Title: Charlie Kirk's Story Cracks — Hegseth
Show: Dialogue Works
Date: 2025-12-09
URL: https://youtu.be/PA2Sh1zpgfU
Duration: 50:00

---

[00:05] Hi everybody. Today's Tuesday, December 9th, 2025 and our dear friend John Kuryako is here with us. Welcome back, John. >> Thanks so much for having me. Let me start John with the case of Charlie Kirk and every time we hear we hear someone from FBI talking about it and the only journalist as I know is pursuing is somehow investigating the case of Charlie Kirk

[00:35] is Candace Owens. She's doing everything to find out who was behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is so important to the people, the basis, the foundation of MAGA movement who voted for Donald Trump, the current administration. And here is what Cash Patel said on Megan Kelly show about the case of Charlie Kirk. >> Let me start with this, the most obvious. Do you believe that we have the proper suspect in custody? Do you believe that Tyler Robinson is in fact

[01:06] the man who killed Charlie Kirk? >> Yes. >> Do you believe he acted with the help of anyone else? >> This investigation is being led by the Utah state authorities because it is a murder investigation. So the FBI is a supporting role in the investigative process. And so what we're doing is the same thing we did in the pipeline investigation. The investigation's ongoing for us. If there's any new leads or tips, we are exhausting them with search warrants and legal process. But at the same time, we are working with the prosecutors in Utah to make sure we don't screw up their investigation

[01:38] because again, the worst outcome would be if the guy that killed Charlie Kurt walks out of a United States courtroom in the state of Utah. And so, it's a delicate balance again, but there is no way this FBI is going to stop that investigation until it reaches its allcon. >> Do you believe any foreign government had a role in his assassination? At this time, the FBI doesn't have credible information to connect any foreign governments to it. But as I said, we are continuing to take investigative leads.

[02:10] We're not done. Just because we arrest someone, just like in the pipe bomber case, we don't just say, "Okay, we're done. On to the next." The investigation, investigative team continues to work with the Utah authorities, and they're deriving their own leads and coming back to us and say, "Hey, can you look at this piece of information? Can we get a search warrant on this account? What about this individual who is located in X, Y, or Z? We're tracking all that down. >> Do you have any credible reason to believe that anyone connected with the Turning Point organization had anything to do with Charlie's death? >> Zero.

[02:42] >> Um, on the subject, there's been an allegation made by prominent podcaster Candace Owens that she is she's received a death threat, a credible death threat from the French. that um a threat has been made on her life and that the French, she's been told, also may have had a role in Charlie's assassination. Have you looked into either of those? Do you believe she's received a credible death threat from the French or that the French had something potentially to do with Charlie's death? >> Any American that receives a death threat from overseas or anywhere in

[03:14] America is going to be fully investigated. So, we're not going to turn our eye away from that investigation or any others. If there's anything to it, this FBI will respond to it. Yeah, I think yeah, John, how first he said that he believes that the guy Tyler Robinson has assassinated Charlie Kirk. Then he said that the investigation is going on instead of you, they're doing this and that, but how you can say 100%

[03:45] is this guy, but the investigation is not done yet. What is your understanding of what's going on with the case of Charlie Kirk? I should preface my comments by saying that I don't have any inside information. I'm seeing the same kind of information that you're seeing. Uh based on what the state of Utah has released, it seems like Tyler Robinson was the was the person who killed Charlie Kirk. Uh he said to his friends in advance that

[04:16] he was going to kill Charlie Kirk. after he did it, he uh he texted his girlfriend and said that he had killed Charlie Kirk and they've gotten him. Like you, I'm very interested in these other avenues that may or may not be pursued right now. I can tell you that in my own case, um once I was charged with a crime, the FBI just stopped. they just stopped and they moved on to the next person.

[04:48] Um, why they are continuing to investigate uh when there doesn't seem to be any evidence that others were involved is is interesting to me. I I don't understand why. He did say something very important at the beginning, Nema. He said that the state of Utah is handling this case. I said from the very beginning that I just simply did not understand why the FBI was involved in the investigation into

[05:18] the Charlie Kirk assassination. The alleged shooter is from Utah. The crime took place in Utah. The shooter started the crime, began the crime in Utah, driving from the south to the north to carry out the shooting. This is a state crime. It has nothing to do with the FBI. So, I was glad that Cash Patel was uh was very clear in that the FBI is a support organization for the state of Utah. It's not leading this case. Uh and

[05:49] I I think that's why we're not getting any more information. I mean, you know as well as I do, there's been almost nothing released since the the days immediately following Charlie Kirk's assassination. I think it's because it's a state case and the state just has chosen not to release any information. They didn't even mention we don't know if they have evaluated his buddy you know if you know they there has to be these sort of investigations going on

[06:19] but as you've mentioned there is nothing coming out of FBI or the state department or somewhere I don't know I said this the state of Utah publishing anything of that sort that's why everybody's you know these podcasters are talking about what has happened where where is the evidence evidence for, you know, we had Larry Johnson on this podcast arguing that there are a lot of evidence, you know, that shows the opposite way that shows that the

[06:51] guy, you know, Tyler Robertson would not be the the assassin, would not be the guy who killed Charlie. But after all there has to be some sort of you know clarification on the part of the FBI for example which was since the you know since the the investigation has started they have they've been involved in the whole process but nothing is coming out even cash you look at the responses that he's given on this podcast it's just

[07:23] two words you know nothing more than that no >> exactly that's why that brings a lot of doubts in the mind of those people who are hearing these people >> and Dan Bonino did the same thing about a week ago he was asked repeatedly he gave one-word answers and just said that there was nothing else to um to release he said that uh that as a uh a news commentator when he was a news commentator yes of course he could opine and offer up his views or his ideas or

[07:55] his analysis as the deputy director of the FBI, he has to follow the evidence. And he said there is just no evidence that anybody else was involved. Now, if I hope you don't mind my saying this, before we started um the live stream, you and I were having a conversation offline and we were talking about how in the old days, let's say around the days of the Kennedy assassination, people believed their government. People wanted to believe that the government was telling the truth. And now in 2025,

[08:25] people don't believe that the government is telling the truth. They always believe that there's more to the story because in fact over the years that has proven to be the case. And so I can understand why people are just not accepting this notion that uh that that uh Tyler Robinson was acting alone. I can understand why people want to see information leading to a hidden hand in a in a killing as high-profile as Charlie Kirks. >> Yeah. Here is what Candace Owens said

[09:00] >> John. >> There's been an allegation made by >> this FBI will respond to it. >> Okay. But so far, no. >> So, we are just looking at everything that comes in. We're not going to reject any piece of information. If someone feels that their life is being threatened, we are of course looking at it. >> Uh do you want to involve me in you looking at it? Because actually it kind of left me on red. There has been no communication with uh the FBI. You are

[09:32] aware right there. Megan Kelly is asking you directly about it. So you can't pretend you didn't receive it and you are choosing to skip over. He completely skips over the part about me uh having asserted which Megan asks him directly, you know, was France involved in childhood assassination. He doesn't even address that. Skips right over it and instead says if any American has a threat, that's what we're here for. And she's like, okay, but was there actually a threat on can if anybody let's just kind of make it state it more broadly, we will take it seriously. Well, you're not doing that, Cash Patel. And I find

[10:03] it very odd that I said that I had proof that French is that that the the government of France was involved in Charlie Hir's assassination that they were on the ground that day and you have not reached out to me in this very interview that you are asserting that you are certain that Tyler Robinson is the only person involved. How can you be certain if you are not reaching out to people that claim to have verifiable evidence which could dispute that narrative? Does it seem to you like he's telling the truth there? Does it seem to you like he's being open and he's being transparent? Or does it seem like he's

[10:34] intentionally being cy because he knows that I am telling the truth despite the many millions of dollars that is being spent on this Operation Mockingbird 2.0 campaign? Cash Patel knows that I am telling the truth. >> Yeah, [laughter] she's just >> and Mrs. Mcronone is a man. [laughter] Go ahead, John. >> What What can you say? I I'll start by saying I believe that Candace Owens

[11:06] believes that this is an international conspiracy. I do not think it's an international conspiracy. I would be surprised if the French government even knew who Charlie Kirk was. I highly, highly doubt that the French government wanted Charlie Kirk dead or had any reason to make Charlie Kirk dead. It just doesn't make any sense. You know, Candace Owens says that she has irrefutable proof. She also said she had irrefutable proof that the

[11:37] Italian government stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump. I remember that because I was on the conference call when she said it and that as soon as this irrefutable proof was released to the public, it would bring down the Italian government and Donald Trump would be uh inaugurated again on January the 20th, 2021. Of course, that was ridiculous and none of it ever happened. So, Candace Owens has a has a great following. She has millions of people that listen to her.

[12:08] She's very, very bright, but she comes up with a lot of crazy stuff. She claims to have irrefutable proof and then she never puts up. >> Yeah. But if something she says that she has been threatened by the government in France because >> right >> what is that? If something of that sort is happening, what is the role of FBI or CIA? Do they really consider >> That's a good question and it's actually

[12:39] it's actually something that I'm glad she brought up because I I'll give you my own um experience too. I am nowhere near the league of uh of Candace Owens, but I get death threats on a regular basis as well. I'm I'm out there like you are on the internet. I'm former CIA. Some people love me, some people hate me, so I get death threats. I report every single threat to the FBI on the FBI's um web page where that they have a a drop- down menu you can report crimes.

[13:11] The FBI has never ever reached out to me ever. Not a single time. They don't care that John Kiryaku is getting death threats just like they don't care if Candace Owens is getting death threats. They don't have the manpower to care when they have major crimes that they're that they're investigating. Um, so do I believe she got death threats? Yeah. And I believe that she believes the threats came from the French government. They came probably from some guy who was drinking too much and may or may not

[13:42] have had a French accent and, you know, who emailed her or called her in the middle of the night. I'll tell you, just a few days ago, I got a death threat. 3. It was 3:25 a.m. I don't have my ringer on in the middle of the night. So, this idiot called me, threatened to kill me in a voicemail, and he used his own phone, his his cell phone. Well, I have been verified. So, I went to binverified.com. I put in the phone number. It gives me his name, his address, his phone number,

[14:14] and uh it confirmed the phone number and um his uh social media. So rather than report it to the FBI cuz they do nothing, I texted him and I told him that if he ever did something like that again, I was going to tear off his head and shove his head up his ass and I said, "And I'm going to do that at 321 Main Street." I put his home address. He immediately messaged me back and he

[14:45] said, "I'm so sorry. I was drunk. I don't like you and I watch your videos and they made me angry and I found your number online and I said, "Yeah, don't do it again because next time I'm not going to be so nice about it and I haven't heard back, but the FBI is not going to do it for you. The FBI is not going to protect you." I still don't think that she was threatened by the French government. That wouldn't make any sense at all. And I'll tell you one other thing about the French.

[15:15] When I was at the CIA, the French DGSSE, the the uh French Intelligence Service had a reputation whereby they would take care of people that they considered to be a problem very quickly and very quietly. So, if you were an al-Qaeda figure in the Sahel, you were going to get a bullet in your brain. And the French weren't going to make threats about it in advance. They were just going to go in and kill you. Uh if you were an

[15:48] anti-French environmental activist in the South Pacific, they're going to blow up your boat and they're going to kill everybody on it. They don't need to make a preface. They don't need to call and threaten you and warn you. If the French want you dead, you're going to be dead. And that's why I don't think she was threatened by the French government. They don't make threats. Yeah, John, you've mentioned the Middle East. When you look at this situation in the Middle

[16:18] East today and you you have a lot experience and you know the region, these officers, CIA officers that go to the Middle East, do they have any sort of strategy? Do they know of the US strategy in the Middle East or they're they're giving them some sort of missions, some sort of, you know, duties to to >> right? >> What is that? Because after all, when

[16:49] you are a a CIA officer or someone who's working for CIA, you you just see that as a duty or you want to know a bigger picture of what's going on? Because >> that's a great question, Nema. That's that's an important question. Um, first of all, most of the officers that the CIA sends to the Middle East um are not Middle East experts and do not speak Arabic. >> Um, almost none of the CIA's officer

[17:22] officers in the Middle East have a long-term view. And it's because the American government usually does not have a long-term view. The CIA has something called operating directives, OD, and it goes from a level zero, which means they're coming over the embassy walls right now, to level five, which means, you know, if you happen to hear anything about, you know, growing corn in Morocco,

[17:53] just send us a a little message. So tier zero level zero is the most important that is like nuclear proliferation uh Iran uh the war in Russia and Ukraine that kind of thing is tier zero tier one means drop what you're doing and focus on this and it's things like terrorism for example uh or threats to an American embassy And

[18:25] then it goes down from there, tier 2, three, four, to the point where it's nobody really cares about the lower tiers. But that's not to say that any of these tiers are for a long-term view. This was one of the things that I enjoyed the most when I was serving in the Middle East as an as an analyst. It's because your job was to look at the long-term view. I was interested in, let's say, Saudi stability over the next

[18:55] 30 years. That's interesting to me. What's not interesting is what's going to happen in the next 24 hours in Sudan, for example. I I I really don't care. But a lot of CIA people do care. And so, they're going to be focused on Sudan in the next 24 hours or the next 48 hours or what happens in the next round of talks in Libya, as another example. um or what's happening is Yemen going to split back into two different Yemens. Um and I think that that frankly it does

[19:27] a disservice to the policy maker because the policy maker for the most part can get that information by reading the New York Times or Al Jazzer or the Washington Post. So the CIA is not adding anything to the body of intelligence. It should be focused on the long term and it's not. And whose decision is that for this sort of policy? Is that coming from the president and his office? >> Yeah, it it originates in the National Security Council. So these are supposed

[19:58] to be the issues that are the most um important for the president and for policy makers at that level, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the the national security adviser. And then those orders come down to the CIA director and from the C CIA director to the um operational division directors. So every year in December, let's say I'm working for Neareastern operations, the division director is

[20:28] going to say, "Okay, everybody in the Near East division, this is what we're going to collect on over the next year. We're going to collect on Iran and the nuclear program and Syria and what's what China's doing in the Middle East, things like that, things that that are the most important. And then if you happen to pick up something that is less important but still interesting, write it down, send it in, and we'll let the analysts have it. Then are they gonna do they consider the

[20:59] feedback they're getting from their anal their officers in their for example in the region you see what is their take what is their understanding of what this the situation there because after all when you have someone on the ground gathering information his view his sort of understanding would be important is that >> you are so you are so right and the the obvious answer should yes, that they're very focused on that. Unfortunately, the true answer is no. They don't care. And

[21:31] I'll give you an example. This is a dated example. I I was writing a paper. I was still on the analytic side. I was writing a paper um that touched on women's uh role in politics in a Middle Eastern country. And there was one woman in particular that I was very interested in because she she was out there in the media all the time fighting for the women's right to vote and um and a real leader where

[22:02] the international media were seeking her out and getting her opinion and she was very outspoken. She would come to the United States and speak to women's groups. So I sent a cable through uh there's a uh a a tasking office at the CIA. So, I went to this tasking office and I said, "I have these eight questions about this woman. Could you send the questions to the station and have the station assign an officer to find the information that I need?" So, they did. And about 3 weeks later, I got

[22:34] a very short cable in response to my questions and it said, "Oh, yes. Uh, this woman is well known to us. We call her the hot dog lady because we understand that when she was living in the United States, she loved hot dogs. And here in the Middle East, it's hard to find hot dogs. And so she has them shipped from somewhere, Beirut or something. And she likes them with mustard and relish and this and that. And I'm like, "What the [ __ ] are you

[23:05] talking about? This I can't send this to the president." And so I went back to the tasking office and I said, "This was a complete failure to collect the information necessary to send to the president. I can't tell the president in response to his question, should I take this woman seriously because she wants to meet at the White House?" I can't say, "Well, I don't know if you should take her seriously, but she really loves hot dogs and this is what she likes on her hot dogs." That was when I learned that there was a

[23:37] real split between the director of operations and the director of intelligence and the director of operations was going to do its thing and it didn't care what the director of intelligence was writing and sending to the president. Yeah, John, one of the the reason I asked you this question is the situation in Ukraine because we know what's going on in Ukraine in terms of the what is happening to the military of Ukraine is you know Russia is somehow

[24:08] advancing underground but how how do you see the role of the CIA in gathering ing information from Ukraine on the ground, the information that are firsthand information. I'm not talking about they're getting it from, you know, British or any other intelligence. Are they really getting the information directly from from Ukraine or they're getting through these channels? It's

[24:40] it's my understanding that there are CIA officers, senior CIA officers stationed inside the Ukrainian intelligence service to provide support and liaison. Uh and there are CIA officers on the ground with Ukrainian um military or special forces units. In addition, we know that the CIA is training Ukrainian U military officers here in the United States at bases in te Texas and I think North Carolina. Uh so yeah, the the CIA

[25:12] is getting the information directly from the horse's mouth. But uh but the Ukrainians are losing. This war is untenable. Every observer will tell you that the Russians control the the line of demarcation and in the end CIA or no CIA, the Ukrainians are going to have to come to some kind of an agreement with the Russians. This is one of those situations, Nema, where the CIA is not going to be able to to win this thing

[25:44] for for the Ukrainians. This is going to have to be between the Russians and the Ukrainians. And sure, CIA help may have may have delayed a Russian victory, may have cost the Russians, you know, more casualties, but it can't go on forever. >> Yeah. John, we know what has happened in 2014 in Ukraine with the coup, >> but do you see the same sort of policy

[26:16] happening in the aftermath of any Ukrainian settlement? Because what Russia sees in Ukraine today is they want a permanent solution to the case of Ukraine and a security architecture for the region. You you cannot you know make obstacles for CIA, MI6 or these intelligence. So Russian intelligence as well. They're doing their job. You know it's it's common. It's you know it's normal to do that. But when it comes to the

[26:46] securities of these superpowers, you have to have some sort of limitation to the activities that you're, you know, committed to. Is that going to be considered? Do you do you see that sort of will in the Trump administration to consider that? >> I think so. I agree with you. Whatever solution the two sides come to in the end, it has to be a permanent solution. And I think we've seen the indications of what that solution is going to be. It's going to

[27:18] have to be that the Russians keep Donetsk Luhansk uh Kerone Crimea. The Russian speaking areas that they control de facto now. I think they'll end up controlling uh uh formally once this is over. I think that another Russian red line is that Ukraine cannot ever be a member of NATO. But that's a misnomer, Nema, because Ukraine doesn't have to be a

[27:49] member of NATO. Uh Australia is not a member of NATO. Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, they're not members of NATO. They're what's called major non-NATO allies. That's an official status. And I wouldn't be surprised if the United States agrees with the Russians that no, Ukraine should not be a member of NATO. It will never be a member of NATO. But it could be granted major non-NATO ally status, thus giving it essentially the same rights as a NATO

[28:21] country. And I think what the Russians will concede is that Ukraine will get fasttrack um uh membership in the European Union. And then the EU begins the rebuilding of Ukraine and that's going to be the end of it. But I I really do believe that we're nearing the end and the end is not going to be what the United States and Ukraine have hoped for, but it's going to be enough to put this thing to to

[28:51] rest. >> Yeah. Many people believe, at least in our audience, that CIA is part of deep state. CIA is, you know, do you think that the leadership usually in CIA is part of the establishment or the the establishment has a lot of leverage on CIA in the way that they're using CIA? >> No, I I I agree that there is a deep state and the CIA's an important

[29:22] probably the most important part of the deep state. But let's let's define what a deep state is. In my view, a deep state is a group of unelected, very powerful bureaucrats that can do what the president wants or they can ignore what the president wants because presidents come and go every four years or every eight years. And these deep state leaders are in their positions for 20, 30, even 35 years. Presidents come and go and these deep

[29:53] sters remain. And so if there's a policy that a president supports or wants and it's a policy that the deep state leadership does not like, they just wait until the president's not president anymore. >> They did that during the first Trump administration. >> That's exactly what they did. You're exactly right. That's what we saw. Mhm. >> What is the relationship between for example the position of Tulsi Gabbard and the head

[30:25] of CIA and how they interact and who has the upper hand, >> right? So Tulsi Gabbard is the director of national intelligence. John Ratcliffe of course is the director of the CIA. the CIA director technically falls underneath the DNI, but in reality, on a day-to-day basis, that's just not true. Depending on who happens to be president, the CIA director can be a member of the cabinet. Um, he is a member of the of this cabinet.

[30:56] Presidents can choose, for example, among CIA director, DNI, and ambassador to the United Nations, who gets a cabinet position. Um, the way the office of the DNI was first established, the DNI was supposed to be the overall coordinator of all of the 18 intelligence agencies in the US government. 18 intelligence agencies in the US government. What that meant for all practical purposes was that the DNI

[31:26] had control over the budget. But don't forget that fully half of those intelligence agencies are actually parts of the Pentagon. And so in the end, the DNI doesn't have authority over those. The Secretary of Defense has authority over those. Um over the years, over the last 20 years, more and more authority has been absorbed by the DNI. The President's Daily Brief used to be a CIA only publication. Now it's a DNI publication.

[31:58] uh major operations Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China used to be solely the domain of the CIA. Now they fall under the DNI. So it's almost as though we have two CIA directors who are competing with each other for primacy. So far, this has been very quiet in the Trump administration, but it looks like John Ratcliffe has not had the PR problems that Tulsi Gabbard has had. I've heard

[32:31] rumors recently that uh Pete Hgse will likely not be Secretary of Defense for very much longer and that Tulsi Gabbard might become the Secretary of Defense. We have to wait and see. But the bottom line is that there's no clear division between DNI and CIA. It's just something that is fought out on an ad hoc basis.

[33:02] But we know that Tulsi Gabbert is not happy with the case of, for example, Venezuela. She came out and said that the regime change doesn't work. >> The United States doesn't benefit from regime change. >> Correct. But on the other hand, you see the policy of the Trump administration is somehow is the regime change. They're they're officially saying that, you know, not just the Trump administration. Most of Republicans who are in line with the Trump administration, they say that regime change, Maduro must go,

[33:32] >> right? >> And which is which is a a stab to the heart of the MAGA movement. This is where the progressive left and the MAGA right meet and agree no foreign interventions. And you know this is different from Iraq, Afghanistan, so many other places where the US has intervened. We don't we're not at war with Venezuela. The Venezuelans are no threat to us. And

[34:05] regardless of what the administration is saying, Venezuela is not an originator of drugs. And the drugs that do pass through Venezuela, primarily from Colombia and Ecuador, are on their way to West Africa for then trans shshipment to Western Europe. Those drugs don't come to the United States. My own view is this is all about China. And I I'll explain why. Venezuela sits on an ocean of oil. That oil is very, very dirty.

[34:38] It's full of sulfur and it requires specialty refining using very heavy chemicals. Well, that specialty refining until about 5 years ago could only be done at refineries in Houston, Texas. And then we put sanctions on the Venezuelan oil industry. Well, the Indians and the Chinese both built refineries that could purify dirty Venezuelan oil. And about 5 years ago,

[35:09] the Chinese announced that they were going to build a refinery to process Venezuelan oil in the Caribbean. Well, we can't admit we were wrong and lift sanctions. So, what what can we do to save face? we overthrow Maduro, try to install a a friendly uh puppet government, lift sanctions, and we start refining Venezuelan oil anymore. So, I think this

[35:39] is really about China more than anything else. >> Yeah, I think the question would be the day after Maduro is gone, who's going to be there? And how can you be sure that she's gonna be the [laughter] >> It's not going to be Juan Guyaido whom nobody had ever heard of. It's not going to be this woman that just won the Nobel Peace Prize of all things. >> No. >> Um >> Maria Machado.

[36:09] >> Thank you. Maria Machado. I couldn't remember. I couldn't even remember her name. Um yeah, I think that see this is a lesson that we just seem to never learn. It's it's easy to overthrow a government, right? I mean, they actually teach you in at West Point the the modus operendi by which you can overthrow a government. You have to take control of the presidential palace and either arrest, kill or exile the leader. You have to take control of the radio and television stations. You have to

[36:41] take control of the major intersections in the capital. And you have to have the support of the military. Well, we don't have the support of the Venezuelan military. Maduro has the support of the Venezuelan military. So what does that mean? Does that mean we have to send in ground troops and and fight a hot war on the ground in Venezuela when the Venezuelans are no threat to us? So I I just don't see any upside to a to a policy of trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

[37:12] >> Yeah. Here is John. Here is what Donald Trump said about Venezuela >> are numbered and that the US could soon strike Venezuelan territory. Could we see American troops on the ground in Venezuela? >> I don't comment on that. I wouldn't say that one way or the other. I can say this that he sent us millions of people, many from prisons, many drug dealers and drug lords, uh mental institution people in mental institutions. He sent him into

[37:43] our country where we have a where we had a very stupid president. You know that Biden's a low IQ person, especially nowadays. I mean, he was low IQ 30 years ago, but he was especially low IQ now. And uh what he did to our country is not good. Trenagua, the gangs, one of the meanest gangs in the world. >> You've locked down the the the border now. >> He sent a lot of these people. He also sent in a lot of drugs. So, we'll see how it all works out. So do >> I can't talk about >> So how far would you go to to take Maduro?

[38:13] >> Yeah, John. The only thing that he has not blamed on Joe Biden is the way that he's sleeping right now when people are talking. [laughter] >> That's right. >> That's right. know every time any issue that he's talking about on you know he's he's mentioning Joe Biden and his administration but you are the president of the United States right now and people wants you to you know to to do whatever you have in your mind they're

[38:43] not talking about Joe Biden and what was happening during the Joe Biden and his administration >> right >> what is behind I was talking with a psychologist about this sort of attitude on the part of Donald Trump. I know that you are trained in this direction. When you see someone like President Trump, you know, he's the president of the, you know, the United States, why does he need every time to bring up Joe Biden to

[39:14] somehow legitimize what he's doing? >> I think it's a personality quirk of his. Um, I think that that he thinks it it helps to legitimize his policies. And I think that he sees it as a way of explaining uh his policies that that Joe Biden's policies were so bad that they all need to be scrapped or they all need to be fixed or changed. He's going to do it, but he's being forced to do it because the Biden policies were so bad and Joe

[39:45] Biden is low IQ president and and Joe Biden was, you know, in dementia and I don't know. Um I I will point out that none of what he said related to to the emptying of prisons and mental institutions and sending people to the United States. None of that is true. That was true of the Cubans in 1978 and 1979 and the Mariel boat lift where the

[40:17] Cubans really did empty their prisons and their mental institutions and put them on boats and send them to Florida. Um there's no evidence that that's ever happened coming from Venezuela. John, with the regime change, you you know about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, right now Syria, we had the regime change. And when it comes to Venezuela, people here in Brazil, in Latin America, there's so much concern about what's

[40:47] going on in Venezuela, if that would bring some sort of chaos in the region the way that it was in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, >> right? What what is your take on and and the sort of chaos that could bring this sort of conflict could bring to the region and how is it going to be beneficial to the United States after all? because Maduro is saying that he's prepared to particip to cooperate with the United States if they want all he's

[41:17] going to send if they want to in to somehow you know invest in Venezuela's you know economy they're open to that there is no resistance from resistance from you know the government in Venezuela >> in fact Maduro and Trump had a telephone conversation a week ago you know Nema when when the major powers of the region, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil are 100% against any American

[41:50] intervention in Venezuela, the Americans should sit up and take notice. You know, when just about every country in the world has come out and said that they are against any American military intervention in Venezuela, then we should we should learn the lesson. there. I honestly I don't see anything positive that comes out of a military intervention. It really will destabilize uh northern South America. Uh it is

[42:21] going to damage our diplomatic relations with all of the countries that I just mentioned. And this is a more minor point, but I think still an important one. The country of Guyana has just discovered that it is also sitting on an ocean of oil. that it is just now starting to lift with the help of American, Dutch, and British oil companies. What happens to the economic development of Guyana, which sits right alongside Venezuela?

[42:52] There's no upside. There's nothing good that can come out of a military intervention. And I'm hoping that it's just bluster. But I mean, we've sent a carrier battle group there. you're talking about 11 or 12 battle ready ships. You know, we're we're only a couple of hours flight to drop troops or special forces. So, I I'm I'm worried about where this is going. >> Yeah. The the problem, by the way, with the Trump administration is that they're not communicating with anybody in Latin

[43:24] America. >> No. just the you know the guy in Argentina you know MLE the only guy who's close to Washington is the president of Argentina the other presidents here in Brazil they're not that much of communication between Brazil and you know Colombia the same because they see these people as radical left they call it the radical left I don't know what does that mean anymore you know we don't have it here in Brazil you know >> my best friend from high school is a

[43:56] MAGA Republican, a a strongly proTrump Republican. And every time I talk to him, he talks about the radical left, the radical left, the radical left. And I said I said, "I have to ask you, what is it that's radical about the left?" And he said, "Oh, all the all their policies." I said, "No, no. I I'm serious. I want you to tell me what it is that's that's radical." And he said, 'Well, like um like uh the environment.

[44:27] >> And I said, 'It's it's radical to want clean water and clean air. Well, and then that's it. That's the end of the conversation because we've gotten to the point where these words don't mean anything. >> You know, I remember at the end of the George W. Bush administration, the Republican National Committee circulated a memo. They got caught circulating a memo urging everybody who goes on a television news program to speak out

[44:58] against what they called Islamopascism. Well, the term they just made up the term at the at the Republican National Committee and it didn't catch on. It didn't catch on in part because somebody leaked the memo and said the Republicans want us to all say Islamopfascism so that we have something to to rally against. And I think that's what we're we're seeing today with the radical left, the radical right. There's nothing

[45:29] radical. I I joke all the time that in the United States we have two political parties. We have a right of center party and we have a farther right of center party. There's nothing left about the Democratic Party. It's a capitalist party. >> Yeah. I think there they see socialism as the radical left because socialism after all they want to make some sort of you know situation for those people who are not able to provide you know they're having problems but they see this as radical as

[46:02] they saw it in New York with Zoran Mandani right >> you know the whole problem is that >> I think the oligarchs you know these people who are you know they they have the they own everything social media you you name it everything they have everything and they want to dominate the whole you know political system that's why they call it radical whenever someone comes out to meet socialist and I >> yeah and they don't know the difference between >> about socialism I don't see anything

[46:34] radical >> no I I'll tell you a funny little story I I years ago during the Trump's first term Um, my then wife and I were at a relative's house, one of her relatives house for Thanksgiving dinner. And I was sitting next to this old woman. She was in her 80s. She had Fox News on. And she says to me, "It looks like we're turning into a communistic country."

[47:06] And I said, I said, "Yeah, you think so?" And she said, "All this socialism." And I said, "You know what? You're right. This socialism, like social security, what is social security after all? It's free money for old people who were too stupid or too lazy to save for their old age. I'm against this kind of socialism." And she looks at me and she says, "I live on social security." I

[47:36] said, "But that's a socialistic program." And she said, 'Well, I think we need programs like that. I said, 'Oh, well, then maybe it's okay if we're turning into a socialistic country, but another problem is Americans have no idea the difference between socialism and communism. And I'll give you another example. I read my small hometown newspaper every every day and there's a very popular Mexican restaurant that's there and there was an

[48:07] article saying that when you go to this me Mexican restaurant and you leave a tip, the tip doesn't go to the worker, it goes to the owner of the restaurant. And in the comment section under the article, somebody wrote, "That's socialism for you." So, I wrote a comment and I said, "Actually, that's capitalism. Socialism would be if the workers owned the restaurant." And I said, I I took a shot. I couldn't help it. But I said, "It sounds like

[48:39] you're in need of a sixth grade government class if you don't know the difference between socialism and capitalism." But that's America. That's just the way it is here. People don't know >> you know what's amazing here in Brazil we have some sort of socialist you know government but what is the main goal lula government just mentioning before wrapping up John we have two system

[49:10] health care system one of them is suss they call it sus you know everybody's covered by that and the other one you pay for that you know >> ah same in Greece >> yeah it's amazing John, it's amazing when you look at the system and how it works. You know, if someone doesn't have any sort of, you know, you know, coverage from the, you know, insurance and and all the health care companies, they have it by free, you know, they don't need to pay anything

[49:41] and they're going to get the same the same the pretty same, you know, service. >> Wow. I think that's, you know, many people >> that's an advanced society right there. >> It's amazing, John. You have to be here and, you know, see how it works. And in my opinion, it works just fine. >> That's exactly how it is in Greece. The the health care system is fantastic. They have a private system. All the private system does is it gets you moved

[50:12] closer to the front of the line. So if you use just the public system and you need a procedure, maybe it's going to take 11 or 12 months. If you have the private system, you can get the procedure in one or two months. That's the only difference. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Thank you so much, John, for being with us. Great pleasure as always. >> Ah, the pleasure is all mine. I'm always happy to see you. Thanks for having me. >> See you, John. Bye-bye. >> Bye-bye.
