PBD - Patrick Bet-David - Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Dec. 6, 2023 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

01:56:56

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | PBD Town Hall

Patrick Bet-David hosts presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the latest Valuetainment Town Hall. RFK Jr. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, activist, and Independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election. 0:00 - Vincent Oshana introduces Patrick Bet-David 1:11 - Patrick Bet-David welcomes the audience, introduces Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 4:31 - RFK Jr. arrives on-stage 5:01 - Recap of Gavin Newsom vs. Ron DeSantis debate, Newsom as a Presidential candidate 17:29 - RFK Jr. running as an Independent, helping President Biden win re-election 28:03 - RFK Jr. on raising enough campaign financing to compete with Biden and Trump in 2024 33:17 - RFK Jr. on banning Big Pharma from advertising on cable TV 42:29 - RFK Jr. on the poisioning of Americans with plastic and other chemicals 56:05 - RFK Jr. on the banning gender affirming care for minors 1:07:21 - RFK Jr. on who the difficult decision to leave the Democratic party and run as an Independent 1:14:18 - RFK Jr. on the intelligence failures that led to September 11th and the October 6th Hamas attack in Israel 1:30:17 - RFK Jr. on how he'll protect podcasters and other independent media sources from censorship from Big Tech and the U.S. government 1:33:26 - RFK Jr. on the assassination of his father, Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy 1:56:20 - Patrick Bet-David thanks Robert F. Kennedy and the audience for attending Donate to RFK's 2024 Presidential Campaign: https://bit.ly/4863ffA Purchase Patrick's new book "Choose Your Enemies Wisely: Business Planning for the Audacious Few": https://bit.ly/41bTtGD Connect one-on-one with the right expert to get the answers you need with Minnect: https://bit.ly/3MC9IXE Get best-in-class business advice with Bet-David Consulting: https://bit.ly/40oUafz Visit VT.com for the latest news and insights from the world of politics, business and entertainment: https://bit.ly/472R3Mz Visit Valuetainment University for the best courses online for entrepreneurs: https://bit.ly/47gKVA0 Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @vtsoscast @ValuetainmentComedy @bizdocpodcast Want to be clear on your next 5 business moves? https://bit.ly/3Qzrj3m Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Guys, I'm going to point for an applause and then I'm going to do the intro.
	Is that good?
	Okay. Let's go.
	Come on, guys.
	Yeah.
	Welcome.
	Ladies and gentlemen.
	Today we have a very special event.
	All right.
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
	Today we have a very special event.
	Many Americans are calling the 2024 election the most important of our generation.
	The future of our great nation hangs in the balance.
	Today, Valutainment is hosting our second town hall with a candidate who comes from one of America's most iconic political dynasties.
	His commitment to justice and government transparency has ignited the spirit of positive change in millions of voters.
	But first, please help me welcome to the stage a best-selling author who coached us through our next five moves and is now teaching us to choose our enemies wisely.
	Put your hands together right now for the founder and CEO of Valuetainment and my friend, Patrick Bett David!
	Okay.
	Grab seats.
	Grab seats.
	So the format is going to be an interesting.
	I've been looking forward to this for a while.
	There's a couple things I want you to know before we get started.
	One, I will go through my questions.
	Some of you have given your questions to Kelly.
	I will come through whenever it comes time for you to come up.
	You will simply walk up over here.
	If Vinny hasn't already told you, you'll ask your question to the candidate, Bobby, and we will take it from there.
	But I want to properly introduce Bobby from my point of view, not the one that a lot of other people maybe know him.
	Of course, we all know the last name, Kennedy.
	It's one of the greatest last names in American history, political history.
	When you say what is the most popular, famous last name in America, Kennedy's going to be on that list.
	If you talk about somebody that a lot of people claim they want to make the environment better, only a few people dedicated decades of their lives being an environmental lawyer.
	That's what he's done.
	I can go on and on and on talking about imagine you being raised in an environment where your father was assassinated.
	Your uncle, who was a president, was assassinated.
	Your father is supposed to be a president.
	He gets assassinated.
	You got all this stuff going on and you choose to leave the Democratic Party to run as an independent.
	Knowing Thanksgiving is going to be awkward with your family where everyone's going to say, what are you doing?
	We're Democrats.
	We're Kennedys.
	You're not supposed to be doing this.
	There's a lot of things I can say about that, but I just not agree on everything politically.
	You're not supposed to.
	But I knew he was a true believer.
	Three and a half years ago, maybe four years ago, I'm in Dallas.
	He's going to remember this.
	He may remember this.
	I'm in Dallas, and Jennifer comes up to me telling me, babe, Senna's got to get all her vaccine shots.
	I said, and, well, I'm trying to get an exemption, and they're giving us a hard time on some of the vaccines I don't want to get.
	What do we say, babe?
	The kid's going to a private school.
	You can do whatever you want to do with this.
	She says, no, babe, they're not letting me do this.
	I said, well, it's 11 o'clock at night, by the way.
	I said, let me text Bobby.
	He'll probably get back to me tomorrow, and maybe he's got any kind of feedback to give me.
	I text him, okay?
	We go to sleep.
	Like, we're ready to go to sleep.
	Boom!
	Two minutes later, he's calling me.
	I said, Bobby, what's going on?
	I said, Patrick, you can't do this.
	Let me tell you why.
	He's on the phone with me telling me what to do and what not to do and what options to consider as a parent.
	Then he's three-waying other people.
	And for 45 minutes, we're on the phone.
	You're trying to figure out what to do with it.
	I get off the phone.
	It's midnight.
	I'm like, listen, we're in Texas.
	Texas is not Eastern Standard Time.
	He lives in the East Coast.
	Maybe he wasn't there.
	But I said, babe, this guy just spent 45 minutes of his evening on the phone.
	We've never broke bread.
	It's not like I'm part of the family, we're best friends, we're hanging out all the time.
	We've never had that kind of a relationship.
	We met a couple times, we've done a couple podcasts together, shows together.
	In that moment, I knew this man was a true believer.
	Obviously, two years later, he announces that he's running.
	So, whether you agree with his policies or not, there's a lot of things we'll question here today.
	There's a lot of things we'll talk about today.
	You have to respect the fact that this is not just a man that writes a book to sell copies.
	He actually believes in what he talks about.
	Having said that, please stand up and put your hands together for the one and only Robert Kennedy Jr.
	Thank you, thank you, thank you.
	Please, okay, you got the tea.
	Fantastic.
	Kelly, are you going to be the one that's going to be leading them to go over there?
	Is that what the setup's going to be?
	Fantastic.
	Okay.
	Okay, thank you.
	So let's get right into it.
	How are you doing, by the way?
	How are you feeling?
	Very well.
	You're good?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so I got the topics to go through.
	Before even getting into it today, it seems like the political climate is changing all the time.
	There's a lot of different things going on.
	We have a GOP debate going on tonight that's taking place, I believe, in Alabama.
	Last week, DeSantis and Newsom had a debate together, and they're having different discussions.
	The first opening question I'll ask you is with that debate: here's a man, possibly the best governor in the way they handle COVID, Governor DeSantis of Florida.
	He caused me to come down here because I felt very free being here, who's a presidential candidate, okay?
	Going up with somebody who is not a candidate.
	He's in a lot of stories, people saying he is, he's not.
	You know, Biden's going to step down, it's going to be Newsom doing it.
	You know, Kamala's in the way, but Newsom's the one that's going to be president, and so I'm not going to be doing it.
	The debate takes place on every fact.
	DeSantis had the edge on the results in the state of Florida versus California.
	Results came back at 52%, Newsom winning.
	Your thoughts on watching that debate with DeSantis and Newsom?
	Did you watch it saying a candidate running against a non-candidate?
	Did you have an opinion about it?
	Was that the right one?
	Was that not the right move?
	What were your thoughts when you saw that last week?
	Well, I have to be clear, I did not see the debate.
	I was traveling at the time.
	My wife, Cheryl, watched the debate, and my kids watched the debate.
	And, you know, there, I've known, I know Governor DeSantis, and I admired the way that he handled COVID.
	I thought it was him.
	You know, he took the three greatest epidemiologists and biosaticians and medical researchers in the country, and he did something nobody else in the country did, which is he brought them to California and he said, you know, what should we be doing?
	What are the alternatives?
	The government is telling us to do this.
	And he really allowed a scientific debate to occur, and that's what we should have been doing everywhere.
	You want pandemic management to be transparent.
	You want it to be open to debate.
	You want people who disagree with it to be able to talk about it.
	And that was not happening.
	And I commend Governor DeSantis for that.
	I think the management of the debate in California was of the pandemic.
	California was among the worst.
	It was the worst in our country.
	They kept extended the lockdowns further than anybody else.
	The children were worse damaged than anybody else.
	We're seeing that now that our mass scores have plummeted.
	We now have all of these learning delays, speech delays.
	The CDC actually has been forced to recalibrate its milestones.
	So the CDC provides milestones that children, for example, children are supposed to be able to walk at 12 months and they're supposed to have 50 words by 18 months.
	They've now changed that so children, normal children, have to walk by 18 months and that they have 50 words by, I think, 36 months.
	So they normalized the injuries that they did to our children during the lockdown by simply changing the milestones.
	And, you know, the worst date off was California.
	I've known Governor Newsom for decades.
	I knew his dad.
	I think that he is a very, very formidable debater.
	He's very, I think, you know, he's got kind of everything.
	He's got every gift.
	He's very attractive.
	He's very eloquent.
	He's articulate about the way he talks.
	But I do think that he has a very difficult record to defend in California.
	So I don't know exactly what happened in the debate, but a lot of times the debates are, people judge the debate based upon how you carry yourself.
	And he really, you know, he is an all-star at how he presents himself to the public.
	So I think that probably helps him a lot.
	Do you think he'd be a good president for the United States?
	I don't, you know, looking at what's happened in California, I don't think it's right for the United States right now.
	I think, you know, I've been to, I spent a year, almost a year, in San Francisco arguing the Monsanto cases.
	So we went to court with about, I think we had 2,400 cases of mainly home gardeners who had gotten non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from using Roundup.
	And the way that you, all of those cases, our cases were consolidated with cases from about three other law firms in front of judges in California.
	So the way that multi-district litigation works, you try those cases one at a time.
	And usually after you try three or four or five of them, the defendant comes to the negotiating table.
	You know now the value of each of those cases.
	And the defendant comes to the negotiating table and they settle all of them.
	By the end, we had about 40,000 cases.
	And we tried three in a row.
	The first one we won $89 million on.
	The second one, the jury gave us $289 million.
	The third one, we asked for a billion.
	It was a couple who had both gotten on a hodgkin's lymphoma.
	They both did home gardening together.
	They sprayed Roundup every day.
	They had a Labrador retriever who came with them every day when they gardened.
	The Labrador retriever got non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and both of them were diagnosed at the same time.
	The Labrador died.
	And the jury, we asked the jury for a billion dollars and they came back with $2.2 billion.
	And at that point, Monsanto came to the negotiating table and we settled all the cases.
	But I had to stay in San Francisco for the better part of a year arguing those cases.
	Every morning, I went to Union Square to exercise before court.
	There's a gym there.
	And Union Square in San Francisco is like Fifth Avenue in New York.
	has all of the big American brands.
	It has Nordstrom's, Bloomingdale's, Maisteys, Gap, Old Navy, Levi, and it has the big foreign brands, the big flagship stores for Deala Valley, Prada, Gucci, Farragama, Burberry.
	People come from all over the world to shop there.
	I went there a month ago, and every one of those stores is shut down.
	It's just acre after acre of plywood because of the chaos in the streets.
	And, you know, it's not hygienic.
	A lot of people would say it's not safe.
	There's open-air drug markets and, you know, it's a combination of things that have caused that.
	It's high housing prices and it was the lockdowns.
	And I think the management is in California from the state government and the city government of San Francisco has been on, is not a winning record.
	Let me just put it that way.
	And I think it's a very, very hard record for a governor to run on.
	Do you by any chance, I mean, you have to be a strategist, and when you're talking to your group, do you, I'm sure the right answer is going to be, well, we're just going to talk about what our values and principles are, and that's what we're going to talk about policies.
	Do you at all think President Biden's going to be the candidate on the left at the end?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	You know, I watched the debate with President Trump last night on Hannity.
	And he was asked that question.
	And he said he did not believe that Biden would, President Biden, sorry, was going to make it to the end.
	And I think by that he meant that he would drop out at some point.
	And maybe, you know, if he were, if he were going to drop out, the time to drop out would be during the convention, because then he would control the delegates, because they're all Biden delegates.
	And he would then be able to pick his successor.
	But I don't know.
	Anything I say about it is speculation.
	I try not to speculate.
	But I don't feel like he is that he has, let me put it this way, the energy that we need at this point to run the country during a period of our history that is very challenging.
	The world is, you know, we're in all kinds of wars.
	We actually are, you know, people are actually talking about using nuclear weapons now and strategic tactical nuclear weapons for the first time in my life since I was a kid, since the 60s.
	And during that, I was about nine years old during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
	I have 11 brothers and sisters.
	There are 11 of us.
	And the U.S. Marshals came to our house.
	There's a 13-day period during the Cuban Missile Crisis when a lot of Americans felt that we may all wake up dead the next day.
	We were the closest in human history that we'd ever come to global annihilation.
	And the U.S. Marshals came to our house to take myself and my elder brother Joe to an underground city in the Blue Ridge Mountains in West Virginia.
	It's a place where the whole, they have places for the whole government to weather the nuclear, a thermonuclear cataclysm.
	And I had heard about it, and I thought I really wanted to see the place.
	Apparently there were McDonald's there, and this was when McDonald's was just invented.
	And there were shopping centers and all kinds of stuff.
	I, you know, we had watched science fiction films and watched this dystopian science fiction depiction.
	So I wanted to go there.
	My father called us.
	He spent 13 days on a cot at the White House during that period.
	And he called us because he knew that U.S. Marshals were there.
	And he said, you can't go with them.
	And he said, he said, number one, if you don't show up at Our Lady of Victory School, everybody in the country is going to know about it and they're going to panic.
	And so you have to be good soldiers and show up at school.
	But he also said to us during that phone call, if there is a nuclear exchange, it would be better to be the people who are dead than the people who are left.
	And that's how he was looking at it.
	I didn't agree with that, by the way.
	That's how he was looking at it at the time.
	And I think that kind of fear that he had about the use, the first use of a nuclear weapon, is something that we are not seeing in these kind of anonymous men and lanyards, men and women, who are now making these calls from the White House.
	And that worries me a lot that these are people we don't even know who they are.
	I think the people who are calling the shots on foreign policy are not making good judgments right now.
	That was supposed to happen under Trump, a lot of people said.
	When Trump was running, everybody thought there was going to be a nuclear war, and it was actually a time of peace.
	And the person that was supposed to bring all of us together, that's when the chaos have been.
	So a lot of people think about that.
	But let's talk about you as a candidate, as an independent candidate.
	A lot of times when we think about third-party independent candidate, we typically go to Ross Perot.
	And we'll go to Ross Perot.
	He went to 19%, and he would get up with his charts and show what he showed.
	And in George Bush Sr.'s documentary, which is a great documentary to watch, there's only one thing he wouldn't comment on.
	As a matter of fact, he got upset, and that to stop the interview with the camera when they asked him about Ross Perot, because it was due to Ross Perot that Sr. became a one-term president.
	That's what a lot of people will say.
	And Ross Perot allowed Clinton to become a president.
	The same story can be said about Teddy Roosevelt, which you talk about a lot.
	Teddy's one of the better presidents we've had in our history.
	But at one point, he was also recent to help Woodrow Wilson become a president at the time when he was running.
	And both of those candidates helped a liberal become a president.
	So that is typically, we'll go back, look at a case study, but this kind of looks like the trajectory where you're at today.
	When you hear people say, according to data, this is just what the numbers will tell us.
	If it's just Trump against Biden, Biden has a one-point lead.
	If it's just them going up against each other, this is the QuinniPak numbers that came up.
	But if it's you, Trump, and Biden, he has a 3% or 4% lead, which means you're helping Biden out.
	What do you say to the people who like many of your policies, who like the fact that you're pushing the establishment, but at the same time, aren't you just kind of helping President Biden become a president again and get re-elected?
	Well, I mean, you know, my purpose is to win the election.
	So I want to spoil the election for President Biden and President Trump.
	My numbers right now are better than any independent candidate in 100 years at this point in the election.
	So, you know, you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt.
	And we don't really have even good polls for where he was at this point.
	But, you know, Teddy Roosevelt had been president, had made a commitment to not run for president at the outset.
	And then His vice president, who he was very close to and they were politically aligned, President Taft, ran to replace him.
	And in the middle of it, in the middle of the election, he got frustrated and announced his own run as the bull moose party.
	And he had, you know, he did take the election away from Taft and gave it to Woodrow Wilson.
	I wouldn't call Woodrow Wilson a liberal.
	I think Woodrow Wilson was very regressive on a lot of, on most of his policies.
	The one thing that he promised to do is to keep the country out of war, which is a promise that he violated, that he got in there and got us into World War I.
	So my polls right now, I'm beating both candidates in all Americans under 45 years old.
	In Americans under 35 years old, I'm beating them both by 10 points.
	I'm up to now 24% average in the battleground states, which puts me within 10 points of winning the election.
	I only have to win a third of the votes to win the election.
	One vote over a third.
	So I can win the election theoretically with 34%.
	And I'm already at 24% in key states like Michigan.
	I think I'm up to 26 or 27.
	And I have almost a full year.
	And this is with spending very, very little money compared to them.
	I'm leading with independent voters.
	I'm at 36 with independent voters.
	And President Trump is at 27, I think.
	And President Biden is at 31.
	I'm leading.
	We're essentially in a three-way tie with Hispanic voters.
	The only voters that I don't do well with, I'm leading everybody with mothers who have children at home, so the mothers of children under 18.
	The only group that I don't do well in are baby boomers.
	And I believe that the reason I can't prove this, I believe the reason that I'm not doing well with them is that they get their news from television, from MSNBC, from CNN, and then from the New York Times and the Washington Post.
	And if that was the news bubble that I was living in, I would have a very low opinion of myself as well.
	Those news outlets will not let me on.
	They will not let me debate.
	They won't let me talk.
	They will not give a live interview with me.
	Sometimes a couple of them have said, we'll interview you, but it will be live to tape, which means they can interview me for 20 minutes and take a 10-second sound bite out of that to distort or whatever.
	I think that's beginning to change.
	Now we're seeing changes in that.
	And I believe, like my kids, I have seven kids.
	And I would believe that none of them have ever watched a evening news on TV.
	They get their news from other sources.
	They get it from the internet.
	They get it from podcasts, et cetera.
	And in that generation, I am dominating.
	And what we're seeing anecdotally is that people who watch my interviews, long-form interviews, even liberal Democrats have a very, very high conversion rate.
	So my strategy over the next 11 months is to get as many of those people to be able to see interviews with me, to ask me questions, And to get to know something about me that's outside this kind of stew of defamations and pejoratives that define me in the mainstream media.
	But I'm very confident that we're going to win the race.
	I don't think I'm running against the two, I think, weakest candidates in American history.
	President Trump has a very, very intense following.
	But it's relatively small.
	And President Biden, there's almost nobody that I've met.
	In fact, I can say I've never met anybody so far who says you should vote for President Biden because he has a great vision for the country, that he's energetic, that he can grapple with the big problems.
	They all say you've got to vote for him because otherwise Trump is going to start a dictatorship.
	And we've got to do more.
	The Democratic Party has to do more than just offer people the last of two evils and say to them and appeal to their fear.
	These young kids that are following me are people who want hope for their future.
	They want a vision for our country.
	They want to be proud of our country.
	There was a poll taken in 2013 that showed that Americans between 18 and 35 years old went asked, 85% said they were proud of the United States of America.
	The same poll taken last month of the same group of people, only 18% said they were proud of our country.
	To me, that's the most heartbreaking data point I've seen since this began.
	And you've got a whole generation of kids who've lost faith in the United States of America, and they've lost any hope that they have for their kids sometime in the last eight years.
	During the administrations of the two people I'm running against, this generation has completely lost hope.
	And, you know, we've got to offer them something better than you should be scared of the other guy.
	We have to tell them they're going to be able to buy a home, that they're going to, that, you know, our moral authority as a nation is going to be restored, that we're going to rebuild the middle class in this country.
	We're going to end the chronic disease epidemic that is debilitating 60% of the people in their generation.
	We're going to end this corrupt merger of state and corporate power that has left all of our regulatory agencies as captives of the industries they're supposed to regulate, as predators against the people of this country.
	And I'm running against two guys, two men, former presidents, who both say they're running on the idea that they brought tremendous prosperity to our country.
	And I sit at kitchen tables with people a lot, with the regular Americans.
	I did this before I ran because I represent them in lawsuits.
	And when you tell people you're experiencing this extraordinary prosperity right now, they feel like they're being gaslighted.
	There's nobody, there's nobody in that generation.
	There's nobody who's under 20, who's under 30 years old who thinks that they're ever going to buy a house.
	The housing price have gone from $215 two years ago to $400,000 today, and the interest rates have gone from 3% to almost 8%.
	And corporations are buying the houses, but kids are not.
	And we've got to offer them something different.
	We've got to do something different to let these kids have a hope in our country and their own future again.
	I think there's another reason why boomers, you don't do well with boomers.
	I'll tell you, I think your marketing team's got to pay attention to this.
	The day you took your shirt off and started doing push-ups, you pissed off a lot of boomers.
	Yes or no?
	I think when people saw how jacked he was, they're like, wait a minute, take that video away from my wife.
	I don't want people to see this.
	Honey, how come you can't bench like Bobby Camp?
	Anyways, that's just my speculation.
	A little bit of research for you.
	So let's go to this with the independent becoming a president.
	2020, it was estimated that the two major party nominees spent $1.4 billion on their campaign, okay?
	That's up from $1.1 billion in $1.16 and $660 in 2012.
	They're saying it's going to be around $2 billion today.
	Some are even saying it's going to be around $3 to $4 billion.
	You raised $8.7 million on the last quarter.
	Tony Lyons, who is co-founder of the American Value, said he'll pledge $15 million.
	And then at the same time, this is all great when you're going around saying, you know, you're getting $5, $10 donations.
	If we wanted to do $5 donations to get to a billion dollars for you to run for office, you would need 200 million people, Americans, to donate $5.
	And then at the same time, that includes the last time we had around 157, 150, whatever amount of people that voted.
	So there's a lot of people that, how are you going to raise that kind of money to run for office while many billionaires are sitting there or even guys that are willing to put the PACs?
	They're saying, am I going to go here?
	You're see Ken Griffin, they're leaning towards Nikki Haley.
	You're seeing, you know, even Jamie Dimon leaning towards, you know, do you feel you need to take money from some of these folks?
	Like, do you feel you need to raise real money to get there?
	And is there anybody you wouldn't take money from, such as Pfizer?
	Yeah, I don't think I have to worry about Pfizer giving me money and turning it down.
	What if one day they say we endorse RFP if you change your campaign?
	You know what?
	Listen, they're not going to do that.
	But I'm going to, you know, I mean, they'd be fired by their board if they did that.
	They'd be an abolition story, though.
	They should be.
	But the answer to your question, to your sort of broader question is, first of all, I've outraged last quarter, I outraged both President Trump and President Biden with my campaign did.
	And I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but we raised over $8 million, and I think they raised $6 and $5.
	That's the campaign.
	The campaign has a maximum donation level of $6,600 under federal law.
	And what we did there is the hardest thing to do, which is to raise small dollar donations.
	And we started out with a list of only 150,000 people.
	We get about $38 per name per quarter.
	Bernie had about 13 million people.
	He didn't have to raise any corporate money because he was getting 20 or 30 bucks a person per quarter.
	And just do that math, you know, if you can in your head.
	And he didn't need corporate money.
	He didn't need billionaire money.
	So you can do it.
	You know, what we need is to build our list size.
	And that's one of the things that we're doing.
	Then the super PACs, the big money that you were talking about is coming not through the campaigns.
	It's coming from the super PACs.
	We are not allowed to coordinate with.
	It's against the law for us to coordinate it.
	But the super PACs try to look at what you're doing and do what you would want them to do.
	It's a messed up system.
	I'm not defending it.
	I'm just saying how it works.
	And the super PAC, that super PAC you mentioned, which is the American Values Super PAC, has raised something close, I don't know exactly, up to $30 million.
	So we're getting real money come in.
	And by the way, with that 8 million that we had, we are now beating President Biden and President Trump and young people.
	We're beating them with independencies, the key demographics, and we're beating them with a lot of others.
	And that's with me only running for the past six and a half months.
	So I have 11 months in front of me.
	And I feel like, you know, with a tiny fraction of the money they make, that I can win the election.
	But we're going to get money.
	Money is coming in now.
	And, you know, and we will, you know, we'll have enough money to put on a real national campaign and to get on the ballot.
	It costs us $15 million to get on the ballot in every state.
	President Trump and President Biden don't have to do that because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are already on the ballot.
	So we have to do something they can't do.
	And what they're going to do is try to stop me from getting on the ballot by putting legal impediments and doing everything they can to make sure that the American people don't get a choice.
	And what I would say to you is that whether you're a Republican or Democrat, whether you like me or somebody else, that Americans should have that choice.
	And one of the things that you can do is to go to our website, kennedy24.com, and you can sign a ballot petition from your state on that website.
	So even if you don't intend to vote for me in the end, I think, and if you do believe in American democracy and believe that it's beneficial for a democracy to have as many choices as possible, please go and sign that petition.
	Next question.
	Big pharma is something that is probably one of your biggest enemies, if not your biggest enemy.
	When you said they're not going to endorse me, of course they're not going to endorse you because you've kind of gone in their way.
	You've called them out.
	I remember I got a strike for one of the interviews we did with you, by the way, years ago when we had you on.
	Do you remember that?
	I apologize.
	It's totally fine.
	It was worth it.
	It was a great conversation that we had.
	You're welcome.
	You're welcome.
	Yeah, but where I'm going with this is the following.
	Here's my concern.
	I think three things are keeping cable TV in business.
	One are your friends, the boomers, okay?
	Two is big pharma.
	And three is sports.
	A lot of sports teams are going away and they're saying, hey, you can watch us on our own OTT.
	You don't need to go to NBC or whatever to watch it.
	You can come to us.
	Baby boomers, just a matter of time.
	And the third one, keeping cable in business is big pharma.
	Around $5.7 billion, Big Pharma gave to cable TV in 2022.
	Now, two countries in the world are the only countries where Big Pharma can advertise in.
	It's us and it's New Zealand, right?
	I'm having this conversation with Vivek back there in the cigar lounge about a month ago on his podcast.
	And I said, why are we allowing Big Pharma to advertise?
	And they're almost forcing all these mainstream media talking heads that are reading a teleprompter to do whatever they tell them to do.
	Because if you don't, you're not going to get the money and all this stuff.
	They're pretty much puppets for them.
	And that's a reality when you're seeing it.
	That's their job.
	That's who pays them.
	They're millions of dollars per year.
	And I said, why are we allowing Big Pharma to advertise?
	Well, this is because capitalism, so somebody can come and say, what if a car you can kill people with cars?
	Are we going to ban cars?
	I said, but why do we ban cigarettes?
	You can buy cigarettes, but you don't see ads on TV.
	You don't see Marlboro.
	You don't see Winston.
	Why don't we ban Big Pharma from advertising?
	195 countries in the world, only two of them allowed.
	We're one of them.
	Are you someone that has the courage or thinks it's a good idea if in the day you become a president where you will prevent big pharma from advertising on cable TV?
	The answer to that is yes.
	I'll do that on day one.
	Well, I'll explain how it works.
	Let me ask you something.
	What did Vivek say?
	Vivek said, let me go research it.
	And I'm going to think, but he said it's a very good idea.
	I said, the reason why I think you ought to think about it is because his background as well.
	And that conversation led to, I got to go do more due diligence.
	While we're doing the interview, we're checking what companies cannot advertise.
	And the one we saw is Tobacco.
	You know, my dad actually got cigarette ads off of TV.
	and got liquor ads off of TV.
	If you remember, 10 years ago even, you never saw liquor ad on TV.
	That's recent that you're seeing that.
	On the network news, the liquor companies, my father actually threatened, had legislation to ban them.
	And they came to him and said, look, don't ban us.
	We will just stop doing it.
	We won't advertise on TV.
	So gradually you got it so there were beer ads on TV.
	But hard liquor companies did not advertise on TV probably until 10 or 15 years ago.
	I don't know exactly when they, but I remember when they you started seeing Vlad ads and then more and more stuff.
	And it was on cable TV.
	It was not on networks.
	It was not on ABC, NBC, CBS because the public actually owns the network, owns those airways.
	The companies that, you know, the broadcasters have a license to use them, but they have to use them in ways that promote the public interest.
	And it was regarded at that time that direct-to-consumer advertisement was bad.
	Everybody agreed with that.
	The American Medical Association, everybody agreed.
	We should not be doing direct-to-consumer advertising pharmaceutical.
	That changed in 1997.
	So that's when you started seeing this wave of pharmaceutical ads on TV.
	And of course, the pharmaceutical companies want to advertise on the network news for two reasons.
	One is because that's where their customers are.
	The only people, as I said, who watch network news are old people.
	And those are people who are buying the pharmaceutical trucks.
	And the other reason is because it allows them to control content.
	And other companies do this too.
	Like you'll see Northrop Grumman and Raytheon and Lockheed.
	I saw an ad the other day, I think it was on Good Morning America.
	It was one of the big, where they were advertising killer drones.
	And I was like, who watching this show is buying killer drones?
	Of course, nobody is, but it allows them to control the content and to get their, you know, all the former generals who act as experts on the mainstream media and are constantly telling the war narrative and getting us, you know, so they, that's one of the reasons they do it.
	And Pharma, in 20, I think it was 2014, I had a conversation with Roger Ailes.
	Do you guys know who Roger Ailes is?
	Raise your hand if you know who he is.
	So most of you do.
	Roger Ailes was the founder of Fox News.
	And I spent when I was 18 years old or 19 years old, I spent three months in a tent with him in East Africa.
	And that's a long story.
	But I remained friends with him.
	This is before Fox News existed.
	I remained friends with him.
	And he later started Fox News.
	And for me, ideologically, he was like Darth Vader.
	But our friendship, we had a very, very close friendship, even though we were politically diametrically opposed to each other.
	And he would put me on, you know, I was always fighting for the environment.
	I was the leading environmental lawyer and advocate in the country.
	I was the only environmentalist who went on Fox News.
	One, because the other ones didn't want to do it, but also Roger would make Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto and Bill O'Reilly and all of his hosts put me on, even though he didn't agree with what I was saying.
	And so I did in 2014, I did a documentary with some other people about mercury and vaccines.
	And I went to Roger Ailes, I showed it to him, and he said, yeah, you know, and in fact, he believed that one of that a relative of his had been injured, was severely injured.
	He said, I can't let you on with that.
	And he said, in fact, if any of my hosts allowed you onto their shows, I would have to fire them.
	Really?
	Yeah, and he said, if I didn't, I remember this, this is a quote.
	He said, if I didn't fire them, I would have Rupert, I wish he meant Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the network, on the telephone within 10 minutes.
	And then he said to me, 75% of the advertising revenues for our evening news show are coming from pharma.
	And he said, out of typically 22 to 24 news shot, news slots, I mean, advertising slots on the evening news, 17 are going to pharmaceutical companies.
	And so he said, you know, and I've seen time and time again where hosts are, you know, get calls from the corporate and from the bean counters who are doing the advertising, where news hosts get that and say, you know, that segment I just taped with you, we can't play it because our advertisers are telling us not to.
	And I can recite stories like that with names and dates all day.
	I've written about it, but it is the reality that the pharmaceutical industry, that the people like Anderson Cooper, like Jake Tapper, are really our pharmaceutical reps.
	Their job is to drum up fear of infectious disease and stories about chronic disease and then to sell pharmaceutical advertising on TV.
	And if you, you know, their salaries ultimately, not directly, but ultimately are coming from the pharmaceutical industry.
	It would be very funny if somebody at CNN who's an editor, I'm not trying to give anybody any ideas, but maybe if they're a fan of RFK, while Anderson Cooper is doing it on the bottom, instead of saying host, he says, you know, pharmaceutical rep for Pfizer.
	It'd be very entertaining.
	Not trying to put any ideas in any 24-year-old editor's minds at CNN.
	I just thought it'd be funny.
	Anyway, so next topic.
	It's not good career advice on either.
	It's definitely not good.
	But we're hiring over here, so maybe it'd be a good opportunity to come somewhere else.
	Okay, you've been accused of claiming that man-made chemicals in the environment are making children gay or transgender and causing feminization of boys and masculinization of girls.
	This has been shown even with Bill Maher that he showed generation by generation by generation, we're getting gayer and gayer and gayer.
	Eventually, in the next 20 years, you and I end up being gay the way we're going right now.
	In a June 2022 episode of your podcast, you stated if you expose frogs to atrazine, male frogs, it changes their sex, and they can actually bear young.
	They can lay eggs.
	This is you saying this, fertile eggs.
	And so the capacity for these chemicals that we are just raining down on our children right now to induce them these very profound sexual changes in them is something we need to be thinking about as a society.
	And even according to a report, particles can harm human body.
	Estimations of the total mass of ingested MP particles correspond to 50 plastic bags per year.
	This is all of us in here.
	One credit card per week, or median value of other numbers we can look at here.
	But this is kind of what the other day, I have a bathroom in my office.
	Only two of us use this.
	It's me and Vinny.
	You know, somebody goes to the bathroom, they forget to flush it, you see something.
	The other day I go to the bathroom, I'm looking at there's six credit cards in the bathroom.
	Vinny was, you know, because he's got so much plastic in his body that, you know, for us with the wrong chemicals that we have.
	Now Vinny's still straight.
	We're good with him.
	But how do you, when you say something like this, there's only one other guy that said this about frogs, and he had to pay a few hundred million dollars to find it.
	They're trying to get the money from him.
	I'm not going to go there, but how do you plan to combat the poisoning of Americans if elected president?
	Well, first of all, let me clarify something.
	I never said that chemicals in our food or water are making people gay.
	I've never said that.
	I never said that they're making people trance or giving them sexual dimorphism.
	Here's what I did say.
	First of all, I've worked for, I've spent 40 years working on endocrine disruptors, and it's non-controversial.
	Endocrine disruptor is a family of chemicals that has the impact on sexual development of humans and of animals.
	And, you know, there are many, including, you know, PBAs and plastic and PCBs, which are a flame retardant, and many, many other chemicals that are known to have the impact of endocrine disruption.
	They disrupt in mammals and other animals normal sexual development.
	So that is non-controversial.
	Nobody disagrees with that.
	The study that I referred to, and any of you can look this up on your cell phones right now on Google, is a study in which a scientist, and I can't remember his last name.
	I know his first name is Tyler.
	But you can look it up and you can use the first name, but you don't even need to do that.
	You just put atrazine and sexual dimorphism or sexual changes in frogs.
	And that's going to come up on your Google.
	You're going to see a peer-reviewed published study.
	What he did is he took 27 frogs, males, he put them in an aquarium, and he exposed them to levels of atrazine that are below EPA exposure levels.
	So they're below the levels that we are receiving.
	63% of the water supply is now contaminated with atrazine.
	And EPA allows that up to levels, up to a certain level before it tells you the local water district to stop people from drinking it.
	And that level that they allow is what Tyler exposes frogs to.
	So there are 27 frogs.
	He exposed them to the chemicals, and they're all male.
	Of that, 90% of them became sterile.
	They could not produce young.
	10%, I think three of the frogs, became turned female and were capable of producing fertile eggs.
	So their sex was literally changed by exposure to this chemical.
	Now, what I said is that there are anecdotal observational evidence that we are seeing higher numbers of individuals with sexual dimorphism than in previous generations.
	That is controversial, because there are people out there who will say, no, it's always been steady.
	But there's a lot of people, and there's some studies that show, no, it's actually increasing dramatically.
	I'm not going to take a side one way or the other.
	But if it is increasing, shouldn't we look, first of all, shouldn't we do studies to see if it's increasing?
	That's what the federal government should be doing, but they won't do them.
	Second of all, shouldn't we be doing studies to see if the chemicals that we know impact frogs that way, whether they also impact humans that way.
	And there's easy ways to study that without deliberately exposing humans to those chemicals.
	So shouldn't we be doing those studies?
	Whether not just atracine, but other endocrine disruptors that are now ubiquitous.
	Everybody in the Hudson Valley has General Electric's PCBs in their flesh and our organs.
	A lot of these chemicals are now that are known endocrine disruptors are ubiquitous now.
	And shouldn't we be determining whether they're having these other insidious effects on us?
	And that is all I said.
	Now, your question was, how am I going to end that?
	Here's how I'm going to end it.
	My first week in office, I'm going to go to Bethesda where NIH is.
	And Bethesda, and NIH will not let you study these questions right now.
	NIH has an annual budget of $42 billion.
	It distributes that money to 56,000 scientists in research centers, mainly in universities all across North America and some in other countries as well, to study human health impacts.
	But what NIH, and when I was a kid, NIH was the gold standard research agency on earth.
	In fact, if you went to other countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, they don't have a scientific agency.
	In fact, in their laws, they say whatever FDA approves is approved in this country.
	Whatever NIH says, you know, we're going to take their word for it because they were at impeccable integrity.
	What's happened over the past 50 years is NIH has stopped doing that kind of science.
	And it's changed to do science that is corrupt oftentimes that is used to justify the mercantile or promote the mercantile ambitions of the industries that it regulates.
	But mainly it has become an incubator for pharmaceutical products.
	So, for example, the Moderna vaccine is owned by NIH and NIH gets to keep 50% of the royalties.
	So they're making tens of billions from a product that they made us all take.
	Not only that, but there are six individuals who work for NIH, who were top deputies of the then manager, Anthony Fauci, who also have walk-in rights for the patents.
	So they are allowed to collect $150,000 a year from Moderna cells forever.
	Their children, their children's children, they're paying for their boats, their mortgages, their kids' education, their alimonies from what they get from Moderna.
	And that is not a very good, it's not a good idea.
	Let me put it that way.
	You want regulators to be independent and you don't want the commercial ambitions of individual regulators to subvert the regulatory function of that agency.
	And you give somebody $150,000 a year forever, their children, their children, children, they might overlook something.
	some problems with that drug and their job is to find problems with it and so um you really think they're gonna let you go expose that I mean, Rand Paul's been trying to do what he's doing.
	You really think, I mean...
	Well, as president, they work for me.
	I, you know...
	I've been suing these agencies for 40 years.
	I know with the regulatory, I understand regulatory capture.
	I have a PhD on each one of these agencies.
	I've sued almost all of them.
	I've sued NIH, CDC, FDA, EPA multiple, multiple times.
	I sued DOT because I'm involved in litigation now with them, Department of Transportation, because I'm representing 1,000 families right now whose lives were upended by the Norfolk Southern spill in East Palestine, Ohio.
	So I not only am meeting with them at their kitchen tables and hearing what it's done to their lives, but I'm seeing and we're discovering and discovery why that was a result of corporate capture.
	And I'll just tell you one of the many things, the FDA proposed a regulation that there should be heat sensors on every wheel of these huge car, of these huge train cars now.
	I mean these huge trains that have hundreds of cars on them.
	That every wheel should have a heat sensor on it to notify the engineer.
	And that there should be multiple engineers and personnel on each train.
	The agency, because it doesn't want to spend that money, said, no, we only need one personnel on a train with 100 cars on it.
	And we don't want to install the heat centers because that's going to cost us a couple thousand dollars per train.
	Well, we now know that on that spill, the wheel of that train was sparking and then it caught fire.
	And for 20 miles, it was on fire, getting bigger and bigger until the whole boxcar burned.
	The boxcar was full of PVC pipe, which went off like an explosion and derailed the train.
	How do we know?
	Because through discovery, we got the doorbell ringers from people who were neighbors of that train track and you can watch it from their doorbell cameras with this fire getting bigger and bigger for 20 miles and the engineer has no idea because they didn't put the heat sensors on.
	So that spill took place directly because of agency capture.
	And that's what you see when we sued, I'll tell you very briefly, when we sued Monsanto, we found email correspondence between the head of the pesticide division at the EPA for a decade, a guy called Jess Rowland, and the top executives of the Monsanto company, which owned Roundup, which we were suing.
	And they were secret emails where we believed, the American public believed, was paying Jess Rowland his salary, and we believed he was working for us.
	From these emails, it's clear that for a decade he was secretly working for Monsanto, and they were telling him, kill this study, fix this study, don't let this happen.
	At one point they say, oh no, there's another agency, ATSDR, that's going to study the link between cancer and Roundup.
	You cannot let that study happen.
	Just Roland sends them an email back saying, I can't stop it.
	It's not my agency.
	And they send him back saying, you have to stop it.
	And he then says, okay, I'm going to do it, but you need to give me a gold medal.
	That's why the first two judges would not let us show that memo to the jury.
	The third judge did, and that's why they gave us $2.2 billion, because they were Americans and they're upset that their regulators are owned by the industry they're supposed to regulate.
	By the way, how much do these things matter to you?
	Like you would want the president to investigate these things?
	Yes?
	Let's continue.
	Blake Rothmell, if you can work your way up to the mic, I'll come to you right afterwards.
	Meanwhile, I'm going to continue with this next question here.
	According to China, Gino News, at least 900 young adults are taking part in military training with some as young as seven years old.
	In China, we're training boys at seven years old.
	In America, we're transitioning boys at seven years old.
	According to a new poll conducted by Pew Research Center in June, only 9% of young Americans ages 17 to 24 say they are very or somewhat likely to serve in the military in the next four years.
	This is the lowest percentage we've had expressed in the military service since 1979 when Pew Research started this.
	So here's what it makes me think about.
	Number one, 16 years old I need to be to get a driver's license.
	18 years old to get a tattoo.
	18 years old to vote.
	21 years old to drink.
	25 years old in many states to get a, you know, rent a car.
	But California and some of the directions some places are going, hey, your daughter, your son, can run away.
	This is a sanctuary state.
	And he can come and do a procedure here without the consent of your parents.
	What will you do as a president to get this nonsense out to prevent kids under the age of 18 with or without the consent of the father to transition?
	You may even say that is an okay policy you're a part of that many families disagree with.
	One, what's your position on this and what will you do as a president?
	I mean, my position is that people should not be able to have access to those procedures, that minors shouldn't without parental permission.
	And, you know, I don't know enough about it, Patrick, to say that it should be completely illegal for you.
	Under 18?
	No, no.
	Yeah, I just don't know enough.
	What I'm going to tell you, because I don't know.
	But Robert, I mean, you're...
	You know what?
	I don't know enough.
	I need to look at data before I make a decision.
	My inclination is that it's not good for anybody.
	There may be some rare cases where it saves somebody's life.
	I don't know that.
	And I'm not going to tell you that I have an answer to a question.
	There's a difference.
	But Robert, there's a big difference.
	I just want to say that there's a big difference between those two things.
	One, saving somebody's life to transition and cut the dangling off.
	How are you saving that person's life?
	Some of these things logically, they make no sense to parents.
	So parents are saying that.
	You're going to have to answer this for parents on both sides.
	There's conflicting values here.
	And one of the values is freedom to do what you want with your own body and have the government tell you you can or you can't do that.
	Who is protecting kids under the age of 18, though?
	That's the other, right?
	And that's why I'd say nobody can do it without their parents' permission.
	That's solid.
	And then I have to look at the drugs, the safety of the drugs, whether there's permanent damage from that.
	I just don't know.
	You're rolling your eyes like I shouldn't.
	This is an obvious question.
	Do you trust a 14-year-old driving a car?
	Without a driver's license?
	Well.
	Do you trust a 13-year-old voting?
	Not.
	What if a parent consents for the 13-year-old to vote?
	Should we be okay with that?
	Because the parent said it's okay.
	Should we trust the parent that?
	Because we're going to have a 13-year-old to vote.
	I get that, but why should it be legal for somebody at 13 with parent consent to transition?
	First of all, the metaphors you gave are not apt because when you drive a car, you're affecting other people.
	You're making a decision.
	Listen, I do not, I'm just telling you the truth.
	I don't have a position on this because I don't know enough about it.
	I believe my values are the same as yours, and you probably know a lot more about this and could explain it to me.
	But, you know, I don't know whether there are rare, rare cases.
	My inclination is that we shouldn't be giving drugs, you know, we should limit any kind of drug that is dangerous, their availability to young people.
	But there may be some rare circumstances that you wouldn't want to criminalize it.
	So, you know, I do believe this, that people who make those kind of decisions as adults should be, that they shouldn't be subject to ridicule or derision or bias in any way.
	And that we should do everything we can to discourage those kind of decisions from young people.
	Can I add one other issue?
	Yes, go for it.
	There's a lot of things happening to our children now that we need to look at as a nation and that are being completely ignored.
	When my uncle was president, 6% of American children had chronic disease of Americans.
	And by chronic disease, I mean categories, obesity, neurological injuries like ADD, ADHD, speech-lay, language-delayed ticks, Tourette's syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism, food allergies, peanut allergies, which I never saw in my life.
	I had 11 siblings, I have 70 cousins, none of them have food allergies.
	Why do five of my seven kids have those allergies?
	And then autoimmune disease, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, these exotic diseases like Crohn's disease and lupus that we never saw as a kid.
	A kid, 6%.
	1986, 11.8%.
	By 2006, 54%.
	This is one of the problems with our military.
	They're not eligible for military service.
	We don't know what it is today.
	Because after 2006, NIH stopped publishing the data.
	It's probably 60% of our kids have autoimmune, allergic, or neurological diseases.
	You see EpiPens in every classroom.
	You see albuterol and ailers.
	In some classes, 70% of the kids are on Adderall.
	They're diagnosed with ADHD.
	What's happening?
	Autism went from 1 in 10,000 in my generation to 1 in every 34 kids today.
	And it's not because we're seeing it suddenly, because then you'd see it in my generation.
	I've never seen a 69-year man, 69-year-old man with full-blown autism.
	By that, I mean non-verbal, non-toilet train, head-banging, stimming, toe walking, hand-flapping.
	I've never seen that in a 69-year-old man.
	But in my kids' generation, it's one in every 34 kids.
	EPA, Congress said to EPA, tell us what year it started, the epidemic started.
	EPA came back.
	EPA is a captive agency, but it's captive by oil, coal, chemical, and big ag.
	It's not captive by pharma, because it doesn't regulate pharma.
	So they came back with an honest study, and they said it's a red line, 1989.
	Well, as it turns out, these diseases, most of them, started on that same timeline.
	Around 1989, peanut allergies suddenly appear, obesity goes crazy.
	We go from 6% of having obesity to 45% of kids, 75% overweight.
	It's not because they suddenly got lazy, American kids.
	It's because they're being mass poisoned by something.
	And why aren't we asking the question, what is that?
	What is happening to American children?
	We have the highest chronic disease rate of any nation in the world.
	We have the highest COVID death rates.
	We had 16% of the COVID deaths in this country.
	We only have 4.2% of the world's population.
	Why is that?
	Bad management, number one.
	And number two, it was chronic disease killing these kids.
	EPA said of the Americans who died from COVID, on average, they had 3.8 chronic disease.
	They had diabetes, asthma, obesity, and one other, or some other group.
	We have the highest chronic disease rate in the world, and it's bankrupting us.
	When my uncle was president, 6%, now it's probably 6%.
	But if you look at Medicare bills, we're paying a total of $4.3 trillion a year on health care, and 93% of that is going to chronic disease.
	It's an unnecessary cost.
	And nobody's asking the question, why is it happening?
	Oh, there's a doctor in New York, a toxicology, a very famous toxicologist called Phil Landrigan.
	And he's a guy I've used as an expert in many cases.
	But he's actually done studies and said, what could it be?
	You have to find a toxin that became ubiquitous in 1989, in the early 90s, and affected every demographic in our country from Cubans and Keebas game, Inuit in Alaska, and affects boys and neurological injuries, four to one ratio to girls.
	He looked at some of these questions and he said there's only about 13 things it could possibly be.
	One of those is glyphosate from Roundup.
	One of them is neonicotoid pesticides, atrazine, which is in 63% of our water.
	High fructose corn syrup, you know, which follows some of that timeline.
	Wi-Fi radiation from cell phones, which I've won a case on in the Court of Appeals.
	And then PFOAs, which is a forever chemical, it's a flame retardant.
	I was put in all of our kids' pajamas on that timeline and all of our furniture.
	And there's a few more.
	The easiest thing in the world is to actually go do the study, identify what it is that is making Americans so sick.
	And that's 93% of our health care costs.
	Let's eliminate those toxins.
	That's what I'm going to do when I get in there.
	I'm going to go in and I'm going to tell all these scientists from EPA, we're not developing drugs anymore.
	We're going to give infectious disease a break for a couple of years, and we're going to find out why are we the sickest people on the face of the earth?
	Why is that happening to America?
	We should all be talking about this issue.
	I would love to see you.
	Are you willing to dedicate some of your time the next couple months to see?
	And by the way, the issue that you raise is one of the things that needs to be studied.
	Let's look at it and then make a decision based on data and that is consistent with our values.
	My values on this are the same as you.
	I just don't have the confidence that I've talked to enough people and read enough studies to actually make a defensible decision by saying, oh, ban this for everybody.
	I don't know.
	Somebody may come to me and say, wait a minute, my child's life was saved.
	I don't know.
	I got a few more questions I want to go through, but I also want to go to the guests here.
	Matt, if you have your question, if you want to lead the way, the next person is Jonathan Gows and Blake Rothmell.
	Afterwards, if you want to go right behind him, go for it, Matt.
	Hi, good afternoon.
	My name is Matthew Samaldo.
	And I served eight years in the Marine Corps and active duty, eight years of active duty to the reserves.
	I served under three different commanders-in-chiefs, which is both Bush's and the Clintons.
	And my political opinion was asking fellow crew chiefs, how do we vote?
	How do we vote?
	How do we get forward political opinion while serving in the military?
	So your family is regarded as the most famous political dynasty.
	So who did you seek counsel from, and how did you process leaving the Democratic Party?
	And what should American voters be specifically aware of in this election cycle from both sides, Democratic and Republican?
	So you're asking why I went, first of all, thank you for your service.
	And you're asking why, or, you know, why I went independent.
	I mean, I consulted with a lot of people.
	My campaign manager at the time was Dennis Kucinich, who himself had run for president.
	Very liberal Democrat, anti-war.
	And he was one of the first people that said the Democratic Party is not going to let you win.
	You're going to have to leave.
	And I said to him, I'm not going to do that.
	And one by one, all of the people around me, because it became obvious that the Democratic Party was not going to let me win no matter what.
	And they changed the rules.
	Somebody actually tabulated 60 different rules they adopted to make sure that I could not win even if I got the most votes.
	So, for example, I'll just give you one example.
	They made a rule that if any candidate, which was directed at me, because I'd already violated this rule, if any candidate stepped into the state of New Hampshire, put one foot in, that all the votes that that candidate won in New Hampshire would not count.
	That was a rule.
	They proposed the same rule for Georgia, but not about Georgia.
	They said if anybody steps foot in New Hampshire, they can't win any votes in Georgia either.
	And Iowa, and actually they proposed it for Florida as well.
	But they did a lot of other things like that.
	They created this class of superdelegates called Palios that even if I won, they could take the election away from me.
	And then, you know, President Biden, of course, wouldn't debate me.
	And it just became, you know, I had by that time gotten a lot of money from people in $5 donations, millions of dollars, and a lot of big donors.
	And I, you know, feel like I felt like I had an obligation to do the best that I could to win, which is why they gave me the money and not just have a kabuki theater of I'm going to run and make a couple of points and then you know bow out.
	And ultimately, my wife, who's a hardcore Democrat, you know, also said, yeah, they're not going to let you do it.
	You've got to leave.
	So I did it.
	You know, my family's, it was a difficult decision for me.
	My family's been involved in the Democratic Party for over 100 years.
	My family came over in the potato famine, and they all, when they got here, the Irish in Britain had not, for 600 years, had not been allowed to participate in politics.
	And when they got here, they took to politics like starving men take to food.
	And my grandfather, John Fitzgerald, Honey Fitz, became the first Irish Catholic mayor of Boston.
	My other grandparent and great-grandparent, Patrick Kennedy.
	Great grandparents.
	Now, you're talking about my grandfather.
	His son, Patrick Kennedy, was in the state legislature and was award boss, a big political boss in Boston.
	And their kids, Rose Kennedy and Joseph Kennedy, married each other and produced nine kids.
	Their eldest boy, Joe, was killed in World War I on a very, very dangerous volunteer mission after he'd completed all of his flights.
	He was asked to, he volunteered to fly the first flying bomb, which was a remote-controlled plane that they were going to direct into the submarine pens, the Nazi submarine pens.
	And the plane was controlled by another plane with a remote control, first time in history that it happened, but they needed a pilot to take it off.
	And it was loaded with bombs.
	And he took it off and got it to altitude.
	And he was the great hope for my family.
	In fact, 40 years after his death, my grandfather, if you mention his name, would burst into tears.
	He loved that child so much.
	And when they got to altitude and turned on the remote control, the whole plane vaporized.
	And his body was never found.
	So he died.
	His younger brother, John Kennedy Jack, was the first Irish Catholic mayor of our country.
	And I mean, president of our country, my dad was attorney general, was killed running for president.
	My uncle Teddy was in the Senate for 50 years, longer than anybody else, except for one other senator.
	My brother was, you know, I don't know, seven or eight terms in Congress.
	My sister was lieutenant governor of Maryland.
	A lot of my cousins are in political or we're in political office.
	My name is almost synonymous with the modern Democratic Party.
	So it was for me to walk away from that was a very, very difficult decision.
	And, you know, for me to run for president, that's not something I ever intended to do.
	I have, you know, and I, but all of these decisions are novel decisions for me that I'm making because I think it's, you know, I feel like I'm in a unique position to fix this corrupt merger of state and corporate power that has locked in on our country and converted us into an imperium abroad,
	a militarized state abroad, a surveillance state at home, and put corporations in charge of our democracy rather than people.
	And I feel like I'm in a, because of my history, because of my family connections, my name recognition, and my experience unraveling corporate power, that I'm in a unique position to be able to fix a lot of these things.
	Thank you for that.
	So I've got a question here about Israel and Palestine and Hamas, but I'm going to bring in something you said about climate change a few months ago.
	You said on May 2nd, 2023, on an interview with Unheard, the crisis of climate change has been, to some context, co-opted by Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum and the Billionaires Boys Club in Davos, the same way that COVID crisis was appropriated by them to make themselves richer, to impose totalitarian controls, and to stratify our society with very powerful, wealthy people at the top and a vast majority of human beings with very little power and very little sovereignty over their own lives.
	Every crisis is an opportunity for those to combat, for those to clamp down controls.
	Okay, so this is what you said a few months ago.
	Let's set this aside.
	This just comes out recently with Israel and Palestine, Gaza, you know, Hamas.
	We're seeing all these travesties, the stories, all of them we've been following.
	According to an article from the New York Times that came out November 30th, a week ago, Israeli officials obtained Hamas's battle plan for the October 7th terrorist attack more than a year before it happened.
	But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult to carry out, similar to how President Bush was warned of terrorist attack threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda August 6, 2001, 36 days before 9-11 attacks.
	Earlier this week, a report from CNN indicated that bets against the value of Israeli companies spiked in the days before October 7th Hamas attacks, suggesting some traders may have had advanced knowledge of the looming terror attack and profited off of it.
	Similar to the knowledge they had, the unusual market activity and short selling of United Airlines and American airline stock on September 10th, 2001, a day before 9-11.
	Now, do you believe if you're able to make this statement about climate change and how they use COVID, today American people's trust in the government is the lowest it's ever been.
	In the mainstream media is the lowest it's ever been.
	When you read articles like this, the American voter sits there and says, who the hell can I trust?
	Do you think there was any ill intentions here?
	I don't think that the evidence that you just presented is evidence necessarily of Israeli government complicity or foreknowledge.
	First of all, Hamas itself is an extraordinarily wealthy organization that has, you know, all of its top officials, literally all of them are billionaires.
	The top three people of Ismail, Haania and his two top cohorts.
	Ismail Haimea has $5 billion that he's stolen from international aid.
	Yazar Arafat was a billionaire.
	His wife is a billionaire.
	Mahmoud Abbas, who's the current director of the West Bank, is a billionaire.
	His two sons have $750 million.
	Hamas has a war chest in real estate and stock investments of $500 million.
	Their biggest sponsor is Iran, who planned the attack.
	And Iran also, you know, there's people in Iran who, if they had foreknowledge, could have bet on it.
	Do I exculpate the Israeli government for what happened?
	No.
	I think the Israeli, it's clear that President Netanyahu, first of all, has nurtured Hamas in many ways, the same way that we nurtured al-Qaeda and that we nurtured ISIS.
	And he allowed the Qataris to give at least $1.5 billion over the past three years to Hamas, you know, presumably because he thought he was buying peace.
	And then, you know, he also, his very aggressive policies in the West Bank have moved a lot of the military resources to the West Bank and take them off the COGAS defense line.
	But there's, you know, do I blame him?
	You know, I blame him for and Likud maybe for negligence.
	But, you know, Hamas is, Hamas has to take the full blame for what happened in Israel.
	Hamas has been, you know, the Israelis have treated Hamas and Gaza in a way no other nation in the world would treat an enemy that declared war on them 16 years ago and has dropped 30,000 missiles on Israel.
	How did Israel, what did Israel do?
	Instead of going into Gaza, which every other country going to touch, they flattened it.
	If the Mexican government elected a communist, if Mexican people elected a communist government, they hijacked the government and they said, okay, we're reclaiming Texas and then sent missiles onto San Antonio and Houston.
	How long would it take for Mexico to be flat?
	Not long.
	And then what if they sent 3,000 terrorists to slit people's throat, burn babies, rape women, and all that?
	We would go in there.
	The Israelis have done something different.
	Instead of going into Gaza, they built a fence around it.
	Now Gaza, Hamas says, oh, you put us in an open-air prison?
	Yeah, because you were sending suicide bombers across the border.
	We had an open border.
	You were sending suicide bombers over to kill us, and we had to put the fence up.
	And in order to stop the 30,000 missiles, they built an iron dome, which we helped them pay for.
	When a missile is sent over, they shoot it down.
	Every missile that Hamas makes costs them about $800.
	To shoot it down cost $40,000.
	The Israelis have taken that and said, we're going to shoulder that burden because we don't want to go in there.
	And they thought it was under control.
	They put up the fence.
	The fence has cameras on it.
	It's monitoring systems.
	It had automatic machine guns and it has balloons that, you know, look.
	And because Hamas was being aided by Iran, they got North Korean drones that were able to shoot down those blues, that were able to disable the defenses.
	And then, you know, they used explosives and tractors to carve these holes in the fence.
	And Israel, up till that moment, felt like this was a tactical issue.
	Now, they get more, Hamas, Gaza gets more money from the international aid community than any people on the face of the earth.
	Gaza has gotten more per capita than we gave to the Marshall Plan to rebuild all of Europe after World War II.
	The Israelis walked out of Gaza unilaterally, said, we're giving it to you.
	We don't want any more disputes.
	They took 9,000 Jewish families who lived there in beautiful houses along the Gaza coast.
	They forced them to leave.
	It was very unpopular.
	They didn't want their Jewish graves to be defaced, so they dug up the Jewish graveyards and brought them out.
	They removed the IDF and they said, we're going to give you a going-away president to Gaza.
	We're going to give you 3,000 greenhouses that are worth a lot of money, that make Gaza food self-sufficient.
	Not only that, a net food exporter.
	And for free, we are going to rebuild the port of Gaza, which is a beautiful port, but it's inadequate.
	And so that you can make it the Singapore of the West.
	Gaza should be an Eden, an economic Eden, with all the money that's being poured in Arab.
	But what have they done with the money, Hamas?
	They've hijacked their own people.
	They have deprived and starved their own people.
	They've made all of their leaders billionaires.
	They don't even live in Gaza.
	They live in Doha and they live in Ankran, Turkey, in Doha and Qatar, in huge palaces, and surrounded by guards.
	They built 300 miles of tunnels.
	This is what they did with the money they were supposed to be building for people, poor Palestinians, who were stuck in refugee camps, build them houses.
	We put plenty of concrete money.
	They built 300 miles of tunnels, 1,300 tunnels, and they bought weapons.
	They bought drones.
	They bought missiles.
	They tore up the state-of-the-art irrigation system that the Israelis had built.
	You know, Gaza is an oasis.
	That's why it's there.
	It had great fresh water, and they've destroyed it.
	They destroyed the fresh water.
	It's now all saltwater infiltration because they stopped regulating well drilling.
	They tore up the irrigation system and they cut the irrigation pipes into rockets, turned them into rockets, and fired them at Israel.
	30,000 rockets before October 7, 10,000 since.
	Now, one of the things they say is, oh, the Israelis are using collective punishment to starve us, right?
	And I have friends in Gaza, Palestinian friends, and I've spent, you know, I have a lot of Palestinian friends all over Israel and the West Bank.
	I've met with all the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank.
	Israel, because Gaza mismanaged, Gaza has plenty of freshwater.
	They have some of the best desalinization plants in the world.
	But they don't have any fuel for it.
	Why don't they have fuel?
	First of all, Israel, because they mismanaged their water, Israel built its own pipes out of humanitarian impulse to bomb water into Gaza.
	It's only 9% of the water, so they're not shutting off all the water.
	They shut off their little 9%.
	Why?
	Because Hamas bombed the pipes.
	And then they wouldn't let food.
	Hamas to this day is sending hundreds of rockets every day.
	Why is Israel going to bring food in there and get bombed by rockets and fuel trucks?
	Now, Hamas says, oh, you didn't give us enough food for the hospitals.
	Hamas in the tunnels is storing 1.5 million liters of fuel.
	And they were starving their own population.
	They didn't build a single bomb shelter in all of Gaza.
	They said the tunnels, we don't let them into the population into the tunnels.
	Those are for our fighters.
	40,000 fighters.
	They're the ones who can stay in the tunnels.
	The population is up there, and they put their armories, their fuel dumps, their headquarters, their command headquarters under mosques, hospitals, residential housing, and schools.
	They use their civilians as shields.
	And how do we know they have all this fuel?
	Well, there's proof.
	Because those weapons and rockets they're sending on Israel right now, 10,000 since October 7th, require huge amounts of fuel to fire them.
	So they were using the fuel for the rockets and not letting their public get it for the incubators in the hospital.
	What did Israel do?
	Risk the lives of IDF soldiers to go into Gaza and bring the incubators, enough fuel for those incubators.
	And they've got, Hamas told the hospital administrators, if you go to the corner and pick them up, because Israel left it on the corner.
	They didn't want to go in there.
	We'll shoot you.
	And so then Israel sent IDF soldiers to actually bring it into the hospital.
	Now, they say they're targeting civilians.
	Well, here's what Israel has done.
	Israel used high-tech to avoid civilian casualties.
	It has already made 20,000 phone calls with Israeli soldiers who speak Arabic before they bomb a building.
	If they're going to bomb a target that is a high-value target, like a terrorist and a group, they don't give any warning.
	90% of their targets are infrastructure, and they always warn in advance.
	And they've warned people to go to the south so that they can root out the terrorists.
	But they also go neighborhood by neighborhood and say, tomorrow we're going to bomb your neighborhood.
	They've made phone calls to the landlords and to the individuals, but a lot of their phones don't have connectivity now.
	So they drop leaflets.
	Leaflets are color-coded by neighborhood and by time so that you know that it was meant for you on this date.
	You're not picking up an old leaflet and reading it.
	They've made 1.2 million robocalls, sent 1.2 million leaflets, and then before they bomb an apartment building, they send a little piece of ordinance, a little tiny missile called a roof knocker.
	They send it from a drone or a helicopter, and it goes and hits the top.
	And everybody knows that's the signal that in one hour or two hours that building is going to be dropped.
	They warn him.
	What happens?
	Hamas won't let the people leave.
	It forced them to stay there because he knows that's how it makes money, by killing its own civilians.
	And there's never been an army in the history of the world that has been more willing to sacrifice its mothers, its wives, its daughters, and its children to the enemy.
	And, you know, if you think there's not a moral difference between Hamas and Israel, consider this.
	What would happen if Israel decided to use human shields?
	Do you think Hamas would stop?
	Every Jew in Israel would be killed.
	Hamas' charter incidentally says it's against Islam to negotiate with Jews unless you're fooling them.
	Number two, Israel doesn't exist.
	It is our country and we are going, and our mission is to annihilate it.
	Number three, we're not only going to kill every Jew in Israel, we're going to kill every Jew in the world.
	That's in its charter.
	And this is an old language.
	Ismail Haimiya was an RT a week ago saying, yeah, that's what we're going to do.
	We're going to do this again and again and again and again.
	Telling Israel, you've got to negotiate.
	What are they going to negotiate over?
	Hamas considers it against a violation, a treachery to Islam to negotiate with the Israelis.
	I don't see, you know, my heart breaks for the Palestinian people.
	And I have a friend who's there who has five children who's in South Gaza right now.
	And I, you know, sent him money this morning.
	And, you know, their lives are horrible.
	But I don't blame the Israelis.
	I blame, and I, you know, I'm not co-signing anything for Netanyahu or Likud.
	But I, you know, I blame, I blame Hamas.
	My concern is as a person who lived in Iran for 10 years, I'm in America because, you know, some, I interviewed the Crown Prince of Iran a couple weeks ago.
	We had a great conversation.
	Some of the things his father did, he wasn't too paranoid enough.
	Iran fell.
	U.S. wasn't paranoid enough.
	We got attacked.
	And maybe Israel wasn't paranoid enough.
	Hamas attacked them.
	That's where my question was coming from.
	But go for it.
	Mr. Kennedy, thank you for the opportunity for the question.
	Before I heard Joe Rogan talk about your book, The Real Anthony Fauci, I was sadly misinformed and under the impression that RFK Jr. was a kooky, quote-unquote, anti-vaxxer.
	If it weren't for independent media sources and podcasts, I would have never had the chance to hear the thoughts of my now favorite presidential candidate, who I believe may be able to save and unite our country in this sad, scary time.
	What do you plan to do as president to empower, protect, and elevate independent media sources and podcasts such as PBD and Valutainment, Joe Rogan Experience, Crystal Ball and Sager, and many more?
	That's a great question.
	I can tell you this, that on day one, I'm going to issue an executive order to all federal employees making it a firing offense.
	to collaborate with media to censor political speech in this country, social media or media.
	And that would apply to the CIA, the FBI, THS, and all of the agencies we now know from the Twitter files and other sources, including my litigation, which is in the Supreme Court right now.
	Kennedy versus Biden and Missouri versus Biden.
	We know from discovery and those that they were collaborating with over a dozen agencies to censor political speech in this country.
	And I started getting censored by the White House, 37 hours after President Biden took the oath of office.
	And that is all in, and, you know, that's all outlined in a 55-page federal court decision.
	And that's wrong.
	In our country, you know, freedom of speech is the central foundation stone of our country.
	And there's no time in history when we look back and say the people who were censoring speech were the good guys.
	They're always the bad guys.
	It's always a first step toward totalitarian rule.
	Hamilton, Madison Adams said we put the guarantee of freedom of expression in the First Amendment because all the other rights are dependent on it.
	If you have a government that can silence its opponent, it has license for any atrocity.
	And we all grew up reading Orwell and Aldous Huxley and Robert Heinlein and Sol Chan Eedson and all of these other writers who were telling us one after the other in our civics class and everything else that if you want to destroy democracy, the first place you start is censoring speech.
	I thought we all knew that.
	And it is weird to me that there's so many people in my Democratic Party who still think it's okay as long as the speech is Republican speech or it's anti-war or anti-vax or whatever, that you're okay censoring that as long as you don't censor our speech.
	Great question, by the way.
	Thank you.
	One of the things that a lot of us are curious about and we're enamored by the sixth year anniversary of your uncle's assassination just recently passed us.
	And every time a president candidate is running, if I become a president, I'm going to release 100% of the files.
	And then afterwards they get in and are like, well, you know, not necessarily a little bit, maybe, maybe later, all this stuff.
	For yourself, I know you work with in California, you actually met Sir Hans Sarhan, if I'm not mistaken.
	You had a meeting with him, and you stated you believe in the overwhelming evidence that he is not your father's killer, even writing a letter to the parole board on his behalf.
	There is nobody else that's felt the pain more than the son of a father who was assassinated, who is going to spend his entire life wanting to find out who was behind it.
	So there's nobody who has more moral authority to go to a person who is claimed to have been the killer and says, I don't think this guy did it.
	Then eventually you even, Governor Newsom reversed the decision of the board parole hearings to grant parole to Sir Hans Saran.
	Newsom declined the opportunity, as you called it, to demonstrate the humanity, compassion, idealism of our justice system, to which my father devoted his life to.
	This is you saying this.
	So, one, you become a president.
	Are you 100% committing to releasing every data intel you have, even if that means undermining the CIA, which many of these fear that if you do that, the American people, as if they don't trust the CIA enough, it's going to go even lower than lower than lower, you know, of where we're at with that.
	So one, are you willing to commit to that?
	And two, when you hear stories about Sir Hans Sirhan still being in jail, why is Newsom not releasing him?
	Yeah, I mean, I'm going to release them, you know, immediately.
	Release all the time.
	Now, I find it odd that President Biden, first of all, it's illegal not to release him.
	On the 2017 JFK Assassination Documents Act, everything had to be released.
	And by 2017.
	And President Biden committed to do it, and then...
	Why do you think we haven't, though?
	I don't know.
	You know, the guy to ask that is President Trump.
	Because President Trump also committed to it.
	And I don't understand it.
	I'm not going to pretend to understand it because President Trump did not like the CIA.
	So, you know, clearly they're keeping it quiet.
	Everybody was involved in my uncle's assassination.
	Practically everybody is dead.
	The only reason to keep it secret at this point is because there's some institutional liabilities.
	There's institutional reputational liabilities that they don't want us to know about.
	And that's the opposite of democracy.
	Democracy is about transparency.
	We own these agencies.
	They're supposed to be working for us.
	They need to tell us what happened.
	And it's, you know, it's the most consequential crime of our, you know, probably of our history.
	And we ought to know what happened.
	In terms of my, I, you know, when I was a little kid, I was in the White House standing next to my uncle's casket in the East Room.
	And President Johnson comes in and he tells my mother, my father, and Jackie that a man named Jack Ruby had just killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had shot my uncle, who they say shot my uncle.
	And at that point, I said to my mother and father, I said, why did he do that?
	Did he love our family?
	Because he did it in a police station in broad daylight in front of cameras.
	Why would anybody do that?
	And I said, did he love our family?
	And, you know, it turns out he did not.
	He was a mobster and was all involved with the people that my father was putting in jail, but deeply involved with the CIA.
	And this kind of gun-running subculture that was involved with Cuba.
	But at that point, my little 10-year-old mind was saying, this makes no sense.
	And I don't think it made sense to anybody.
	But I always assumed Sir Ann killed my father.
	He confessed to the crime.
	He had, you know, he said he didn't remember anything.
	But he pled guilty.
	And he didn't have a trial.
	He had a kind of a sentencing hearing because he pled guilty.
	So I always assumed it.
	And then a man named Paul Schrade, who'd been a very close friend of my father's and political associate, he was one of the top deputies of the United Auto Workers.
	And he had introduced my father to Cesar Chavez and recruited Cesar Chavez to the labor movement.
	So he was very close.
	Cesar Chavez became one of my father's most important political allies.
	Schrade was standing next to my father when the shooting started.
	And he took the first bullet to his head.
	And he was okay in the long run, but he was shot in the head.
	Sir Han fired two shots at my father.
	The first one hit Paul Schrade.
	And Paul Schrade, incidentally, the punchline, called me and said, I don't know, 10 years ago and said, I want you to come to my house and read the autopsy report on your dad.
	This is, you can imagine the last thing in the world that I ever wanted to do.
	But I couldn't say no to him because he had taken a bullet from my father.
	And he was a good friend, so I went and talked to him.
	And he showed me the autopsy report and then, you know, a lot of other information.
	But essentially, after reading that, it was impossible for me to believe that Sir Han had killed my dad.
	I'll tell you why.
	Sir Hen fired two shots at my father.
	The first one hit my father, put Paul Schrade in the head.
	The second one hit a door jam, a wooden door jamb behind my father and was later removed from that door jamb by the LAPD.
	At that point, he was grabbed.
	It was a crowded room.
	There's 77 people in the room in the kitchen.
	And he was standing in front of a steam table.
	My father was five feet in front of him.
	My father never turned his back.
	All kinds of eyewitnesses.
	He was grabbed by six men, including Rayford Johnson, who I've talked to about it, Rosie Greer, you know, who was part of the Fearsome Foresome, the Oakland Raiders, and four other guys, men, and they piled on top of him.
	Raford Johnson said to me, Sir Anne is a little tiny guy and almost feeble looking.
	I mean, today he's feeble looking.
	And I spent about three hours with him in jail, you know, sitting in the prison with him.
	These men took his hand, the first thing they did and pointed away from my father.
	But Rayford Johnson said, toward the other end of the room, Rayford Johnson said to me, Rayford Johnson was the decathlon champion in 1960, a huge guy, super strong.
	And he said, this little man had superhuman strength.
	And I could not get the gun away from him.
	And he emptied the revolver.
	It was a revolver.
	He emptied it.
	He had eight shots in it, and he never reloaded.
	And he shot six times in the other direction.
	All six of those bullets hit people.
	Five of them.
	One of them went through one guy's clothing and another, it also wounded his leg.
	He hit people in the stomach.
	We know what happened to every one of those bullets.
	That's eight bullets.
	We know what happened to every one of them.
	My father, the autopsy report shows, was shot four times from behind.
	And they were contact shot.
	One of them went through.
	One of them did not hurt him, but went through the shoulder pad of his jacket.
	The other ones all hit him.
	And the last one, which was the most fatal, was right behind his ear, an inch from his ear, with the barrel touching his skin.
	And the other ones were all contact shots, meaning they were within probably a half an inch of his skin and clothing, and they left carbon tattoos on his skin.
	And Sir Han was never behind my father.
	And there was many, many eyewitnesses.
	The guy who almost certainly fired that shot, those shots, was a man called Eugene Thane Cesar.
	And Eugene Thane Cesar died a year and a half ago in the Philippines.
	I was in conversations trying to see him, and he said he would talk to me.
	And I had to pay him $10,000.
	And then when I was about to leave, he said, now I want $20,000.
	And then he said, I want $25,000.
	And I realized he's playing me, so I didn't go.
	He was a security guard who had gotten a job the day before when people already knew where my father was going.
	His real job was in the, he originally worked for Hughes Tool, which is a military contractor owned by Howard Hughes, and run by a lot of guys from Las Vegas.
	And then he went to Boeing and Lockheed, and he had top secret clearance.
	And he described himself, Lisa Pease, who's an author, found documents where he describes himself as a CIA agent.
	So, and he was very public about his hatred for my father, that he thought my father was going to turn the country over to black people.
	And he and he then lied continuously to the police.
	By the way, my father, when he fell, fell onto Cesar.
	And Cesar was under, Cesar escorted him.
	He wasn't supposed to go into the kitchen.
	He grabbed him by his elbow and escorted him into the ambush, Sirhan's ambush.
	And presumably, while Sirhan was shooting and everybody could see this man firing, he was quietly, the bullets hit my father.
	The gun was laying against him skin and all of them were on an upward trajectory.
	This is what the autopsy report shows.
	And my father must have known that he was being shot by Sirhan because he turned and pulled off.
	As he was falling, he pulled off Cesar's clip-on tie.
	And if you see the pictures of my father lying on the ground, some of the early ones have a clip-on tie.
	Then my mother took that out and put a rosary in my dad's hand.
	Oh, but the original ones have that clip-on tie.
	And Cesar, there's a picture of Cesar with no tie on.
	And the, and so, you know, he was, and by the way, 12 people saw him when he got up.
	He pushed my father's off of him and stood up and he had his gun drawn.
	And when the police came, he said he had pulled his gun to fire at Sirhan.
	But they never confiscated his gun.
	And then he lied about the gun later.
	And, you know, the gun has now been recovered.
	It had a very weird journey.
	It was stolen.
	It was thrown into a lake by some teenagers.
	The lake was drained.
	And there's a guy now, the gun is now being tested.
	But it's clear that Sir Han was involved.
	And there's a long, long backstory to that, to what made it might have happened that I'm not going to talk about or speculate because it's a long story.
	But that he did not actually fire the shots that killed my dad.
	Do you think the same reason why no president is given the entire information of what happened with your uncle's assassination is the same reason why Governor Newsom isn't releasing Sirhan Sirhan?
	Do you think those two are the same as the same?
	I think Governor Newsom had a good relationship with me.
	Okay.
	And he would have done it.
	He parted with me on COVID.
	I became very critical of him.
	And then there's a number of members of my family who have, who just wants her hand in jail.
	They have not, you know, my family, my family.
	And I understand them.
	I have total compassion for them.
	And I don't have any resentments or anything, any differences with them.
	They're wrong.
	And I also, my family, you know, the whole nation was traumatized by my dad's death.
	My family was directly traumatized by his death.
	And most of them cannot bear to read anything about the assassination, even when we were kids.
	Any of you who not my age know, particularly when the Zebruder tapes came out with my uncle's assassination, they were played constantly on TV all the time.
	And those pictures, those videos on TV of, you know, my uncle waving from the back of the convertible with his beautiful wife, Jackie, sitting next to him and bowing over in the car, those were played, I don't know how many times on TV when I was a kid, millions of times.
	They were played again and again and again.
	When those came on the TV in my house, somebody would go and turn off the TV because everybody was traumatized by it.
	And today, to this day, I'm probably the only one in my family who's actually read, done research on the assassination, who's been to Dealey Plaza, who's written about it.
	And I wrote a book, my own book, American Values, that talks about the 60-year, which is my biography, but it's about the 60-year battle that my family had with the CIA.
	And so, you know, I understand my family wants that closure and they want, you know, they don't want this, they don't want Suran out on the street with news people following them, reminding them, feeling uncomfortable to come to Los Angeles because he's walking around and, you know, and them being, you know, resentful of me for getting involved in this issue and resuscitating all the pain and trauma that they had.
	I get it, and I support them, but I, you know, I don't agree with them.
	You know, for us, it's different because we're curious.
	For you, it's personal because it's your life.
	It's what you experience.
	Do you, when you're talking about this, are you comfortable talking about this?
	Is this one of the reasons why you are choosing to run?
	Is this one of the reasons why you're so driven and determined to go out there and maybe get to the bottom of the truth for your family's legacy?
	Is there a drive there?
	I would not run for president for this reason.
	I think it is important for Americans because I think we took a, that was a fork in the road for American democracy.
	You know, my father, three days before my uncle took office, the outgoing president, President Eisenhower, gave what I think we should today regard as the most important speech in American history,
	where he warned Americans against the domination of this emerging military-industrial complex that would turn us into an imperium abroad and a national security state at home and destroy our role as the world's exemplary democracy.
	And he had been the commander-in-chief in World War II, so his words were very important.
	And then my uncle, I was on my birthday in 1960, January 17, 61.
	My uncle takes office three days later, and then his thousand days in office are just a constant fistfight with the military-industrial complex to keep the country out of war.
	They kept trying to trick him into war.
	They did it at the Bay of Pigs three months in.
	They tell him, you've got to send these guys over.
	And he said, I'm going to use the military to invade a country.
	I don't like communism.
	I don't like Cash Row.
	But the Cubans have to make their own determination about what kind of government they're going to have.
	The U.S. can't go into all these other countries and change governments around.
	And he said, I don't want the U.S. military involved.
	I don't think we should be involved in any part of it.
	And they said, don't worry.
	We'll use United Fruit Company boats to get them in there.
	And he said, I'm not giving air cover.
	I just want you to know that.
	They said, don't worry, you won't need it.
	And he said, Cash Road has 200,000 soldiers and the best intelligence agencies.
	And why do you think 2,000 men are going to be able to win this battle?
	And they said, because we have the whole thing rewired and rigged, and there's going to be a big uprising in Cuba.
	And it's all done.
	This is what Alan Dulles told him.
	Richard Bissell, Charles Cabello, who was the military general of the CIA.
	He suspected that, but he couldn't believe they just lying to him.
	And when those men were dying on the beach, and they were telling him, now you've got to send an air cover, you've got to send it to the ESSIC, the aircraft carrier.
	He said, I'm not.
	And he realized he'd been tricked.
	And they thought a young president would, you know, cave in to avoid humiliation.
	It was the lowest point of my uncle's presidency that those men were dying because of his bad decision.
	And he took the blame publicly, but privately, he said, I want to take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.
	And then over the next couple months, he fired Dulles, he fired Cabell, he fired Bissell, and he tried to clean up the agency.
	And then, you know, they tried to get him to go into Laos.
	He refused.
	They called him a traitor for that.
	They tried to get him to go into Cuba in 1961 and again in 1962 during the Missile Crisis, and he wouldn't send it.
	He wouldn't, you know, go invade.
	They tried to get him to go in Berlin in 1962, and he wouldn't.
	They tried to get him to go in Vietnam.
	They said, you need 250,000 troops.
	His closest advisor, people he trusted, like Max Taylor, Avril Harriman, Dean Acheson.
	They said, if you don't send in 250,000 troops, the Vietnamese government is going to collapse.
	And he said, it's their government.
	It can't be our fight.
	You know, we can help them the way the French helped us during the Revolution, but we cannot fight.
	This cannot be the American war.
	And he did send in 16,000 advisors.
	They were not under the rules of engagement allowed to participate in combat.
	They were mainly Green Berets.
	And then they were fewer people than he sent to the University of Mississippi to Old Miss to get one black man in, right, to college.
	It was few people.
	But then he found out in October of 63, he found out a Green Beret had died.
	And he asked Walt Rosdow for a casualty list.
	And Rosdell came back and said, there's 75 Americans who already died over there.
	My uncle said, that's too many.
	We're bringing them all home.
	And that afternoon, he signed National Security Order 263, ordering all military personnel out of Vietnam, with the first thousand coming home in November and the last one coming home the following December.
	And 30 days to the day after he signed that order, he was murdered.
	And a week after that, President Johnson remanded the order and then sent 250,000 troops in.
	Nixon came in after him sent 560,000.
	56,000 never came home of our guys.
	killed a million of them.
	56,000 of ours never came home, including my cousin, George Scekl, who died in the Tet Offensive.
	And then, you know, my father ran against the war in 68.
	He wins the California primary, meaning he's on his way to the White House, and he's shot that night.
	Martin Luther King had become a peace activist two months before.
	He was shot.
	These traumas, my uncle's death, my father, King's death, the Vietnam War itself, 9-11, and COVID-each one of these traumas pushed us a little farther down that road that Eisenhower warned us against, where today, you know, we are the military-industrial complex.
	Our democracy, nobody in this country believes that their voices are audible in Washington.
	You know, everything is rigged, and everybody knows it.
	It's like the kabuki theater of a democracy.
	It's not real.
	It's a Hollywood stage set with, you know, people pretending to have elections that are already chosen in advance and everything else.
	And I'm not being paranoid, just look what's happening right now.
	So, you know, I think part of unraveling that and going back to our original idealism and the other view of an American future and, you know, America is the exemplary nation and the moral authority around the globe means going back and looking at the original trauma and exposing what actually happened to my uncle.
	I think one thing that's very appealing and attractive to you as a candidate is millions on top of millions of Americans are sick and tired of there being a lack of accountability and not being told what's taking place.
	I have 50 more questions I can ask you, but we're at the end of the town hall here.
	I appreciate you for coming out.
	For the folks that are watching out there, you can go to kennedy24.com to support the QR code.
	It's on the bottom right of the screen while you're looking at this.
	Everybody in here, appreciate you guys for coming up.
	And last but not least, Bobby, from you coming out here, telling the stories, I could have gone two more hours with you.
	Sincerely, I learned.
	I'm like, your nephew there is like, well, you know, I was going to school.
	I'm like, what are you studying?
	Political science.
	That makes sense.
	I took a year break to do this.
	I'm like, dude, you're going to get a PhD on political science being around you.
	Once again, appreciate you for coming out.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.

▲