Vivek, you've said on the debate stage that the other candidates were bought and paid for. Now, that's the thing that I very much agree with, and not just about republicans. But you seem to have waffled on that from debate to debate. But we're here, so you can clarify. [00:00:17] So, when you say bought and paid for, what do you mean by it? >> Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that these are actually most as I've gotten to know them, it's less waffling, but more my view has evolved a little bit. I actually think that most of them not all of them, but [00:00:33] most of them are good people, but they have been tainted by a broken system. So what do I mean by that? I mean it's a lie, that there's actual limits to what you can give to a political candidate. The myth is you can only give $3,300 per cycle, in the primary and in the general election. [00:00:49] That's false. The reality is most of the election look at the primary. Look at elections these days, period. They're being run by super PACs. That's where most of the money is being spent, and big donors can give unlimited money to super PACs. And even though those super PACs are basically running the campaigns, [00:01:08] that's corrupt. And so I think it is a lie that we have the system. $6,600 is a limit, that's a lot of money to most people in the country and fair enough. But you're not gonna control a politician with $6,600. That's why we have that limit. And yet, what you actually have is the real system that does control [00:01:26] the politicians, which are the super PACs, technically these independent agencies or these independent entities that are spending that money. But they're not really independent when the candidates themselves, show up at the fundraisers hosted by the super PACs. Regularly talk to donors on speed dial who are giving to those super PACs. [00:01:45] Turns the politicians into circus monkeys. And is the circus monkey a bad monkey? No, it's not. It's just doing what it's supposed to do. It jumps as high as its master tells it to jump. That's the way our political system is run, frankly, in both parties. And so, I think that that's a cancer on American politics. [00:02:02] Whether or not I agree with the policies that come out of your mouth as a politician, I'd rather they at least be the views that actually represent yourself or the voters you're running to represent, not the donors who are providing your mother's milk. And I think this is hopefully a nonpartisan point that we can agree on. [00:02:18] This used to be a calling card on the left. I'm trying to make this part of the America First movement on the right, and I'm actually getting a lot of grassroots support for it. But the donor class does not like me talking about this, and that's why they've come down on me like a ton of bricks. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but just to be clear, [00:02:36] so Nikki Haley and others are circus monkeys who are corrupt? >> Speaker 2: I think that the people who are running in the Republican primary whose money is principally funded by super PACs, are really just vessels for their super PACs. That includes Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, anybody whose campaign is [00:02:54] principally being spent via their super PAC rather than their campaign, it's just a fact, that's the way it works. >> Speaker 3: You use stronger language about this, which I agreed with during your interview with Sean Hannity. I want to give the audience a little snippet of what you had to say. [00:03:10] Let's take a look. >> Speaker 2: Why would you accuse Nicki Hanley of being corrupt? >> Speaker 2: I don't believe, well I don't believe that somebody should be able to be the next commander in chief, if they have monetized their time in government. Going from being in debt to making $8 million, through military contracting businesses, through service on the board of Boeing. [00:03:29] Frankly, it is shameful for somebody to be collecting stock options from corporate boards while they're running for US president. >> Speaker 3: Totally agree with you 1000% on that, and I commend you for bringing the issue of corruption and legalized bribery to the forefront of the GOP primary debates. [00:03:45] I do have to ask, though, one of the issues that was reported on widely during the Trump administration, was how he was directing official government business to Trump properties and then inflating the prices of the hotel stays for government officials and members of the military in order to pad his pockets. [00:04:05] Did you at all have a problem with that? >> Speaker 2: So, have those facts been reported in the same way that these other facts have been? I don't know. My question, though, and my answer is, I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat. You should not use your government connections to make money, period. [00:04:23] And so, what does that mean ten year ban on lobbying? Eye favoring. If you leave the government, you should not be able to lobby the government for more than ten years. Bans on trading individual stocks while you're a member of Congress, or anybody else, that has information that could move those stocks, [00:04:40] that builds public trust you shouldn't be trading stocks, as a government leader or a congressman or a bureaucrat regulating an industry. If you're regulating an industry, should you be able to join the board of a company in that industry. That was the Nikki Haley example I referenced. [00:04:55] She did a special deal for Boeing, in South Carolina while she was governor, later goes on to join the board of Boeing a defense contractor. Is on the UN, uses connections to generate a lot of military industrial complex connections. Her family then goes off to start a military contractor. [00:05:13] So, any way of using your government connections to make more money, I think should be banned. Right now it's not banned. So it's not that people are breaking the law by doing it. But I think it is especially bad when some of those same people, then come back and run for US president. [00:05:28] And that's why I think the likes of the reason I've dialed this up now, is that it's one thing if that was just politics as usual. Right now, we're escalating our path to World War Three, which I genuinely worry about as a major risk going forward. And so, no, I don't think that somebody who has a demonstrated track record, [00:05:48] of potentially making money on taking us to World War III, should get anywhere near the White House. Which is why I've been particularly sharp about this issue, even relative to the first few months of this campaign, when those foreign policy threats weren't quite as pronounced. >> Speaker 1: All right, we continue to agree on that, so, if someone, for [00:06:05] example, was in charge of the Middle East policy in an administration, and then they left administration and immediately got $2 billion from someone that's in the Middle East, a country that's in the Middle East. That they were in charge of handling policy on, and [00:06:21] might have even according to some rumors, passed intelligence onto that obviously shouldn't be allowed to happen, that is massive corruption, right. >> Speaker 2: Well, if somebody is running for president who fits that description, you let me know. But I've been calling out the people who do [CROSSTALK]. >> Speaker 1: So, that is Jared Kushner, so are you okay with that, or is. [00:06:41] >> I mean, if I'm judging the first half of this interview as an extrapolation to the second, I can't verify all of the facts that you're referring to there. I'm giving you a very clear litmus test. Politicians in either party, should not make money off of their time in [00:06:57] public service beyond the salary that they're paid. That's a general principle, and we should apply it evenly across both political parties. But where I am up on the details, is the people I'm running against president, for president against. Facts matter, and those are the ones where I have been expressly vocal, [00:07:14] that nobody who fits that description should be taking us into World War Three. >> Speaker 1: If we found out that, the Saudis decided to buy the PGA and funnel a lot of the tournaments that, coincidentally Donald Trump's golf courses, right after he was in charge [00:07:33] of policy with Saudi Arabia, you would be outraged by that. >> Speaker 2: So I don't understand this game of innuendo. I have no idea what facts you're referring to or not. >> Speaker 2: [CROSSTALK] Okay, here, I'll give you another one. Okay, you said that is hypothetical, that's actually what's happening in the real world. [00:07:49] But I'll give you another one. You said earlier, that you're opposed to people taking super PAC money, and you think that's corrupting and it makes them circus money. Again, [CROSSTALK] I totally agree with you, okay. So, Sheldon Adelson gave over $100 million to pro Trump super PACs, and [00:08:05] then Donald Trump did all the things that Sheldon Adelson asked them to do, including getting rid of corruption charges on him, including fighting e SUN, including bringing back money from abroad. Sheldon Adelson's main money was in China, in Macau, [00:08:22] Casinos was able to bring it back at 8%. >> [CROSSTALK] Be with you. This is the system in both political parties that needs to end. Now, what did I say from everybody, even the people I'm running against in this race? It is legal within the bounds of the law, I think we need to change the law, so [00:08:39] that we have an even handed system, where you don't have a special class of mega donor billionaires influencing what politicians do. >> Speaker 1: Okay, so you are clear. So you're saying it does apply to Trump. So, Trump was corrupt when he took his super PACs, took over $100 million, [00:08:56] in both elections from Sheldon Adelson. >> Speaker 2: I said the same thing, I said at the very beginning. It is legal, and that's why we need to change it. We need [CROSSTALK] to change the system, where you do not want people to effectively have disproportionate influence on their politicians. [00:09:11] I agree on that. Change the law. What's the game you're trying to play? >> Speaker 1: I don't know. >> Speaker 1: I'm just trying to understand. >> Speaker 2: It is a corrupt system [CROSSTALK]. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, and Donald Trump participated in that corrupt system and is part of that corruption. That's okay, you're running against him, there's nothing wrong with that. I agree with you. [00:09:27] >> Speaker 2: The level of obsession, I mean, the Trump derangement syndrome. It's really sad. >> Speaker 1: [CROSSTALK] He's pulling at 59%, brother, you're pulling at 7%. What do you mean, a Trump derangement Syndrome? >> Speaker 2: I have a policy discussion, in this country [CROSSTALK]. >> But [CROSSTALK] Vivek you' running against Trump, he's the number one Republican candidate. [00:09:44] You're running against him. What do you mean obsession? >> Speaker 3: It's just befuddling that you refuse to call him out on anything. >> Speaker 2: How many times has George Soros's son, visited Joe Biden in the White House? [CROSSTALK] >> Speaker 3: Who cares? >> Speaker 3: My point is. >> we have no problem with calling that out. [00:10:00] >> Speaker 2: But my point is, it's not useful because you could do this for every politician in America. That's the fact of the matter. And so, as I said in the beginning, a lot of these are good people tainted by a broken system. Some of them aren't even good people, they exploited. But most of them I've learned, are good people tainted by a broken system. [00:10:17] Fix the system. I'm not running against any of those candidates. I know you want me to think I'm running against Trump. I'm not running against any of those candidates. I'm running against that system. And I think that that's something that probably, on a day where you're in line with your principles, would agree with. Someone needs to run against that system. [00:10:33] It is gonna take somebody who is willing to and fortunately, the way that works today is, every donor who dances to the tune of their biggest donor. Every candidate who dances to the tune of their biggest donor. In my case, that biggest donor is me. And the reason I'm running is, it's going to take someone for whom that's true, to break that system. [00:10:49] And I think we're going to be successful in doing it.