Welcome to Kib on Liberty. Another mega episode with Thomas Massie. In part two, we're doing an update on the Epstein files, which by law will be released December 19th, and we will see what the administration has been trying to keep you from seeing. Check it out. >> >> Welcome to Kibby on Liberty. Okay, part two. We're doing we're now doing these double mega episodes because you're you're constantly stirring up trouble and the speaker doesn't like you, the president doesn't like you, but uh you know, the last time we talked on October 29th, you were cautiously optimistic that you could get to 218 votes once this new Democratic congresswoman was sworn in. And and when did that actually happen? I'm trying to remember. Let me just you you you threw a little bit of red meat out there I have to chew on. >> All right. >> Um uh maybe we can talk about the the signing ceremony for the Epstein bill. >> But what I wanted >> Did you bring your pen? >> I didn't get a pen. Uh we called the White House. My staff did called the president's staff to ask you know when the signing ceremony is. You know, you've all seen these signing ceremonies. >> Mhm. >> You know, um we were told to have a nice day and the phone went click. >> There was no signing ceremony for this bill. >> It was signed in record time. But what I wanted to say is that um the president has invited every Democrat who voted to impeach him to the White House Christmas party this week and um there's one person he didn't invite and it's the guy whose bill he signed that last week. And well, I'm I'm guessing that your colleague Marjorie Taylor Green is perhaps not on that list either. >> Uh probably not. I haven't asked her. She probably wouldn't go right now. I would go and just smile right. Uh I assume they're serving Crow. >> It's It's easier to be a gracious winner. I suppose >> it's real easy to be a gracious winner and I am gracious. I thanked the president for signing my bill and I put a copy of it on the wall of my office and we're very thankful. We're very gracious. >> But we're not invited to the White House Christmas party and that's okay. Uh, you know, I'm newly married. My wife definitely didn't marry me as a congressman to be invited to all the dinner parties up here in Washington DC because we don't get invited to them. pro probably just as well. But but I have to talk about the the the process and the procedure just for a second because I think it's it's a historical anonym an anonymally. I can't say that word. >> Anomaly. >> Thank you. >> You told me. And now mine's got water in it. I think yours has vodka. Wow, this is I just got back from Europe, so it's actually happy hour where I'm >> you know, you can drink clear liquid on the floor of the house, but you can't drink anything that's got any color to it. And I think that's discriminatory against bourbon. You know, bourbon is brown. >> Yeah. >> But >> another attack on the Commonwealth of Kentucky. >> Absolutely. Vile, vicious attack on my state's products. Let's take one more long pole of my >> anomaly >> water. Um, it's it's it's it's extremely unusual to have a discharge petition get to 218 votes and come out of the House. And it's probably even more unusual to have it um pass so quickly through the Senate. Um, >> the Senate passed it before it got there. >> Yeah. >> I've never seen this. Right. Usually we're stuck here, you know, before Christmas and they're like, "Well, we're going to be here another three days." And we're like, "Why?" And this, "Well, it takes three days to pass anything in the Senate." And this bill didn't take three days. It didn't even take one second. Because what the senators decided to do, they saw what an ass whipping the speaker took on this for five months. just total stupidity to stand in front of this freight train of the American people and get run over for five straight months, stand in front of the victims and justice and you know a guy who's supposed to be for family values taken up for pedophiles. And the senator saw that this thing play out for 5 months. And as soon as it passed the House 427 to1, Speaker Johnson assured everybody that this would get modified in the Senate, that it was a terrible piece of legislation and that we just we just needed to get it through and that the Senate would fix it. Well, what did the Senate do? John Thun said, "No, thank you. we think you've showed us with your 427 to1 vote this bill doesn't need any changes. And so they uh did unanimous consent that within hours of it passing in the House. We didn't even send them the bill yet. It didn't get to them until 10:00 a.m. the next day, but the night before they had a vote to say whenever the bill gets here, it's already passed. We're going to go ahead and deem it passed when it gets here. >> Yeah. >> So they passed it before they had it. I've never seen the Senate move that quickly. And then it went over to the White House and there was no bill signing and there was a lot of speculation that you know he had he has a certain number of days to sit on it if he wants. So there was speculation that he was sitting on this because there was no bill signing. The reality is he signed it the second it got there. Like once this thing move started moving it moved like a freight train after being stuck for five months. And when I was on your show back in, you said it was October, you know, the media was asking me several questions. They would say, "Well, surely Congressman Massie." Uh they they always ask me, "Is one of your co-signers going to take her name off of it?" Because there were three women, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Lauren Boowbert, who deserve so much credit. They were under so much pressure. >> They took so much heat. >> So much. They they had um uh Lauren Boowbert go over to the White House allegedly in the situation room and um but I had talked to Lauren Boowbert earlier that morning and we talked about all the lies they were saying and I think she went over there and won the debate and came back and didn't take her name off. So, my hats off to her, but the the media always thought somebody would take their name off and then they said, "Well, okay, you might get to 218, but um will it pass in the house?" Like, what do you think? I said, "Well, it's going to pass." Yeah, I've got 20 co Republican co-sponsors on this or 12 Republican co-sponsors. I've got more co-sponsors than I do signers. And how do you co-sponsor something without voting for it? So even if people are absent or don't vote or sit on their hands, um it's going to pass. And they said, "Well, what do you think the majority is?" Because you know the president can veto this. And I said, "I think we may get a veto proof majority." And they're like, "I don't know about that, Congressman Massie." And I said, "Not only may we think there'll be a hundred defectors at least, which would on the Republican side." I say defectors because this is ironic. The president described it as a hostile act to back my legislation. The White House said anybody that backs Massiey's legislation. It's a hostile act. When he he eventually signed it, which must have been a hostile act toward himself, he signed the bill. Yeah. >> But I said we could get a hundred. And I I even told a few reporters, you know, this thing could snowball and it could be a unanimous vote. Like, do you want to be one of the 30 people who don't vote for this? And so, as it turned out, it was 427 to1. And Klay Higgins took a lot of heat for being the one no vote. Uh, and I went up and shook his hand because at least he didn't flip-flop on this. >> You had a bunch of members of Congress who followed Mike Johnson's lead. He's not a good leader. He lead them he led them to protect pedophiles, which was an unsustainable position. and he led them in that direction for five months. And and some of them uh took it to heart and went in front of microphones and went on TV shows and said that my legislation was poorly drafted. These things are all false. That it didn't protect the victims, that it would result in the release of child sexual abuse material. They told all the they repeated all the lies that Mike Johnson said. And then all of a sudden one day they were after calling it dog crap for five months they were told to eat the dog crap. And Klay Higgins is like I ain't eating something I call dog crap. So I've got respect for him. >> I could see you going up to him and saying how does it feel >> to be the only no >> one guy that votes no. >> Actually I joked I said if this weren't my bill I'd probably be the own no no vote too. Which is not true. If it's good legislation I'll vote for it. it passed the Senate and the president signed it. Let me tell you what the uh and they've got 30 days to release the material at the DOJ and 30 days from signing is December 19th. So they have until midnight on December 19th. Now a lot of these disclosure bills say that you have to disclose it to Congress. And when they say Congress, they mean the speaker and the chair of the committees, which means it never gets released. So I wrote this reg leg legislation to say it has to be released within 30 days to the public. I don't trust my colleagues. Release it to the public and not in a you know in some encrypted file format that's impossible to search. It has to be in a searchable format and within 30 days. And so 30 days is December 19th. Um, we're almost we're inside of a week or almost a week away from that. Um, and here but here's what's happened. I had members of the media and even attorneys. I'm not an attorney, but they're just like legally illiterate and they would say, "But the law doesn't allow the DOJ to release these materials." and grand jury president, you know, doesn't allow grand jury material. The judges have already ruled on this. Surely you're not legally illiterate, Congressman Massie. And he said, "Well, listen, I watch Schoolhouse Rock." And here's the way I understand it. If there's an existing law and then you pass a new law and they contradict, the new law is the new law. like it overrules the old law. And in fact, that is why we took the steepest hill to climb to get this the Epste files released. Like we could have convinced a chair the chair to do a subpoena, right? And then the the DOJ just thumbs their nose at you because it's a subpoena and you could try to refer him for contempt of Congress. But is the DOJ going to prosecute the DOJ? No. We tried that with Eric Holder. Okay. and we found him in contempt and he did surprisingly he didn't refer himself for criminal you know investigation. This DOJ wasn't going to do the same thing. So a subpoena wouldn't work. Well the the speaker of the house he offered a placebo. He he wanted the members who were going around disparaging my legislation and Roana's legislation. We worked on this together. um the members who were disparaging it, they said, "Man, we're getting chewed up back home. I can't I can't pump gas without somebody coming up and saying, "Why are you covering for pedophiles? I need some cover on this." So, the speaker offered a resolution of the house to say that um everything had to come out blah blah blah. Well, a House resolution is only binding on the House. Like, in order for something to be binding on the executive branch that Congress does, it it has to pass the House and the Senate and be presented to the president. Doesn't have to be signed by the president. Has to be presented because he could veto it and then we could override his veto. Um, so the way this works, just getting back to Schoolhouse Rock, is if you pass a law, that's the law of the land. Now, the other laws that contradict it are in the past. Recognizing that principle, that legal principle, there are three cases where there's grand jury material that are interesting to the public and to the victims. Although, let me put a little disclaimer. Most of the interesting material is not in the grand jury transcripts. Most of it is still in the possession of the DOJ and the FBI in the form of interviews with victims and and suspects. Okay. There's 302. >> What do they Yeah. What what's a 302 again? >> So, I don't know why they do this, but the FBI a lot of times they don't videotape or audio interview. They listen, they do an interview and then they write down a 302 form. They fill it out and put the material there that they heard in the interview. >> That gives a little rubber band in there that lets them >> maybe fudge things. I'm not sure why they do it that way. >> Um, but that's the minimum basic. They could record it and videotape it, but the minimum basic thing they have to do is a 302. And the victim's lawyers told me that they know there are at least 20 men in those 302 forms that have been implicated by victims. And even even though Cash Mattel has testified to the Senate that Jeffrey Epstein was the only perpetrator of any sex crime associated with Jeffrey Epstein and Gelain Maxwell, >> which is it's just too hard to believe if you have a thousand victims and and nobody else was involved. And the and the victims, which we like to call survivors because they're still here and they made it through this. >> Um they've they've through their lawyers, they've told me there's more names in those 302 files. Now, if the DOJ didn't prosecute and didn't take it to the grand jury, that wouldn't be inside of the grand jury material, which is so that's why I had to give this little footnote. But, um, it is interesting. There's three cases. There was the old case against Epstein in Florida. There was the new case against Epstein for which he the first case he got a a light sentence, you know, home detention, blah blah blah, and then he went on to perpetrate these crimes for many years. and and I would say work for intelligence agencies. And then the his second conviction was in New York and um that's going to have some that's the one that put him in prison. And then there was the conviction of Jane Maxwell and these are federal prosecutions. So um the those three judges when requested by Pam Bondi's DOJ to release their grand jury material said we can't release it. the the law and precedent because of uh you wouldn't want the operating theory here is if somebody never got convicted, why would you release their name? Because it would be embarrassing and and maybe soil their character. Well, my law says specifically that you can't redact uh names and and evidence to avoid embarrassment. Like, we put that in there. So the the DOJ, Pam Bondi's DOJ, if they were sincere, I got to give them a lot of credit. I suspect something else of foot. Maybe they thought the judges would rule differently. But the DOJ went back to these three judges after being told we can't release the grand jury material. And they said, "In light of the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed both chambers of Congress and signed by the president, can you now release the material?" And guess what? Two of the judges said, "Yes, we're going to redact the victim's names and we'll give you that material in light of this new law because it overrides the old law." We're we're still That was Epstein's old case in Florida, Maxwell's uh case for which she's serving in some minimum security facility with, you know, special treatment. Um, we haven't yet, but I think we will soon hear from that third judge on on whether he ascribes the same principle. And then any other legal argument that the DOJ was going to make for their own material or the FBI's, you know, they uh is gone except for we make an exception for if it would compromise an ongoing investigation. And this is what makes me a little bit suspicious. Pam Bondi in the you know on the eve of the passage of this bill announces she's reopening the Epstein case >> for because there's new material and so they're going to do an investigation. Now they have to specifically cite why the material they're not releasing is would would comp the release of which would compromise their ongoing investigation like the law requires them to do that. I don't think they can open they could open 30 investigations and they still won't be able to uh keep all this material from coming out because it just covers it basically casts the shadow on a silo of some of this information if they have an ongoing investigation. So what we have done, I've sent a with some of my other colleagues in Congress, we sent a letter to Pam Bondi asking for a briefing. Could you come to us and let us know what the new information is that warrants opening this investigation that you said isn't warranted? And by the way, Cash her reason for opening this investigation uh implicates Cash Patel's testimony to the Senate when he said Epstein was the only criminal here. Well, and and I have no evidence of anything otherwise. Well, Pam Bondi's found something that Cash Patel didn't. And the and the and the survivors know of things that Cash Patel didn't. So, it'll be interesting to see what she and and we requested that meeting it to happen all and the date we requested has already come and gone. So, I don't know if she intends on complying with that. >> Does she have to? >> Um, she doesn't have to respond uh until December 19th and that's sort of when the rubber meets the road. And there's if if Congress passes a law and members of the administration don't follow that law, there's a generalized statute. We didn't have to write a new, you know, you can be convicted of this for this for this and serve this much time. There's a generalized statute. If you don't follow a law, you're criminally complicit. And um if they don't release it at the DOJ, they're they're criminally complicit. If it had been a subpoena, you could say they were in contempt of Congress. But because we made it a law, we took the steepest hill to climb and we climbed it and we got there. It's a it's a crime not to comply with it. >> Thank you for joining me today on Kib on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every week, my organization, Free the People, partners with Blaze TV to bring you this show. My guests bring smart perspectives on everything from current events to timeless philosophical debates. If you like what you hear, go to freethepeople.org/kol and support kib on liberty so we can continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now, let's get back to it. Yeah. And to to a point you made in the last episode, and I I want to emphasize this because it's easy for people that voted for draining the swamp and reigning in the deep state and lots of frustration that none of that is happening. It's important to note that ultimately you were able to do this because the American people demanded it and there was enough public awareness and enough public pressure. Um, so many independent journalists who could who who could maintain a narrative other than the official narrative that it may be the case that if if enough people demand it, we can get all sorts of things done. >> Yeah. this this quickly devolved as when I introduced the the discharge petition which if you're if you missed the first season of this it's a procedure that whereby if you can get half of Congress plus one to sign a piece of paper auto pens are not allowed and you have to physically be present to sign it you can't phone it in you got to go to the floor of the house to sign it just getting people to go do that you know even if they want to do it is is herculean task to hit 218 signatures. Um, if you can get 218 signatures and you can keep them on there without taking their names off, then you could force a bill to the floor of the House. And and I was able to shave 30 days off this process by using rules they didn't know I knew. Um, normally a bill has to sit for 30 days before you can start the 7-day waiting period and then start collecting signatures. What I did was take an existing shell bill that had been introduced in the first month of Congress and had been sitting there. It's just called a good government bill and it doesn't really do anything. Um, I went and found that parked car and and put the payload in it. So, my discharge petition didn't require 30 days for a bill to mature. I I just changed every word of a bill with a rule. And, you know, I had some help. They're smart people in Congress. I'm not I'm not going to say I came up with all this on my own. Um, a lot of them work for me. Um but it also comes from connections that I made being here for several years and knowing people on the rules committee and you know institutional knowledge I know where it resides and how to go find it. So anyways was able to accelerate this but what happened is as soon as I sprung this on them they first what what is it first they laugh at you first they ignore you >> first they ignore you then they laugh at you then they attack you. >> Yeah. And then you win. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We we quickly went through past the ignore and laugh stage to within a matter of days the White House had emissaries on Capitol Hill trying to uh Jeff Freeland is one for instance he was I ran into him on the street and I said I don't begrudge you doing your job. I understand you're doing this why you're doing this and he said you're you're just moving too fast for me. I said, 'Well, I made a mistake. I got 12 co-sponsors before I put this in the hopper, and now you know which 12 people to whip. And he kind of laughed and I said, 'Look, we'll be on we'll be on the same side 90% of the time. This is just one of those 10% of the time where we're not on the same side. And so I don't I've never other than that one exchange, I don't really have any uh interactions with him. I have no ill will toward him because he was doing his job. But he he was sent over there and he was running around trying to keep people from signing it or get people take their name off and the names locked in. I had three and I needed two more and it was siege warfare and when everything like when the concrete set up and I had 216 names and I wasn't going to get any more the media thought well that's the end of Massiey's run. But what we knew and I didn't say for several days is there were three vacancies of turnover in Congress and all we needed was for two of those to get filled and I would get to 218. So it killed me not to tell people we had already actually got to 218. But Speaker Johnson drugged this out for it's like five months. It was siege warfare for five months. No no side gained anymore. Um but then I gained one at you know a few months in I gained one. A few more months in I gained the other. The the speaker was able to uh delay that by 50 days which is unprecedented. He refused to sign in a new swear in a new member of Congress. He said well we're only the government's shut down and we're only having proform sessions. I've never been in a government shutdown where Congress also quits working. kind of ridiculous, but Speaker Johnson decided that was the best strategy just to keep everybody out of DC and not do anything. And so we have these proforma sessions every four days and uh where they just meet for 30 seconds, say a prayer and a pledge and then gavel back out and announce the next proforma session and the Senate does the same thing. That ironically that's to keep President Trump from making recess appointments. Like I don't know if he figured that out yet. Like >> I think he just did. He was complaining about it. >> I heard him grousing on a hot mic. >> Yeah, >> that's the kind of thing Susie Wild should be telling him. And she he should be over here spanking Mike Johnson and saying, "Quit having these proform sessions. You're holding up my agenda. Why am I the only one telling you this? Like there are, you know, lots of Republicans in >> You're not even invited to the Christmas party, >> right? I want to go to the Christmas party and tell Trump how Mike Johnson is holding up his agenda. That's what I would do. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, it was siege warfare for five months and the only way we could keep up siege warfare on the on the castle, so to speak, we had the president against us. We had the speaker against us. We had the AG against us. We had the FBI director against us. Um, we I would say we had Fox News against us, but Fox News didn't report on anything. It was like total blackout on this. So if you're a Republican, you don't even you still don't if if all you do is watch Fox News, you still don't know this is happening, >> right? >> Um so we had all these forces against us, but we had we had two very important things for us. And one, we had the survivors and we did two press conferences and you couldn't the the presidents was simultaneously calling it a hoax and calling it a hostile act to back this legislation while we were convened on the steps of the capital or right right in front of the steps of the capital um with these survivors telling their stories. This was they're not going away so this wasn't going away. And then we had the people calling up their congressman and saying, "What's what's your deal? We were told even by the president himself that these files would be released. Why are you opposing this?" And they had all their excuses, legislation poorly drafted, blah blah blah. And they said, "Well, what are you doing?" Well, the oversight committee is working on this. Just, you know, we got a blue ribbon panel of some experts that will get to the bottom of this. Like, they had a lot of things they could say, but the people weren't buying it. and the people kept the pressure up. And so that's ultimately when I got to 218, the reason everybody had to vote for it except for one in the House and the Senate was they all nobody's going to get reelected if they don't. Some of them did it because it was the right thing. Um they should have signed the discharge petition and they didn't because they were scared. But and that was an act of omission. It wasn't commission. Once you and I kept trying to explain this to the reporters is it's you don't get you don't get in trouble for not doing something w with voters like most of my colleagues don't they can sit on their hands and not do something but it's when you have to do something you either have to vote yes or no if you do the wrong thing that's when you get in trouble and so really what Roana and I did was to force them into a spot where they had to do something. They either they could have all voted no. This could have gone down in flames. But when they were forced to do something, they did the right thing. Not all of them because they were convicted in their hearts to do the right thing. Most of them because they knew they couldn't get reelected if they didn't. >> Yeah. Um, you got a heart out coming up in a couple minutes, but I want to give a shout out to Marjgerie Taylor Green, your your friend and colleague, who appears to have paid quite a price for what she what she did to be that. She and your other Republican colleagues were all the 218th vote. >> And for reasons I don't fully understand, Trump has really gone after her. It's gotten quite nasty. and he's still attacking her after she announced she's going to leave. >> Yeah. >> Um it's it's really low class like to then he's called her a traitor. You know, I've received death threats from the left and Marjory's received death threats from the left and and some of these are incredible. I mean, they've resulted in arrests. Um and um but it's a new thing to receive death threats from the right. And that was happening to Marjorie and to her children. And Marjorie is is a successful woman. She's a business person. There's this totally fake narrative that through some kind of insider trading she's gotten rich since she got to Congress. No, she succeeded in business by by, you know, treating customers right and hiring people and signing the front of the paycheck instead of the back of the paycheck. And um and you can go look at her financial disclosure forms like that's that's where she made her money. So, and then there's also been this recent argument that she should leave right now. She shouldn't wait until the end of this year because that mysteriously aligns with the five-year vesting period of her pension that, you know, a congressional pension. It's what she's going to draw isn't that much. And I discovered when I came to Congress, you're forced to pay into it if you're in the House. In the Senate, senators can opt out of that congressional plan. Um, and it's it's the it's actually the same for all federal employees, but congressmen participate in the same. It's called FURs. Um, so I introduced legislation. Actually, Ronda Santis and I fought over who was going to introduce it. It's called the EPIC Act, ending pensions in Congress. And so he carried it and I was a co-sponsor while he was in Congress. And when he left, I finally got to introduce it myself. But I've got two bills. One is to just end defined benefit pensions and let everybody continue to participate in the 401k type program that's up here. And the other is if we're not going to end them, just let us opt out. And if Marjorie had been allowed to opt out, I bet she would have, but since she had to pay into it, I mean, I'm defending her. Why shouldn't she draw it? Um, so but she's been maligned. that that stuff's in the noise. The the the pension stuff and did she trade stocks or whatever. She's not some insider trader. Look, they don't give me and Marjorie the inside information. I guarantee you that. If there's if there any stock tips, they they would give us the fake ones. Um and we would lose our ass betting on the things that the leader and the chairman told us to bet on. >> Yeah. >> Um I and I understand why she left. So, she's successful. She's getting death threats. Her kids are getting death threats. She took up for the president when nobody else would. She was dragged into a courtroom and testified. I mean, they've tried to criminally convict her. She succeeded every time because they underestimated her. And even the people that elected Trump did not appreciate her enough. I she gave me a heads up before, you know, she announced publicly and for about 15 seconds I I thought about begging her to stay. And then I realized I would never do that to a friend. And I told her, you're too good of a friend. like I understand exactly why you're doing it and I I don't blame you and you you'll be a lot you'll be a lot healthier. Um and maybe and I I hope people learn a lesson from it. uh that, you know, they're they're losing the strongest MAGA legislator who's ever been elected to Congress and the strongest supporter of the president. And she she took some votes she didn't want to take a few times for the president. and he's has, you know, it's he has no he's expressed no thanks to her and in fact it's like kicking her on the way out. Totally wrong. Um so I don't blame her. Now people worried am I going to stick around? >> You were about to scare me because you're like there for 15 seconds I thought you were going to say, you know, I might just join you. I have joked that if they would quit fighting me, it might get boring and I would just leave. But because they're fighting me right now, especially this election, it's a referendum. It's not It's not all about me. It's about whether you can be a voice like Marjorie Taylor Green and still get reelected. By the way, I am confident that if she had run again, there were people say, "Oh, she couldn't run again." and blah blah blah. No, she's a great fundraiser. She she has the support of her people back in Georgia. Um even the people that love Trump, they love Marjorie. Especially the people that love Trump love Marjorie. And safe red district, she would have got reelected. Um but my race is it's a referendum on whether you can be like Marjorie um vote independently. And by the way, Marjorie and I didn't vote all the way exactly the same all the time. and um and still get reelected. I I say I vote with Republicans 91% of the time, but in the 9% of the time they're taken up for pedophiles, starting new wars, or bankrupting our country, I ain't going along with it. And so the question is, can you diverge from your own party? 9% of the time, will they allow that much disscent and still can you get reelected? And u I think I'm going to get reelected. I'll be outspent massively most likely. Um, but I've earned the trust of my constituents. The thing I hear the most back home is not, "Oh, I Oh, I agree with you all the time." Like, there's never a vote you've taken that I didn't agree with. That's not what I hear most frequently. What I hear most frequently back home is, you know, I don't agree with you all the time. Maybe 80% of the time or 90%. But in the in the 10 or 20% I don't agree with you. I know you believe what you're doing and you're fighting and I'll take somebody who's doing that over a rubber stamp. Somebody who comes up here, you never know their name because they never raise their head. They get reelected. They're they're um they don't really try to get things done. They don't rock the boat. They play by the rules even if the rules are broken. and they just, you know, they can get perpetually reelected like that. Anyways, that's the referendum. I can't not run because then everybody loses hope if I quit or even if I lose. And that's why I don't just have to run, I have to run and win. But I I think I can. I think my constituents uh you know, according to my own polling, they still support me by wide margins. And the president, people know he's not always right. They they know that he's occasionally he takes bad advice. Occasionally he tweets things that he shouldn't tweet. Um and you know he was wrong on the Epstein files. First he was right, then he was wrong, and then we helped him be right again. Um so you know, it'll it'll all shake out. I think I'll be back here in a year talking to you having let's see it's this time in a year will be right after November but my real showdown is on May 19th whether I can win a primary with tens of millions being spent against me. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe, and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about Free the People, go to freethepeople.org.