attorneys arguing. the plaintiff side and the defendant side.  In this case the US DOJ joined the German.

company Bear Bear Monsanto who makes glyphosate  in arguments. So the DOJ helped a German company. make the point that they should be immune from  any state liability. A German company should be. immune from lawsuits by Americans if it turns  out their product kills them. Correct. This is. so bonkers. I It's hard to believe that's I mean,  you can, you know, there's an argument about is. it worth it to put dangerous chemicals on farmland  because maybe the benefits outweigh the risks or I.

don't know. There's like an argument. What could  possibly be the argument for stripping people's. rights to redress if the product is faulty?  It's dangerous. We we've got cor corporate. capture of the EPA. And so the EPA was set up  ostensively to protect people and the environment, but now they've morphed into an organization  that would give immunity. They would give get. out of court free cards to any company that could  convince them to put a light label on it that says.

um you know a warning label instead of a danger  label. Right. Wait. So, the EPA was in favor of. giving full liability protection to Bear Monsanto  out of Germany. Correct. Who's running the EPA? Uh, Lee Zeldon right now. And he was for that.  This case predates him, but it's going on right. now under him. And you might think the EPA,  the federal EPA is going to argue for as much.

authority as they can get. And so they would  like and the corporations would love to have. one-stop shopping. They don't want to be subject  to courtrooms in 50 different states. They want to. be able to say, "Well, we're we got to get out of  court free card because the EPA said we don't need. to put a skull and crossbones on this product.  All we need is a little warning label on it." Um, I know we've gone deep into that issue, but let me  tell you why it's important. because the president.

is the president and we're in the majority because  there was a coalition formed. I do believe that he. and his adviserss were genius in setting up this  coalition and I was part of it um when I endorsed. the president to try to bring on libertarians and  independents. But we also brought on Maha which. is I was one of the people who helped put that  together. Yeah. Cuz I believed Well, then you're. the genius. I'm not a genius. It's just like that  seemed like an obvious issue. It's obviously they. told us banning smoking was going to make us  healthy and life expectancy went down. I just.

noticed that and I'm like this country is super  unhealthy and why wouldn't you make it easier. for people to be healthier if they want to? So,  and by the way, I have a standalone bill too to. uh this it's the no immunity for glyphosate act  and I have Republican and Democrat co-sponsors on. that. But it's that's what MA is. And here's the  problem. If you keep if your DOJ and your USDA and.

your EPA are all going to be captured by a German  company and and argue that Americans don't deserve. their day in court if they're harmed by a chemical  that's being sold and mislabeled according to. their state. Um then you're going to alienate that  part of the ma the maja part of the coalition. Yeah. And that's another thing that could lead  to a a bloodbath in the November election. And. it's going to it's going to Yeah. There are a  lot of sort of liberal moms or moms who thought.

they were liberal but they just watched too much  media but they basically had good values. They're. for their kids. They're for nature. You know,  those are good values. Those people are very. disappointed and betrayed. I think. Yeah. Don't  you? I I think so. I mean, by the way, you're a. farmer. I should say this by the way. And there  is one good thing in the farm bill. By the way, I've worked for 11 years on it. I've worked four  years on this part of it. I got my prime act, a. pilot program for it in the farm bill, which means  that here in Maine or in Kentucky or any of the.

state in the union, you could have a small farmer  use a small processor and s sell their beef, pork, and lamb locally to consumers without the USDA  being hovering over Yeah. the the that transaction. as long as you comply uh with the local health  inspections, you know, the there are steak houses. in Washington DC that cut up more beef than  most small processors in Kentucky in a day,

right? Yet they don't have to have a USDA  inspector. And the reason the big corporations, I call it the industrial meat complex, wants a big  wants all these regulations on the little guys is. to keep them out of the business. And so my prime  act just says you can sell a steak or a hamburger. to your neighbor using a local processor as long  as you comply with the local health requirements. and you don't need the USDA involved. And we  got a pilot program for that in the farm bill.

That's MA completely and the confluence of MA  with conservatism, right? Because I have it's a. bipartisan bill and it's one area where Democrats  realize that the little guys are being regulated. out of the business. Yes. And if they want healthy  food, more sustainably raised food, that you've. got to break up the the meat monopoly, I'll call  it. Now, the White House has recently announced. they're going to use the DOJ and the full force of  the federal government to break up these big meat.

packers. The problem with that is if you don't let  the little meat packers exist, you're just going. to raise the price. Of course. Right. There'll be  more of it will be from Brazil. Yes. Or Argentina. Yeah. So, uh, really quick, since you do run a  farm, a working farm, the chemical in question. made by Bear Monsanto, would you use it? This,  so I don't want to ban it. Um, what we're talking. about is the mislication of it or the mislabeling  of it. Let me tell you a use I would never use.

So, I don't do it, but um, I would spray fence  lines with it. Y if you had a respirator and. something like that to to kill weeds in the  fence line, y I would not spray my fields with. it because I'm afraid that the cattle might the  residue from that might be taken up in the meat. Um I would not tell my neighbor you can't kill  the weeds so that you can do no till farming of.

uh your corn. Okay. But here's one place where  I would never ever use it and I don't think it. should be legal. They spray it on ripe wheat to  dry it out before they harvest it. Like this is. the food you're going to eat. It's like the next  step is to grind it and bake it into bread. And. they are just one step away from you eating  it. And they're spraying it with glyphosate, the whole plant, so that it will die quickly  and dry out quickly and save them some money.

Maybe they can get the next crop in there four  days earlier into that land. And I've been assur. and by the way that's been banned in Europe um but  not here in the United States. And they say, "Oh, Congressman Messi, this is only used on 3% of the  wheat crops in the United States." First of all, I don't believe that. But if it is true, then why  don't we just grow something else there in that 3%. where it's too wet to grow wheat? Why don't we  grow soybeans or something instead of wheat at. that place or something you don't need glyphosate  to dry it out with? or maybe you'll get 80 or 90%.

of the yield you would have gotten if you hadn't  sprayed poison on it to dry it out quickly. That's. disgusting. So, I do think there are areas where  I wouldn't ban it, but I and I wouldn't tell my. neighbors you can't use it, but the company needs  to have the right label on it. And if they do, if. they know there are if we know scientifically that  it can cause harm, that needs to be disclosed so. that the farmers who are using it. I think it's a  threat to the farmers more so than the consumers.

Well, there the ones I know are afraid of it, but  it's also effective and so they do use it on fence. lines, for example. So, okay. So glyphosate,  warrantless spying, Ebstein. What are the. other issues on which you've disagreed with the  president? Spending. Spending. So this is probably. my biggest issue and people want to know why food  so expensive, why is housing so expensive? Why is. fuel so expensive? Why did things get so expensive  so quickly? And it started back during CO. We just.

we put spending into overdrive. We used to say  that we're a a free market economy and we're not. socialist because we spend 20% or 24% of GDP the  uh federal government things and that Europe is. socialist because they spend 30% or more. Well,  during CO we jumped up to like 35%. We were. clearly if there's a spectrum and you draw a line  on it and say above this much federal spending is.

socialism and below this is not. We crossed that  line for several years after CO and it it has gone. down some without the big stimulus spending, but  the stuff that's baked in has stayed high. So, we're like probably at 29%. We've gone we've gone  bonkers on federal spending. And I will tell you. this, this is a fact. The debt and has gone up  $2.7 trillion since in the 16 months that we've. controlled the White House, the House, and the  Senate. Gone up. it's gone up. So, by the way,

in some years they go back I think I find it  interesting they try to blame the president for. spending. Um, even when let's say the party, you  know, there's a different party in Congress and a. different party in the White House, they always  blame the president for the spending. I think. they should blame the Congress. But in this case,  there's no ambiguity. We control the Senate, the. House, and the White House. And when you say, "Oh,  it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything.".

Yeah, it takes 60 votes to spend money. Like the  money would stop if you can't get 60 votes in the. Senate. It's like the other way around because the  money expires every year unless you do a CR or an. omnibus. So these this is a place where I have  diverged with Republicans because they took Joe. Biden's budget and using the big beautiful bill  added hundreds of billions of dollars of spending. to it. And this is where I get the ads run against  me. you know, even though I voted for a wall and. I voted re most recently to fund DHS, there was  extra money for DHS and DOJ, which includes FBI.

um in the big beautiful bill and I said we can't  afford this and that's why they can run the ads. that say I voted against Well, not just run the  ads like they've attacked and I I almost don't. want to even go here, but I'm I was so shocked  by it. the president attacked your family like. repeatedly and attacked your personal life. It's a  little odd, you know, who decides to attack other.

people's personal lives, but um what did you think  of that? Well, it's ironic cuz I defended him when. he gave Stormmy Daniels money. This came up in  front of us when I was on the oversight committee. and they were trying to turn it into a crime and  because they said he should have run it through. campaign a campaign account instead of paying  her personally and that he but I can tell you. this if I told my treasurer I wanted to pay some  woman to be quiet with my campaign money he would.

say no you'll go to jail for that. So they were  actually trying to prosecute the president because. he didn't do it a certain way which certainly have  would have gotten him in jail, right? Um and I. pointed that out and also at the time I pointed  out in that hearing, this was three years ago, I think there was a congressional slush fund that  did the same thing but with taxpayer dollars to. pay off people who had been harassed or sexually  abused by congressmen and their staff. And nobody.

wanted to hear that in that hearing, but I blew  the whistle on that too. What happened to the. slush fund? Um, we were able to recently force a  vote on disclosing, not getting away, not getting. rid of the slush fund, just saying who, which  offices have paid out of this slush fund, and. it failed because Republicans and Democrats voted  against the measure to disclose the names on the. slush fund. So, it still exists. It still exists  and it if I'm a member of Congress and I get sued.

for sexual harassment or blackmailed, I can use  tax dollars to pay off the accuser. They pay off. the accuser to to avoid the lawsuit because if it  be if it becomes a lawsuit then it's public and by. the way this is I'm calling it a slush fund and  it's appropriate to do that because every office. congressional office gets a budget every year.  We have to divide it among office expense and. salaries and travel and postage and you know donor  cartridges. We don't even have to take it out of.

that money to if you trying to pay off a claim  before it goes to court. It comes out of an extra. fund that's just got money somewhere. Anyways, we  we failed on that. But I'm the one that exposed. that in the context of defending Donald Trump from  the Stormmy Daniels allegations um that they had. tried they really it was a tortured legal logic  they were trying to come up with to to convict him. of something. Um, and yet he has turned around and  and in one social media post um dishonored my late.

wife, dishonored me, and dishonored my current  wife by um alleging that I shouldn't have gotten. remarried. I got remarried 16 months after my wife  passed away. I think this is common among men who. are widowers who have wonderful marriages. Um, if  you I mean you seek that out, you find out that.

you know what, God had a good idea here when he  created man and woman and that um you're better. off in a monogous relationship where two people  care about each other and when one gets sick, the other takes care of that person. You're and  so I sought that out again. But the president. who himself has had affairs. I've never had an  affair. I was faithful to my wife for we were. together 35 years, married 31 years, high school  sweethearts. Um, here's somebody who I defended.

when he was trying to cover up his affair. Um,  criticizing the fact that I got remarried in, you know, in a church in the eyes of God according  to Christian religion. Um, but I didn't I didn't. retaliate. I didn't tweet back. My uh wife tells  me it's my fault anyway. I should have invited him. to the wedding and that's why he's mad that he  didn't. Well, you're a good man to laugh about.

it. But that's that's a pretty heavy thing to  say about somebody. He called me a [ __ ] at the. prayer breakfast. Well, that's funny cuz you're  obviously not a [ __ ] Well, and so I said, "I'm. glad I'm in his prayers cuz it obviously wasn't  a prayer he was saying at the prayer breakfast.". It just I think what's so revealing about all of  this is he you've never attacked him personally. You don't seem mad at him personally. Nope. Um,  you're aligned on the issues that I think most.

people who voted for Trump in 2024 really believed  in. You're way more America first than anything. this current administration is doing. And he's  mad at you because of like Epstein and spending, right? Those are my main infractions. And those  are things that he and I both campaigned on and. promised to eliminate um you know to disclose  the Epstein files and to eliminate the wasteful.

spending. And I'm just trying to keep my promises  to the people that I represent and he's keeping. his promises to Apac. So I I um What do you  think's going to happen um in my race? Yeah. Um it's going to be really close. It's going  to depend on turnout. And I think um the most. stark difference that we can discern in the  crosstabs, you know, when you do polling, yeah, if you've ever been pled, maybe people haven't got  to look at the results of a full poll, but there's.

200 pages of cross tabs that come from a poll  when you just poll 500 people because at the end. of the poll, you ask what's your race, what's your  religion, how old are you? you know, if sometimes. in the poll you ask the income, your household  income, um, and you look at the cross tabs and. try to find out, is there a group of people we're  doing better with or worse with, what do we have. to work on? And the the most stark contrast  in my cross tabs is age. And if um, under 40,

I win like 8020. 8020. It's it's like it doesn't  even look real. Okay. And those folks are getting. their news from social media, from podcasts,  from you. I think uh between 40 and 65, I do. really well. That's that's the age group you and  I are in. Those people I think watch the news, but.

they're suspicious of what they say. And then the  folks um not all of them, but I'm not doing that. well with 65 and up. And I think that's because  they're watching Fox News 24/7. And Fox News has. blocked me out. I've I used to be on there every  week. I've went on your show when you were on. Fox. Yeah. Gone on Laura Ingram's show, Shannon  Bream's show. I've gone on, you know, Hannity's. show. I've been on all those shows, but not in  the last 18 months. Why? Because Fox wants access.

to the White House. They want the scoop. They  want to make sure they're in the press gaggle. They want to be there when Marine One lands to  ask a question. they want to get called on and. they know that if they in any way let me have  a platform that they will be deprived of those. things that they want from the White House and  that's just how it works. Um, so to get on Fox I. have to buy ads to be on Fox. I can't be on the TV  shows. It's a wonder they'll still let me buy ads,

but I think that's just because it's federal law.  If you'd asked most Fox News voters, viewers who. were Trump voters, if you'd asked them two years  ago, like state what you believe on the issues, I think there'd be pretty close to 100% overlap  between you and those people. Absolutely. Yeah. So, I don't feel like your views have changed.  Might have never changed regardless of who the. president is or who the speaker is, but Trump's  have changed dramatically. At least the disconnect.

between what he said he was gonna do and what  he's doing is is shocking. I I you know when I. endorsed him I thought we wouldn't have a new war.  I thought we would get warrants for FISA that they. had used to spy on him. I thought that Maha would  be front and center at the um at the HHS with. Bobby Kennedy there. Um I thought that we would  have sane foreign policy. I thought that where we.

put America first. That's my definition of sane.  I thought we would end our involvement in the war. in Ukraine. I thought we would release all the  Epstein files and indict some of those so um and. those are all the things I'm still fighting for.  Do you feel like there's more corruption now than. there was? Oh, what is corruption? Well, I don't  know. It's using the power of the government,

in this case the federal government to advantage  your business over others or using say foreign. policy like the idea that our foreign policy might  be used by donors to make money for themselves is. a shocking idea. I think the conflicts of interest  are are increasing and not um adequately disclosed. and that the line between business and government  is becoming blurred. Let me give you an example.

The government's taken a 10% stake in Intel and  they're bragging that they're making money on. this. I remember when they they took a stake in  General Motors and then bragged the same thing. Um the problem once you co-mingle government  ownership and private ownership is that the. government is now predisposed to see that company  succeed over the companies that haven't given them. ownership. In fact, the reputation of the person  whose name is on the ballot is at stake if the.

company does well um or doesn't do well. And so if  there's any preferences that can be given in um in. contracts with the government, in permits to make  buildings, in trade deals, then they go to that. company that the government has a stake in. I it's  fundamentally unamerican. And I think we're seeing. I know we're seeing more of that. And I don't  think we should embrace it. I think we should.

reject it. I had concerns um at the beginning of  January when the US government overthrew Maduro. and arrested him and his wife and brought them  to New York. I predict he will not testify in. open court because that would not be good for the  US government if he did that. But um but whatever. that happened and then there was this scramble  to get rich off the oil assets of Venezuela. And I noticed that one of the people who's  funding the campaign against you now, Paul Singer,

one of the richest people in the world already,  always eager to get richer for some reason, uh, was involved in a Venezuela related business  deal shortly before that in that exercise. Am I misremembering this? No, this is the one  exception. This is why I have to say 95% of the. money motivated against me is because of Israel  there. I've got to reserve 5% for Paul Singer in. Venezuela. He's known for buying troubled assets,  distressed assets. Um, and then a lot of times.

destroying the company or leveraging the company  to get things or the country. Yes, big player in. this. And um it should not be lost on the voters  in Kentucky that this billionaire bought SIGO, which was the formerly nationalized oil company of  Venezuela for pennies on the dollar and completed.

that transaction just a few weeks before we  invaded Venezuela. And the, you know, it was. such a good deal to get this company because it  looks like, well, under the current regime and the. current rules and um the current deals that SICKO  has that this stock is appropriately pennies on. the dollar, but it goes from pennies on the dollar  to dimes on the dollar. And somebody can triple, quadruple, or get 10 times their money for that  distressed asset that they bought at a bargain.

basement price if uh the political forces  change. And then the US government, in fact, the US military gets involved in making sure that  Siko go's assets are safe and can be producing. oil and refining it into gasoline. Um, so if you  you can ask an AI, this is one of the cool things. about AI, right? Like if you're sitting at home  watching this, ask how many how much money did. Paul Singer stand to make by the US invasion of  Venezuela? and it will tell you he stands to make,

at least when I queried it, he stands to make more  than anybody else on the overthrow of Maduro and. that it could be in the billions of dollars. And  this is the guy who's paying for the ad that says, "I'm having a thrpple with AOC and Ilhan Omar  and running the AI of it in Kentucky so that. the older people who still think that AI is  artificial incimination for their cattle." Um,

are going to wonder how that was created with  artificial incimination. U, and that's like from. start to finish, that's the corruption. There it  is. and they're it's going to they're going to try. to buy the seat and if they get away with it, it's  like this is a referendum. I don't think you're. going to vote your way out of this. If if I lose,  u I think it's bleak. Well, yeah, because it means.

that people with business before the government  can use part of their proceeds to crush anyone who. questions the deals that they're benefiting from.  Correct. and and it's happening. My concern is. that if and I this is an even bigger concern with  what's happened in the current administration. If. the lesson is that no matter who you vote for,  things stay the same or get worse, then there's. no pressure relief valve for the society and  people get radical. Let me give you another.

example of where this is happening with these data  centers. So twice I have seen and stopped special. provisions from being inserted into US law to help  data centers over all other types of businesses. Um, in the big beautiful bill, Marjorie Taylor  Green and I noticed that there was a couple. pages that would give immunity for these data  centers from state law, like all state law,

but also went down to the local level, including  planning and zoning. So in other words, they were. trying to get in the big beautiful bill a federal  law that wouldn't just trample states rights, abilities to regulate AI, but it would it would  trample your local city commission or planning. commission or county commission from being able to  decide where the smoke stacks and the culde-sacs. go and keeping them separate. And so we fought  and got that taken out of the bill. the margin.

of passing the big beautiful bill was so slim  that we were able to insist that they take that. out there. Marjorie withheld her vote until they  took it out. Um, and then most recently in the. judiciary committee, which has no jurisdiction  over the EPA, I was sitting there in a markup. That's where you bring like eight bills in front  of the committee and you're going to sit there. for several hours and you're going to debate and  amend the bills in the committee of jurisdiction.

And like the sixth bill out of eight was to give  immunity from lawsuits from environmental lawsuits. to data centers. And then it immunity for data  centers for data centers. So I leaned over to a. few of the Republicans on that committee and they  said, "Did you see this bill? What is this bill. about?" And then I asked Grock, I'm like, "Who  what five companies would benefit the most from. this bill?" And I mean that's the great thing  about AI. It said Oracle, Amazon, AWS. Like,

it gave you five companies. Now, Grock didn't  incriminate itself. I didn't expect it would, but there probably Grock probably benefits from  data centers. You think? So, I'm surprised it was. as honest as it was to me. Um, and so what I did  is in real time in this hearing, I tweeted that. these are the five companies are going to benefit  from this special provision of law if it happens. I also said that look there's eight environmental  laws here that it cites and and I may not even.

agree with these environmental laws but if we're  going to give a reprieve if we're going to give. anybody relief from it we need to give farmers  and factories relief and you know house builders. the same kind of relief that you're proposing to  give the data centers like this is unamerican this. gets to is it corruption or not I I think it's  corruption for by definition for corporations to. be able to insert this. It's an environmental  provision having to do with data centers, but. they figured out a way to get it through judiciary  committee. And then I drafted a provision. Wait,

where was Jim Jordan? He was chairing the hearing.  Um, but and he to his, you know, in his defense, he may not have been looking very closely at  this. The chairman of the committee might not. have read the legislation. Okay. Well, he does  have to farm out. some of this stuff. I drafted. an amendment in real time. Like you try to think  of creative ways that would uh brain damage the.

cronyism that they're trying to achieve. And I  thought, you know, they probably want to build. these data centers in farms and farmland. And  so I drafted amendment that said okay uh if. this bill passes excluded is any data center built  in farmland which probably which if I had gotten. that successfully passed right which I think would  have been a popular amendment and I probably could. have got enough votes for it and then once it's  in there the data center guys are like screw it.

we don't even want this now we were going to build  these in all the farms that's what was the whole. purpose of the bill to screw up the environment  on the farmland right you just screwed the whole. This is so dark. So, here's where I'll defend  Jim Jordan. He had the good sense to pull the. bill before we got to it. Good. So, it got pulled  from the hearing, but I don't know that it would. have happened if I hadn't got in there and started  blowing the whistle. So, what's going to happen if. I lose there? I don't think anybody would have  been there that day to stop that provision to.

kill it in the crib before it made it to the floor  of the house. Um, on the glyphosate thing, I don't. know that if we could have rallied maja and and  let enough people know about it to get that done. Certainly, the prime act wouldn't be in the farm  bill. There are lots of things, good things that. won't happen if I'm not there and bad things  that will happen if I'm not there. And that's. why I'm running. What do you think looking back  10 years from now, we're going to think of this. data center transformation of the country by data  center? I I think these are going to be buildings.

at some point with vines growing on them with wild  animals crawling through the roofs and the and the. rotted outdoors because unlike farming, which is  something we've been doing for thousands of years, these data centers, they're going to be obsolete  in 10 or 20 years. Um, and they'll be in outer. space. Like Elon's already got a plan to put them  up there where they can get 100% solar all the. time. They get the energy and they beam the answer  back to Earth. Um, I think it's a desecration of.

the planet that is we're going to have a hangover  while you and I are still alive looking at these. things and wondering, well, what can we do with  this empty shell that was purpose? They won't last. as long as the steel mills of Gary, Indiana,  right? It's all folly. It's disgusting. So, I just want to I want to end with a a story  that's like not maybe a world historic story, but it's just such a metaphor for everything. Um,  and that's legislation that recently passed that.

allows big companies and the government to spy  on you in your car. Your car, what was your car, it's now their car apparently, while you're in it.  Will you describe what this is, the technology, the legislation, and your position on it? So, in  the infrastructure, investment and jobs act that. was passed under Biden, like tons of money thrown  at things that aren't really infrastructure. They also included some new mandates and one of  the mandates that's impractical or wellian and.

um needs to go away is this mandate for every  automobile made in 2027. Like we're just a. few months away from this to be able to shut  itself off. Every car has to be able to judge. your driving and shut down if it thinks you're  impaired. Not. And this isn't like the thing that, you know, if you've been convicted of a DUI that  you have to blow into to prove that you're not, you know, uh, inebriated. This will judge your  driving. I And I've been fighting this ever since.

I've been fighting this for years. I've fought it  in the transportation committee, which I serve on. I've cross-examined the nits of people who are  responsible for this. They'll they will admit. to me it can't work. It won't work right. Um, I  had a woman who testified that there are about. a billion car trips a day. If the failure, if  the success rate of this technology is 99.9%, that means there's going to be a million cars that  won't start on any given day. And I pointed out to.

her, well, it's not the car not starting because  the technology actually stops you midrip. So, the car's going to I guess it's going to pull you  over and on the highway. on the highway. You could. be a mom with kids cuz you swerved a deer and then  you got in the breakdown lane because an ambulance. went by. How does the car know? By the way, it's  going to have to know what road you're on. It's. going to the technology they're proposing will  watch your face. It'll look for your gaze. It'll.

look at your pupils. It'll look at your posture.  It look where your hands are and judge whether you. are competent to drive or not. My question that  I've asked over and over I can't get an answer. to is if the dashboard if the AI in the dashboard  and the cameras in your dashboard is the judge, the jury, and the executioner and you get pulled  over on the side of the road and you're a mom with. a minivan full of kids. How do you appeal your  sentence? Who's going to start the car back up?

Do you do you press a button and plead with  another AI? But a machine is watching you on. behalf of your overlords in your own car. If the  North Koreans did this, we would say this is like. classic Stalinist hellscape. Right. Right. I don't  even think the Chinese have proposed this yet. Um. it's ridiculous. And you know, I wouldn't trust  a government with this power. But what who could. possibly be for that? It's um it's a coalition.  Um mothers against drunk driving. the and.

parents like they will bring if you oppose this  Orwellian scenario, they will bring to your office. um a very sad situation. They'll bring, you know,  constituents who've had kids that died at the. hands of drunk drivers, right? And it's tough to  tell them that um this technology isn't going to. work. Like, so congressmen won't tell them that.  um it's tough to tell them there are better ways.

to stop drunk driving or to prevent this. We don't  even prosecute drunk driving when illegal aliens. do it, right? So there is no actual rule against  drunk driving anymore in the United States if you. are from a preferred ethnic group. So like this  whole thing is crazy gets that gets to the extra. layer of justice or or the bifurcation of justice.  We've got a system of justice for billionaires. We. got a system of justice for illegals. Yes. But and  then we got a system of justice the rest of us are.

expected to uh you know operate under Joe Biden  said out loud like it's not a big deal you know. illegals get busted for DUI so what I when when  I was a county executive I saw them come to our. jail and say you got to let this guy go he's an  illegal like there's no way to prosecute him in. a regular court system um and that that is crazy  but this this Orwellian kill switch system twice.

I have forced a vote on this on the floor of the  house. I forced a debate and a vote and this is. why we lose the uni party. I can't get 218 people  to take this provision of law out of law. So there. were Republicans who voted for this. Yeah. 50  in the last cycle. The victory, by the way, and this is for me and the reason they want me  gone is I I can't force those 50 Republicans to.

do the right thing. I can't even compel them.  I could compel I compelled two, you know, 70 of them to do the right thing and there's  50 holdouts. Why do they hate me in the swamp? Why do they want me gone? Part of the coalition is  the people who don't want transparency. Of course, because twice I've forced that vote. Twice they've  stood there and taken the wrong vote against their. constituents, against the Constitution for a  dystopian future, and um now they're outed. You.

can go look at that list of 50 Republicans and  and mourn that you're Republican is among them, but then go to the ballot box and vote against  them. But you can't do that if I'm not there. Cuz who's going to force that vote to happen?  13 days from today. 13 days from today, uh, I need to raise money to go up against these  billionaires, hedge fund managers, gambling. magnets that are making money from Chinese  gambling and controlling our government. Uh,

massimmoneybomb.com is where we're raising  the money. It's all the average donation is. $94 and we've had tens of thousands of donors. If  this is the biggest battle, the biggest electoral. battle this year, um it's all the marbles.  Everybody's pushed all their chips in. The. Apac has pushed in all their chips. All of the  cronies have pushed in their chips. Um and we're. pushing in our chips. I'm doing everything  I can for the next 13 days. Godspeed. I'm.

certainly rooting for you so fervently. Thanks,  T. Thomas Massie. Thank you. Thank you, sir.