Luis Elizondo's missing scientist bombshell; a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell? — CUOMO Full Show 4/23

[0:00] Chris Cuomo here. You still think the Iran war is about misdirection and mind games that America [0:06] is playing masterfully, keeping the regime guessing? We don't even know if there are any [0:11] real talks going on despite what we're being told by the U.S. government. The regime is attacking [0:17] in the strait. The regime is putting out all kinds of provocations online. They are attacking [0:23] our social media right now, trying to sow division. They seem to be defiant in the face [0:31] of promised destruction despite our president telling us they're falling apart, they're desperate [0:36] for a deal. We are in an impossible situation of whether to believe what seems to be true coming [0:44] from the worst people or from the United States president. Here is what he wants you to believe. [0:52] How long are you willing to wait until you get a... Don't rush me. Don't rush me, Jeff. I want to make [0:57] the best deal. I could make a deal right now. Do you know that if I left right now, [1:01] we had a tremendous success. It would take them 20 years to rebuild, but I don't want to do that. [1:06] I want to have it everlasting. You know who's under time pressure? They are. Because if they don't [1:11] get their oil moving, their whole oil infrastructure is going to explode. They have a matter of days [1:17] before that event takes place. The problem they have is they are very disorganized right now. They [1:23] know who the leader is in this country. We don't know who the leader is in Iran. Now, I think a lot of [1:31] that is true, except the last piece. And the problem is the last piece matters the most, [1:37] okay? And I don't believe this is a situation where we're hearing one thing in public, but it's [1:43] very different in private. I don't think that's true, okay? And except on truth social, there is [1:50] no real indication the regime is offering anything but ultimatums. And that's not because they have the [1:55] leverage. You know, they're going to lose to the U.S. military, right? It's just that they don't, [2:01] they've never been this relevant, okay? So how do you, here's the proposition, and it's been the [2:07] proposition from Jump, by the way. And that's the problem with what the president was just saying. [2:11] Everything he's just, he was just saying has been true for many, many weeks, that the military [2:15] reduced their capacity to do conventional warfare and their money flow. But then it's been many weeks [2:20] since you've gotten anywhere in terms of enriching uranium, and we don't know if you ever will. [2:25] How do you make a deal with a bunch of zealots who have never kept a deal and who now hate you [2:32] more than ever? We know what the answer is. The simple answer is you take them out. But that means [2:39] lots of troops for who knows how long, and there is no will for that among the American people. [2:45] The president even says to you repeatedly, I'm not here to change the regime. But of course, [2:52] he also says the regime has changed. And by all indications, he may be right. The regime may now [3:01] be worse. Maybe the most MAGA among us will buy that the regime is in chaos and disorganized. [3:09] But if your eyes are open, you see some very scary pieces on the board. The regime is now run by a group [3:16] of hardline IRGC generals who gave the supreme leader the title, made him their puppet, then hid [3:25] him away. They decided to close the strait. They decided to attack Israel and the Gulf states. [3:32] They're the ones saying, here's what we're going to attack next, the Internet infrastructure, [3:36] the desalinization, which would be crippling in the region if they have any measure of success [3:40] at all. They are the ones making the diplomatic decisions. That's why the head of Iran's negotiating [3:46] team is not the foreign minister. The IRGC sidelined him and put in place a member of their own ranks, [3:55] a former general and current speaker. Okay. Now, is there a ceasefire? Kind of. New reports say [4:04] the IRGC generals have started mining the strait. This comes after they seized two ships in the strait. [4:11] That sounds desperate to make a deal. After the president was briefed about what they were doing, [4:17] he says, that's it. I told the Navy, shoot and kill any boat in the strait laying mines. Wait a minute. [4:24] That wasn't the order already? What were they doing? Watching them mine the strait? Why, I did not [4:31] suspect that the White House would also say that the IRGC seizing two ships isn't a violation of [4:38] the ceasefire. How? How is that not a violation? It seems America is the side playing a game. The question [4:45] is, how do we win this game or how do we even get out of it? It took the Obama administration and [4:51] several other key allies years of back channeling and formal negotiations to get the JCPOA. And when [5:00] you looked at the fine print of that deal, it did have serious problems. Inspectors didn't have [5:05] automatic access to sites. The regime could delay inspections of suspected nuclear weapons sites [5:10] for 24 days, allowing them plenty of time to hide and to deceive. And that's exactly what we did. [5:18] Now we don't know that we can even get back to that. Yes, the president is saying his deal will [5:25] be much better. But he says a lot of things. And many of those things are getting harder and harder [5:32] to believe. And harder to trust when the most reliable indications of the true state of play [5:39] are coming from a bunch of terrorist zealots. So let's discuss the state of play and what is most [5:46] likely to happen in the near term. Joining me now, Biden's former Navy Secretary, Mr. Carlos del Toro, [5:54] former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor, KT McFarland, and Professor of International Affairs [6:01] at the University of Chicago, Mr. Robert Pape. Professor Pape, I start with you. My reckoning of [6:09] the IRGC and what they represent in terms of tone and intentions in a position of sole leadership, [6:17] what do you make of that assessment? And what is the level of change that is for the better or worse, [6:23] if they are in fact in control? Chris, you are right on the money. The Iran Revolutionary Guards [6:30] controls all the guns. And the guns are what matter here. And what you are seeing is they are making [6:38] absolutely crystal clear they're not giving up the Strait of Hormuz. Someone's going to have to take [6:46] it from them. Now, maybe we will. That's what President Trump keeps going back and forth on. [6:52] He'll escalate. He won't. Maybe we won't. But this is not going to be a situation anytime soon [6:59] that they're going to give up. China's going to bail us out. Think of all the people we're looking [7:04] to bail us out here. This is not happening. Over the next month, the next two months, I would suspect, [7:11] that Iran is going to control the Strait of Hormuz unless we take it from them. That is the escalation [7:19] trap. That's where we are today. And that's why President Trump can't make a decision. That's [7:26] what you're seeing. Because each side of the trap, either pull back, Iran becomes more powerful, [7:32] or go forward a lot of death. This is not good for him and good for America. Either way, [7:40] that's where we are. Unless, and that's why I bring in KT McFarland, unless what? What are you [7:51] looking at strategically that keeps us from an inextricable dilemma? Follow the money. So what's [8:01] happening to Iran right now? Their economy is collapsing. They're getting no income in. [8:04] They're not getting, they were thought to be getting probably $250 million a day of revenue [8:11] from oil exports. That's not happening. They were thought to be getting about $250 million a day of [8:16] incoming consumer goods and other goods for their manufacturing. That's not coming. No ships are [8:22] getting in and out of Iran because of the blockade. And as a result of that, Iran is hemorrhaging money. [8:27] Now, do they have reserves? Sure, but they're frozen. They're overseas and they're frozen. We're not [8:31] going to unfreeze them anytime soon. And then the clock is ticking because the way the oil system [8:37] works is oil comes out of the ground, pumps out from a well, goes into a pipeline. The pipeline goes [8:42] to Carg Island. And then tankers, empty tankers, are filled with oil and then they go on their merry [8:47] way. That's not happening. No tankers are getting in. No tankers are getting out. And so within about [8:53] anywhere from a week to two, three weeks, all of a sudden the spare capacity of those pipelines backs up. [9:01] And then you can't just flip a switch. This is not a light switch that you can turn on and turn [9:06] off the wells. You could turn them off, but it'll cost, it'll be enormous damage, perhaps permanent [9:12] damage to those. And, and what that does now is it deprives Iran of what, 50, 70% of its income. [9:18] So follow the money. They're running out of money. They're not going to be able to pay people. [9:21] They're not going to be able to pay their IRGC salaries. The IRGC controls 60% of the Iranian economy, [9:27] and we've just shut that down. Okay. So we've got the political, [9:31] the economic, and now you have the military. Secretary Carlos del Toro, in terms of looking [9:37] at what it takes to control the strait, we heard the president today say, what, [9:43] they're mining again? That's it. The new order, shoot to kill on everybody. I would have thought [9:47] they were stopping them from mining already. How complicated is it to ask the U.S. military [9:53] to control the strait? Well, Chris, it's a complicated challenge, obviously. And we do [10:00] have a sufficient number of naval forces to address the problem. We've got three carrier [10:05] strike groups, probably upward of about 25 destroyers in the area, a lot of aircraft, [10:10] obviously. We don't necessarily have the minesweepers that are necessary to sweep the [10:16] straits themselves. We used to have four Avenger minesweepers, but somehow a decision was made [10:21] to decommission them just about a month ago, when we probably should have kept them in place [10:25] until the LCSs came along. But even with all of those, we're not still unsure how many fast [10:31] patrol boats Iran has hidden in caves along the coast. And so they're still able to conduct [10:37] significant swarm tactics against our vessels. So certainly we can move in, we could escort ships [10:43] through the straits, but our naval ships will be at threat. There's no question about that. [10:48] Some of these small patrol boats carry anti-ship cruise missiles that can be shot anywhere from 20 [10:54] to 100 kilometers, and they move very fast. And so it is a significant threat to our armed forces [11:00] in the straits of Hormones. Help us understand, Mr. Secretary, [11:06] the uninitiated listen to you and say the U.S. Navy has a problem with a bunch of speed boats. [11:14] Well, these speed boats move very, very fast. And I'm not saying that we can't take them out. [11:18] We certainly have proven our ability to take out other vessels in Venezuela, for example. [11:24] But we don't know the extent of the number of patrol boats that they do. And so when they swarm [11:29] with 12 or 20 or perhaps even more, fire their missiles and get out of the way, [11:34] it's a significant challenge for our ships to be able to counter. [11:38] Yeah. I mean, look, God forbid, I remember the first major tragedy. In fact, KT won't remember this [11:45] because I'm much older than she. But I was with she and her husband after the USS Cole, [11:51] help asking her to help me understand how did this happen? How did this little stupid boat, [11:57] like what we're showing on the screen right now, put such a hole in a USS warship like that and caused [12:03] so much death and, of course, a major catalyst to opening America's eyes of the threat that we faced. [12:10] KT, how do we get past the crazy here that follow the money, so rational, obviously, [12:18] and what you're saying checks out, but they're crazy. Yeah, but they're going to lose to the U.S. [12:23] military. Speed boats won't hold up, you know, against the U.S. Yeah, but they're crazy. Yeah, [12:28] but they're all going to die at some point if they keep it up this way. Yeah, but they're crazy. [12:33] How do you deal with that part? Well, I would say if they're, and I agree with you, [12:38] I do think they're, you know, they're not a lot of moderates in Iran. I think there's crazy and [12:42] crazier. But so what does that mean? And if Iran gets nuclear weapons, you've got nuclear weapons [12:48] in the hands of crazy people like this who would use them, would certainly use them for blackmail. [12:52] Look what they're doing to this trade-of-arm moves. They would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons [12:55] or to certainly to blackmail them. Right. Agreed. [12:57] So what are you going to do? Are 93 million Iranian people crazy? I don't think so. So at some point, [13:05] we've gotten rid of the first tier of the crazies, then with the second tier, and now we're on the [13:09] third tier. I think we just keep working our way down until we find someone who is pragmatic enough [13:15] to help us find a way to peace and prosperity. We're asking them to give up their nukes. It's not a [13:22] big ask. No nukes, no missiles to deliver the nukes, no highly enriched uranium. Then after that, [13:29] Iran can have a prosperous future. You know, I agree with KT's analysis, [13:36] Professor Pate. But, you know, the analogy for me is dental work. They start drilling down into [13:42] the tooth. They tell you they're going to save the tooth. But eventually, they kind of wake you up [13:47] for a second and say, man, this is rotten all the way down. We got to pull it out, put in a post [13:52] and give you a different tooth. Do you think that ultimately here, the decision becomes existential, [14:00] that the way to get a nuclear deal is to get rid of the people who are there right now? [14:05] I want to make two points very quickly. Number one, if KT was right, Saddam Hussein would have [14:12] been knocked off years before we had the ground invasion because we did oil sanctions, virtually [14:18] what we're doing on Iran today, for 13 years. And it turns out really bad regimes will take money [14:26] from people to give it to the military. And that can go on for years while the economy goes over the [14:33] cliff. The second point is the idea that they're going to give up their weapons, the nuclear weapons, [14:39] because they don't matter. They've seen Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Look what happened [14:43] to them. Qaddafi gave up the idea of nuclear weapons. Look what happened to him. North Korea [14:49] stuck it out. They're still there. I really don't think this idea, if the nuclear weapons don't matter [14:55] so much, then let's give up our nuclear weapons. I don't think so. These are the precious things that [15:02] will allow them to stop the attacks by Israel and the United States because they'll have nuclear [15:09] deterrence. The idea they're just going to give that up. They've been, we've been trying. I don't [15:14] think so. We'll see. Carlos del Toro, thank you, Secretary. KT McFarland, always a pleasure. [15:21] Professor Pape, good to have you back. Thank you. This will be continued. Four minutes and 35 seconds [15:26] coming up. Do you really believe it's a serious consideration to give Ghislaine Maxwell a pardon? [15:33] Do you really believe that the inspector general of the DOJ is going to give us a clear-eyed assessment [15:40] of how that agency has complied with the Epstein disclosure law or not complied? [15:46] What do we do about the obvious gambling and corruption that is going on in and around [15:52] this administration? I have a true, a true crusader in our Congress, Republican member of Congress [16:01] from Florida, Anna Paulina Luna. She's going after all of this, and she wants you to know [16:06] why next. I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully [16:22] decline to answer this question and any related questions. My habeas petition is pending in [16:30] the Southern District of New York. I therefore invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment [16:37] to the U.S. Constitution. That's Maxwell, okay? She's the only one serving time for what Epstein [16:45] was about. She has never given up the goods on who else knew, who else did things to underage [16:55] girls or to anybody, okay? Why? Oh, because she's afraid of what's going to happen. Really? [17:02] Mobsters turn on each other all the time, but she's too afraid? Well, maybe she doesn't have [17:08] the goods. How? She has done the opposite. When she's asked, she's like, no, he never did anything [17:14] inappropriate. This one never did. So if she had a get out of jail card, why wouldn't she have played [17:22] it by now? However, some believe she does. Some Republican members of the House Oversight Committee [17:30] are thinking about asking the president to pardon Maxwell so they can get the answers. Isn't getting [17:37] the answers much more simple than that? Don't they have the answers and are refusing to release [17:42] them? Florida Representative Anna Paulina has been, Luna has been pushing for transparency in this and [17:49] other matters, and I want to talk to her about it tonight. The representative joins us now. Thank [17:54] you very much for joining me, APL. Hey, Chris. So how quickly would you shoot this idea down? [18:05] I mean, I was asked about it earlier by, I think, the L.A. Times. I haven't heard that. [18:09] She's not getting a pardon. The votes aren't there for that. But I will tell you who is involved and [18:15] who hasn't really come in to testify is the co-conspirators that were given some of these [18:19] plea deals. And they were women. There was one doctor that was being looked at as well. [18:24] I talked to Comer, talked to Oversight. They had requested that they come in. Some of these women [18:28] are refusing. So we're going to have to send subpoenas. But look, do you really want to know my [18:33] opinion on all this? Because I think it's probably longer than maybe a few minutes here. But I don't think [18:37] that we even actually have the full files. I think from what I had heard, there was destruction [18:41] of evidence. I think that after I think it was in New York where they were housing the files during [18:46] the initial trial, there was a cyber attack. I think a lot of the blackmail was probably destroyed [18:50] then. And frankly, I don't think that she'll ever get out of prison. I think that she's banking on [18:55] using that as allegedly her carrot. But she doesn't have the cards. A lot of these women belong in jail [19:00] that were intentionally trafficking these women that were getting paid. And then they were given victim [19:05] status because they were given plea deals by the former Department of Justice. So I've suggested [19:09] to the DOJ under former Attorney General Pam Bondi that they reopen this, consider hitting them with [19:15] civil rights violations and potentially outside of the statute of limitation. But I'm not at the DOJ. [19:20] I can only advocate for what I can up to a certain point. And I think at this point, [19:25] we're not going to be supporting her pardon. [19:26] Three things. One, you are always here to use the platform as you see fit, [19:34] Representative. It's not about time. It's about your intentions. You say what you want to say. [19:39] That's my offer to the audience. Two, Pam Bondi just blew off your subpoena to come testify. [19:48] And I don't think there's legal justification. And I got to tell you, knowing Pam Bondi, and I do know [19:52] her a little bit, I'm surprised she doesn't want to sit down because this looks terrible. Shouldn't [19:57] that be the focus? Not Ghislaine Maxwell. Get Bondi in the chair first. [20:03] You know what's interesting is I actually had attended before she left the DOJ where she came [20:09] in with Todd Blanche and she was open to questions. And it was basically where there were no cameras [20:15] present. Both Democrats and Republicans were there. And what I realized very quickly is, first of all, [20:21] you know, anytime we can get her in to answer questions is always a good thing, right? [20:25] But instead of actually using that time to genuinely investigate, a lot of the Democrats [20:30] ended up saying that they wanted it to be recorded. And then they went out, held a big press conference, [20:34] walked out in the middle of the briefing. And one of them actually even lied about something that [20:40] Comer had said. And so I'm all for bringing her in. But I also think that when the intention to [20:46] actually find justice, is that there or is this just being used to try to, again, [20:50] further a narrative that fits a reelection campaign going into midterms. If you notice, Chris, [20:55] many of those same Democrats that were on my committee and oversight, they voted against the [21:00] release of the congressional slush fund. And yet they're sitting saying that Pam Bondi is covering [21:04] up. Well, guess what? I was personally responsible for three members of Congress resigning this [21:09] last week because of corruption in D.C. So, you know, I've seen a lot of stuff up there. I'm not [21:14] blackpilled. But what I will say is that I can see through a lot of B.S. And in this case right [21:18] now, yeah, sure, she should still come in to testify. But also, let's be very clear about the [21:22] optics here and that Democrats are trying to use this to fit a narrative that, you know, right now [21:27] they're having a hard time explaining, being that they just try to cover their own butts with the [21:30] congressional slush fund. [21:31] Well, look, I get that issue and I'm glad you're on it. I am not surprised that you realize that [21:40] these congressional hearings are often circuses and grandstanding. That's why I'm such a seller on [21:47] Congress as an investigative body. And I believe in independent panels. I think the only way we were [21:52] ever going to get the Epstein files was to take them from the DOJ and give them to an independent [21:57] body. DOJ isn't set up to do this. And now I'm supposed to believe that an inspector [22:02] general that works for the Trump administration is going to say the DOJ did something wrong. [22:08] I mean, do you have any expectation that that's how we're going to learn about what's not being [22:12] given to us? Well, in private conversations, even now with acting attorney general Todd Blanche, [22:20] you know, there's been, first of all, open understanding that the previous DOJs did not [22:24] handle this correctly. But I think the problem is we're looking for evidence and we're looking for [22:30] facts when I think we only have the partial picture here. Again, you can't convince me otherwise [22:36] that there wasn't destruction of evidence previous to this. And you also can't convince me that he [22:42] wasn't an asset of intelligence. I think that that, you know, thing is still a question mark. But, [22:48] you know, we found literally a passport with his name registered to a Saudi address. [22:53] And there's a lot there. And then also to have this aspect of, OK, so I've seen some of the files [22:57] and from what I'm gathering, the most egregious emails, those were women sending them. But yet [23:02] these same women were given victim status. Some of them even committed immigration fraud. They're [23:06] still in our country. And yet we're not supposed to talk about that. [23:09] All right, Anna, help me understand something. Help me understand something. [23:13] And I think you're right. I am cutting you off right now because you saying that makes me [23:19] uncomfortable. And here's why. You're a wife, you're a mom, you're a veteran, you're a woman. [23:25] You are able to say whatever you want to say about women who may have been involved in this, [23:30] OK? But it is hard to hear that it's other women that are the unknown here in a sex ring that [23:39] involved young females. Doesn't it have to be about men involved in this? [23:45] Well, I think that look, I think that there were instances where there was a honeypot operation [23:51] and it is likely that maybe some men either knowingly or unknowingly solicited. Right. [23:56] Like I took the deposition for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and I presented, you know, [24:01] these questions. But from what I saw, the most egregious emails again, you know, talking about [24:06] girls 10, 11 years old, mocking a little girl while she was praying, all of that, those were sent by [24:11] women. So I don't know, maybe I can say it and you can't because of, you know, this the public [24:16] perception on this. But the fact is, is that these women should come in and everyone who saw those [24:21] files, other Democrat and Republican members were looking at the same emails I was. They saw the [24:26] names. They saw that those were women. So, you know, I think it's gross what happened. But I think [24:31] it's even more gross that multiple administrations, multiple DOJs did nothing with this. [24:35] And I will say to Todd's credit that we did have a victim that had been trying for, I think, [24:39] about 10 years to get her files. And Todd got them within, you know, a couple of weeks of us [24:44] reaching out. And so she's able to now go to therapy and process all of that. But it's awful. [24:49] It's disgusting. You know, nothing surprises me anymore being in Congress. [24:54] Well, look, that's why it's good that you're there. Right. When you lose that, it's time to get out [24:59] and go into the next chapter. But I appreciate your candor and I appreciate you being on the show. [25:03] Representative, best of luck to you doing the job of the people. [25:06] Thanks, Chris. [25:10] All right. Take care. Four minutes and 30 seconds. Coming up. [25:13] So was the redistricting win in Virginia a win for democracy? Well, it's certainly what the state [25:20] of play is and they get four extra seats. So isn't that a good thing? Well, a judge declared the [25:26] victory unconstitutional. But the legal battle isn't as simple as that either. Let's debate this. [25:33] And let's see if this debate can be done with decency. I'll tell you this much. [25:38] Both sides are going to want to be on the right side of me on this one. Next. [25:42] All right. Less than 24 hours after Virginia voters approved a referendum to redraw the state's [26:00] congressional maps, which would give Democrats four more House seats. [26:04] A circuit court judge declared it unconstitutional. [26:07] The Democrats' effort was widely seen as a response for President Trump's push for Republican-led [26:12] redistricting efforts in states like Texas and Missouri. [26:15] Now, the case is going to go to the Supreme Court. There already is a case [26:18] on the docket for the constitutionality of this measure that is pending. So here's how I want to [26:27] frame the issue for debate. Okay. I don't think it's about what's constitutional. None of this [26:32] is constitutional. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. How you do it is what determines the outcome of [26:40] that question. So let's discuss what is actually happening here and what needs to happen. Okay. [26:47] Two Texas natives, Democrat, political consultant Chuck Rocha, host of the Rocha Revolution, [26:53] and conservative talk show host Mr. Mark Davis. Good to have you both. One, [26:58] can we all agree that no one has clean hands and gerrymandering is a bad thing? Can we all agree on that? [27:05] Sure. I'm a political consultant. I wish every congressional race in America was 50-50. Let [27:11] me go on record and say that right now. Mark Davis? Nobody has clean hands. What do you think? [27:18] I don't know that it's unconstitutional. I think it's something that states get to do. States get [27:23] broad latitude in doing it. So everybody is doing it. But yes, it does seem pretty clear that everybody [27:28] doesn't like it. And we have a tug of war going on. That's probably there's no way to end it. [27:32] When you look at the maps, okay, I did this with a 14-year-old, okay? And when you look at how [27:41] congressional districts get carved up, Mark, it's embarrassing to try to explain it to the kid. [27:49] It's obviously about advantage. And that's not what the districts were set up to be. And we all know it. [27:56] That's true. And yet, you know, Chuck says, I wish every district was 50-50. That's not America. [28:01] I mean, you know, Texas is decidedly Republican. California decidedly Democrat. I'd be fine [28:06] if the states in general reflected over all the way the state is. Texas right now is 25-13. [28:14] It's about to be a little more. But our state didn't start this. New England, [28:19] the entire region of New England has zero Republicans. Illinois, 14 out of 17. California, [28:26] 42 of the 52. My state didn't start this. We tried to correct it. [28:31] No, your state started this because Donald Trump called and said that they wanted to [28:35] redistrict in the middle of redistricting. We do redistricting after census every 10 years. [28:40] So, Texas, our state is the first one to do that in a mid-cycle. [28:45] So? It was an attempt to have a remedy to what your party has done across regions like New England [28:52] and huge stakes like California and Illinois. If you're going to whine about the imbalance that's [28:57] about Texas, let me hear some violin music for California and Illinois. [29:01] When you get a little fax, you start getting all up on yourself. What I'm getting at here [29:05] is the difference between what we're doing and what y'all did, and we can fight about this all [29:09] day, is we're Democrats did it. We took it to the people and let folks actually vote on it. [29:13] Y'all just shoved it through a state legislature and said, people, y'all should just like what we [29:17] do. At least we wouldn't let the people vote on it. [29:21] So do you think the people are reflected in New England where there are zero Republicans, Chuck? [29:25] At least they redistricted at the end of the census when they're supposed to, Mark. [29:28] You're smart enough to do that. So it's okay. So the timing makes it okay. What a load. [29:34] Thank you. You're welcome. I am. And the bottom line, and honestly, [29:37] maybe there's something we can all come together on. I wish there was a way to come back and have [29:41] Texas reflected in about the way that Texas is a Republican-leaning state, have California reflected [29:47] in a way that California is a Democrat-leaning state. But I don't know if there's any way to get [29:51] back to that because it's now we're trying to nationalize all of Congress. [29:55] There's one thing that we can all agree on, Chris, is that the reason we're in the position [29:59] that we are in Congress is there's 435 congressional seats. Only about 35 of them are marginal. [30:05] When I was making light of making them all equal, that means folks like me who run campaigns, [30:09] we get a bunch more work because we would really fight to see which Democrat or which Republican [30:13] can control it. Right now, the way the system is, to your point in the monologue in the beginning, [30:17] is the only thing adherent to a Republican or a Democrat is to run to the right if you're a Republican [30:22] or the left if you're a Democrat, because you can only be beating your primaries when we don't [30:26] have competitive district. That's what's wrong with democracy on Capitol Hill right now. [30:32] Don't disagree. Don't disagree. It's a massive power grab. [30:36] There's an obvious fix. And look, and here's what it is, and this is why sometimes I get frustrated [30:42] when I see all of us playing into it. It only works for the people in power and the parties. [30:50] That's all this is about, is acquisition and retention of power. They are the only commodity [30:57] that has under a 30% approval rate and over a 93% retention rate. And that means it's broken. [31:06] How do you fix this? Easy. You go to the states and you push for a referendum where you have a national [31:12] body that does this after the census. And it's nonpartisan. It's postpartisan. It's people who aren't [31:18] in office and they carve it up and the people agree. Now, who isn't going to agree to that? [31:23] The two parties. That's why I believe the only way we get past all of this stuff. [31:29] Go ahead. Go ahead, Mark. No reason to be dyspeptic. Make your witness. [31:33] In a perfect world, in a perfect world, it's a really good plan, but that's not the universe we [31:38] exist in. Postpartisan, there's no such thing. People who are retired, everybody is still going to fight [31:42] just as bitterly as the people who are in power now. I think the battle, I think it may be a little [31:47] idealistic to think that some magical tribunal can make this right. I don't think they could. [31:53] Hey, boy, I got to tell you, thank God you weren't around in 1775 because that's exactly the [31:59] conversation they had about breaking away from England and why it was worth the struggle, brother. [32:05] Well, but man, look, it is in a way. But we've got the desperation for better. Mark, [32:12] you hear it all the time, okay? When I get clips from your show, you know, people are looking for [32:17] reinforcement. They're looking for confirmation. Sure, sure. And you do a good job of giving it [32:21] to them. And Chuck, you know, you do this well also. However, what you guys both hear all the [32:26] time is, what the hell is going on over there? Who are these people? What is that? None of this [32:31] makes sense to me. I think that disconnect is our salvation. I think independence growing the way [32:37] they are because of a very simple dynamic. Your party should just be how you participate, [32:42] not your identity, not your identity. When people say to me, like, oh, I saw you at Davis on, [32:49] or even they'll say, I saw you have Roach on. It's good to see you getting back to your roots. [32:52] I always say the same thing. I like guys despite their partisan preference. I like them as people. [32:58] Their politics are negotiable. If we can keep that energy, we can get to a better place because what [33:04] we're seeing right now is a battle to the bottom. That's all this is. I don't care what the courts say. [33:09] We know this system stinks. All right, I got to jump. I got to jump. I'm going to get yelled at. [33:13] Chuck, I love you. Thank you. Mark, I love you. Thank you both for being here. We'll continue the [33:17] conversation. Okay. Four minutes and 15 seconds. It started as a local story. Okay. One missing general [33:25] seemed to be into UFOs. Where'd he go? Then it was a woman who worked with him. Wait, how'd she show up [33:31] gone? What, wait, what is this? Now it's up to 11 missing or dead scientists. Is that the right number? [33:37] Is it right to be suspicious? Is this about the UAP world? Lou Elizondo is my go-to. Okay. And he knows [33:47] for a fact there are even more missing scientists. And he says he knows for a fact that we're not [33:55] asking the right questions. And I want to hear why. Next. The FBI announced that they are now going to [34:08] look into whether we're dealing with correlation or causation in the deaths and disappearances of 11 [34:15] U.S. scientists and government contractors, some with ties to the UFO or UAP community. In several [34:22] of the cases, authorities believe they do know what happened to them. But then there is another layer [34:27] of why it happened. And there are other cases that are truly mysteries. And the scientists just seem to [34:34] have vanished. And it doesn't end there. My next guest, a former Pentagon UFO investigator, [34:39] is saying that, and by the way, he hasn't said this before, I think, is that he knows personally [34:46] that there is more to this than is out there right now. Joining me is that man, Lou Elizondo. Lou, [34:54] it is good to have you. And there is no way I'm going to talk about these people before I talk about [35:00] you. I am not surprised that you recovered from a serious motorcycle accident as quickly as you did [35:07] because you're a ridiculously strong and capable guy. But I was worried. And, you know, I hope you [35:15] know, boy, you got a good woman in your life. She was steady and she was all hands on deck and Lou's [35:24] going to be good. But here's what it is and here's what it isn't. And I'm proud to know that you got [35:28] someone like that in your life. And I'm so happy that you got back as quick as you did. Thank you, [35:33] Chris, and thank you for the well wishes. And you're right. She actually saved my life. [35:38] And by the way, if there's a lesson here to tell your entire audience, don't be a Lou and wear a [35:43] helmet just because helmets are optional in a state you might live in. Do yourself a favor and wear a [35:50] helmet and don't learn the lesson that I had to learn the hard way. And have a relationship where [35:55] your partner believes that when you're late, that they should go look for you. And she found you [36:01] and she got you help. And now you're back. All right, Lou, not to get too personal with it, [36:06] but I care about you. And I'm just so happy you're back. So what are we getting wrong about this? [36:11] Why should we keep looking at it? Well, look, anytime you have experts in the national security [36:19] arena, either disappearing or in some cases dying in prematurely and not a necessarily a natural way, [36:27] we have to we have to look at this very closely. If we can go back even to the 1940s during the [36:32] Manhattan Project, when we knew Russia was trying to target a lot of our scientists and try to learn [36:38] some of our atomic secrets. This is nothing new. What is new, though, is that we have these scientists, [36:44] these engineers and senior military officials that are completely unaccounted for. Some of these [36:50] individuals had very high security clearances, top secret SCI security clearances. [36:55] Any time that would happen in any other country, Russia, China, obviously would be a problem. [37:01] This is happening here in the United States. And there are some very interesting common ties that [37:07] at least some some of these individuals have with one another. And that is the UAP topic, [37:12] ironically enough. So and you say this isn't you referring to culture or history. You're saying [37:19] you talk to some of these people and what happened doesn't make sense. Yeah, that's absolutely correct. [37:24] In fact, several of the people that you have on your list right there that you showed, I personally [37:28] spoke with years ago and and talk to myself. And it was about the UAP topic and their their their work [37:35] in that in that in that arena. But there's also, you know, you said something and it's absolutely [37:39] accurate. There's other individuals that are not on that list that I am personally aware of that might [37:45] actually be associated with it. There is an individual that somebody, you know, Chris Mellon, who's been on [37:51] your show before, was going to talk to about two and a half, three years ago, he was a few days away [37:56] from meeting this individual. He was an engineer, apparently on the legacy U.S. government legacy [38:01] UAP effort and mysteriously died right before the meeting. There's another individual whom I spoke [38:06] with. He reached out to me. I'm going to protect his identity here for the sake of his family. But he [38:12] did. He did meet an untimely end. He was a senior special agent at the Department of Energy, [38:17] and he worked specifically in the inspector general's shop, the IG shop. He was the the most senior [38:23] special agent for the Department of Energy. And he was talking to me about coming out and talking to [38:28] Congress about what he knows within DOE and the files, the UAP files that are that are that they that [38:34] they're holding on to. He was very upset and he felt like he was a whistleblower. So I was arranging for this [38:41] individual to actually meet with certain members of Congress. His wife, who is a doctor for the [38:46] Veterans Affairs, walks in one evening after work and finds him dead on the sofa. Now, this was [38:53] during COVID. But from my understanding, there was never any any positive, if you will, connection [39:01] between COVID and his death. He was he was relatively young. He wasn't an old guy. He wasn't [39:06] particularly sick. He was healthy. He was athletic. So there there are more individuals. And certainly, [39:12] I think the FBI should should do exactly what they said they're going to do. You have folks like Anna [39:18] Polina Luna that are working very hard behind the scenes, also trying to you just had her on your [39:22] show. That's trying to get some additional clarity into this. There was another individual that that [39:26] Dave Bruce used to work with. His call sign was Quake. And and he was going to go public and talk to [39:33] Congress. And unfortunately, he was in Washington, D.C. at a hotel. And they found him dead as well. So I want to be [39:40] careful not to scare people say this is all about UFOs and the conspiracy that they're trying to keep people [39:45] like us quiet. But I can tell you, as a matter of fact, I myself and other individuals whom I know in Congress [39:51] can tell you the same have actually been threatened before. So so it is about time that that the government [39:57] takes this very, very seriously, whether they're just missing. Good. They want to take an extended vacation or or they're [40:02] dead. We need answers and we need them. We need them. We got to know. Well, Lou, here's my pledge. I'm a call away. [40:11] You learn anything. You want anything asked. You want it out there. You call me. It's done. [40:15] Keep recovering. I'll see you soon. You look great. I appreciate you, Chris. Thank you. [40:21] Of course. You're the only guy I know who could hit your head on the ground. You look better. [40:24] Lou Elizondo, thank you very much. We'll be right back. You know, I really believe that the key [40:36] is exposing the idea that right and left is just about advantage of one over the other. It's not about [40:42] making anything better. I hope that's clear now. And again, just to reiterate, when I say that MAGA [40:50] is over, I'm not saying that the movement, that the angst, that the desperation, the disaffection, [40:55] wanting things to change in certain ways. I'm not saying that's over. I'm saying this [41:00] administration clearly doesn't want to own that mandate, even though it's what was delivered to it [41:05] in the election. That's what I'm saying. Leland Vittert, right now. [41:08] Great thought. So you're saying there was a mandate? 100%. One of the largest margins we've seen. [41:16] Right. There we go. And what you do with it is, I think, is what you're talking about. Great points, Chris.