Speaker 1: His Riyan Thomas. Always happy to welcome to the fifty
Speaker 1: five KRC Morning Show from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and
Speaker 1: thank god for Kentucky voters. Senator Ran Paul, welcome back
Speaker 1: to the program, my friend. It's always a pleasure speaking
Speaker 1: with you.
Speaker 2: Thanks Brian, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I know, people generally have lost a lot of confidence
Speaker 1: in government for a whole variety of reasons. Our lettered
Speaker 1: agencies have let us down from time to time, and
Speaker 1: here we are pivoting over to the US Secret Service,
Speaker 1: who obviously let former President Donald Trump down. He was
Speaker 1: just a fraction of an inch away from getting assassinated,
Speaker 1: and then the failures are revealed. This so much so,
Speaker 1: Senator Paul, and I know there's a million conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: rolling around the internet about this, and I'm the kind
Speaker 1: of guy who wants to sit back and wait till
Speaker 1: the dust settles and they get my evidence. But more
Speaker 1: and more people are concluding that maybe this negligence, and
Speaker 1: I would call it gross negligence, was by design. I
Speaker 1: haven't reached that point yet, but it's so bad optically
Speaker 1: speaking that people are drawing those conclusions. What is your
Speaker 1: reaction to the failures, and what are we going to
Speaker 1: be doing about it on a going forward basis?
Speaker 2: Senator Ran Paul, without question, these failures are indefensible. They're grotesque.
Speaker 2: They're such that the average ordinary citizen who knows nothing
Speaker 2: about security as appalled to find out what happened. The
Speaker 2: police had identified this suspect ninety minutes before the shooting.
Speaker 2: He was seen at four point thirty. The shooting happened
Speaker 2: at six p' eleven. At four point thirty, they're saying,
Speaker 2: looks like he's eyeing your position up there, looks like
Speaker 2: he's learning about the structure. Well, that sounds suspicious enough
Speaker 2: to go talk to him. Had they at any point
Speaker 2: in the ninety minutes gone and talked to him, he
Speaker 2: had a backpack with him. Backpack probably weighed I don't know,
Speaker 2: ten to fifteen pounds because it had an ar fifteen
Speaker 2: innut folded up. At any point in time, had they
Speaker 2: confronted him, this would have been prevented. But even at
Speaker 2: the very end, let's say the ninety minutes goes on,
Speaker 2: you getting to the point where he's now in the roof.
Speaker 2: He gets on the roof at six oh six, shooting
Speaker 2: is at six ' eleven. He hasked to traverse about
Speaker 2: fifty yards on the roof. There's four buildings that are
Speaker 2: joined by roof, but you have to go up and
Speaker 2: down a little bit. You go down five feet here,
Speaker 2: up five feet there. And he's basically, I got a
Speaker 2: run across, you know, about fifty yards worth of roof.
Speaker 2: He does that, and so at six he gets on
Speaker 2: the roof. At six oh six, within about a minute
Speaker 2: or so, a brown six oh six. The crowd is shouting,
Speaker 2: man on the roof, Man on the roof. At six
Speaker 2: oh eight, police saying, man on a roof, man on
Speaker 2: a roof. They still don't see a gun because he's
Speaker 2: triedly gotten his backpack and he hadn't assembled the gun yet.
Speaker 2: But at six oh eight, so man on a roof
Speaker 2: at six oh eight. Now the police know at six
Speaker 2: oh eight it's three more minutes to the shooting. Why
Speaker 2: in the world would there not be an all points
Speaker 2: bulletin broadcast potential shooter on the roof, take the president
Speaker 2: off the stage and hit three minutes. That's that's a
Speaker 2: long time. That's an enormous amount of time to take
Speaker 2: him off the stage. Now they still probably can't shoot
Speaker 2: this person. They haven't seen a weapon yet, but by golly,
Speaker 2: somebody on the roof is potentially an assassin, and uh,
Speaker 2: you know, it's just inexcusable at every turn. The first
Speaker 2: Secret Service director was a complete imbecile, a complete uh
Speaker 2: you know, uh, completely unrepresentative of what good people would
Speaker 2: do in the situation. She wouldn't answer any questions, and
Speaker 2: she was she was fired finally, or she resigned. The
Speaker 2: new director came in and testified before my committee, and
Speaker 2: there's certain things that are encouraged about him. He seems
Speaker 2: more you know, military, he's a career, uh you know,
Speaker 2: officer of police, officer, Secret Service officer, and he says
Speaker 2: it will be accountability. He has a disciplinary hearing, and
Speaker 2: on the face of that, Doll was very good, but
Speaker 2: also during the hearing he kind of pointed fingers at
Speaker 2: the local police and kind of try to blame it
Speaker 2: on them. And my point to him was who who's
Speaker 2: in charge? Who's in charge of the operation. He says,
Speaker 2: without questioning, the Secret Service, So there was at least
Speaker 2: one or two agents in charge of this. They can't
Speaker 2: do this again. They showed that they do not have
Speaker 2: the management or discernment to be in charge of this
Speaker 2: because they failed so significantly. And the thing is is
Speaker 2: even if you even if they really do claim, which
Speaker 2: the local police deny this, but if they claim we
Speaker 2: assigned that roof to the local police. When you're the
Speaker 2: Secret Service, aation in charge and you walk on the
Speaker 2: grounds and you say, oh, my goodness, he's going to
Speaker 2: stand in here and look at that roof, you know
Speaker 2: you would you would then say, no, we do have
Speaker 2: to have somebody the roof. It is your it is
Speaker 2: your responsibility. Yesterday, I don't know if you saw this,
Speaker 2: but a video came out from one of the guys
Speaker 2: that was shot in the first row behind Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I saw he's videotaping Donald Trump and you see the
Speaker 2: shooter in the background. That even more remarkable than the
Speaker 2: shooter is how close that building is. That building, That
Speaker 2: building looms so large. Now something that's a trick of perspective,
Speaker 2: I think with the photography, but that building's pretty damn close,
Speaker 2: and to have left it unguarded is inexcusable. That person
Speaker 2: needs to be fired and never in charge. And I asked,
Speaker 2: I asked the director this directly. I said, you know,
Speaker 2: people want to know that that person's not going to
Speaker 2: be in charge of making decisions at the Democrat National
Speaker 2: Convention in two weeks. He says, Oh, that won't be.
Speaker 2: But then later on he says, oh, but they're still working,
Speaker 2: and you know, we don't want to reveal their names
Speaker 2: for their safety. And it's like, well, maybe they shouldn't
Speaker 2: be working. Maybe they should be on a desk job.
Speaker 2: I understand the need for a procedure or a disciplinary hearing,
Speaker 2: but they shouldn't be out there making decisions on the
Speaker 2: heels of this.
Speaker 1: Oh, without question. And I thought it was rather ear
Speaker 1: it was James Copenhaber that got shot. He's the one
Speaker 1: that took that video. But when you watch it, I
Speaker 1: mean you can see Crook's head just move right along
Speaker 1: that roof line. I mean it's like a giant red
Speaker 1: flag being waved that there's a guy out there. You've
Speaker 1: got Secret Service snipers perched behind and elevated behind Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean that had to be as a parent as
Speaker 1: is the hand in front of their faced from that perspective,
Speaker 1: yet no one saw him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just one thing after another, I tend not
Speaker 2: to want to believe that, Oh, you know, in order
Speaker 2: for a whole bunch of people to be in league
Speaker 2: and this could be a purposeful thing by government. You'd
Speaker 2: have to imagine, you know, several people all deciding that.
Speaker 2: While I do think there's Trump Patrood out there, there
Speaker 2: definitely was Trump patriod at the FBI. I just you know,
Speaker 2: can't believe. You know, we'll look where the evidence takes it,
Speaker 2: but I can't believe that there would be enough people
Speaker 2: that are going to get together to actually try to
Speaker 2: allow a former president to be killed. Now, I do
Speaker 2: think that we need to examine their reasons why they
Speaker 2: denied extra security for him. So this question came up
Speaker 2: right after the shooting, and the Secret Service was asked,
Speaker 2: did Trump campaign or Trump's Secret Service detail asked for
Speaker 2: extra security? And the answer explicitly from the Secret Service
Speaker 2: was no. And we put that up there yesterday and
Speaker 2: we said we now know this to be untrue, and
Speaker 2: the acting director said, no, that is true. That saying
Speaker 2: absolutely is true for Butler. And I looked at that,
Speaker 2: and I looked at him incredulously, and I thought, he's
Speaker 2: basically telling us that a statement that didn't mention Butler
Speaker 2: County is true for Butler County, when in reality, the
Speaker 2: question that was asked was was Secret Service protection denied
Speaker 2: at any time, not just for the one event. And
Speaker 2: so really it's a very deceptive statement if you're putting
Speaker 2: out a statement saying no secret additional Secret Service agents
Speaker 2: were not denied, and then he says, oh, yeah, for Butler,
Speaker 2: they weren't, but that wasn't in what the statement said.
Speaker 2: So it's really really deceptive parsing of words, which makes
Speaker 2: me think, oh, my goodness, this is an agency that
Speaker 2: isn't being completely.
Speaker 1: Honest with us well and not forthright with the information.
Speaker 1: And when Cheetah was testifying, and you're right, she was
Speaker 1: an embarrassment. I felt embarrassed for he was so terrible.
Speaker 1: But she would not even answer questions about the information
Speaker 1: she had at the time. She could have, you know, like,
Speaker 1: what was the first time Secret Service got noticed of
Speaker 1: this guy? I can't answer that because the investigation's not over.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, what do you know now? Change the
Speaker 1: testimony later if your report determines that, no, the first
Speaker 1: interaction was not at that time what I said in
Speaker 1: front of Congress, it was over here. Fine, you got
Speaker 1: yourself some cover, but what do you know now? By
Speaker 1: the time she was in front of the members of Congress.
Speaker 1: She had literally talked to every member of Secret Service
Speaker 1: who was there, so it's not as if she didn't
Speaker 1: have the information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is what makes people distrust government. This
Speaker 2: is what feeds conspiracy theories, is when government isn't honest
Speaker 2: and won't put things forward. It's like, it took them
Speaker 2: two weeks to tell us that there were eight bullets fired,
Speaker 2: and you know, that should have been that was known
Speaker 2: that day when they went to collect the shooter's body,
Speaker 2: there were eight casings there, and I think they knew
Speaker 2: within a day or two. They're still doing some investigation
Speaker 2: on trajectory and thing, but they knew eight shots were fired.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think they have audio of it,
Speaker 2: so they can hear the eight shots being fired, which
Speaker 2: helps to dispel any kind of notion of a second shooter.
Speaker 2: And that should be put out there and they could
Speaker 2: always say, we're still investigating, but right now, our evidence
Speaker 2: points towards there being a single shooter and the shots fired.
Speaker 2: The audio agrees with the bullet casings, and we see
Speaker 2: the evidence of a second shooter, and then that puts
Speaker 2: people at ease. You know that there weren't two shooters
Speaker 2: at the assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: Exactly right. You got to give us what you know.
Speaker 1: None of it's harmful. The investigation can continue to at
Speaker 1: least satisfy us with some information now, and that's not
Speaker 1: what we get, you know. I mean, let's face it,
Speaker 1: Senator ran Paul, if it was not for local law enforcement,
Speaker 1: we'd have very little information at all on this thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they've been very forthcoming. We've met with them,
Speaker 2: we've interviewed with them. They haven't said the lawyers. They're saying,
Speaker 2: here's the truth, and we want everybody to know the
Speaker 2: truth about this, and that's that's kind of what we need.
Speaker 2: We just need to not have, you know, the dissembling
Speaker 2: and evasion and just the typical government people trying not
Speaker 2: to basically to cover their ass more than to actually
Speaker 2: tell the truth.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do well, Senator Rampai, I certainly appreciate you
Speaker 1: joining the Morning Show this morning. Oh very briefly before
Speaker 1: we part company. You are one of the few no
Speaker 1: votes on that Internet Children Protection bill the other day,
Speaker 1: and I from my perspective, I certainly understand why you're
Speaker 1: a no vote, But ninety three to three or something
Speaker 1: had passed. I just want to know, if you could articulately,
Speaker 1: briefly for my listeners your explanation as to why it
Speaker 1: was not worthy of your vote.
Speaker 2: This bill sets up something called the Children's Online Safety Committee.
Speaker 2: The Children's Online Safety Committee will then be tasked with
Speaker 2: trying to regulate any kind of content that causes anxiety
Speaker 2: in teenagers. So let's say there's a fifteen year old
Speaker 2: girl and she's pregnant, and she's trying to decide whether
Speaker 2: to keep the baby or have an abortion. And so
Speaker 2: let's say you're on the pro life side where I am,
Speaker 2: and they're pregnancy cent that would be have information out there.
Speaker 2: But let's say her mother wants her to have an abortion,
Speaker 2: and her mother says, this pregnancy center shouldn't be allowed
Speaker 2: to broadcast this because it's causing my child anxiety. To
Speaker 2: we ban the pregnancy center on the other side of it,
Speaker 2: what if she, you know, is you know the reproductive
Speaker 2: health abortion people, you know, should that be banned and
Speaker 2: she shouldn't be allowed to hear about that because she's
Speaker 2: really pro life and that is upsetting her and calls
Speaker 2: her anxiety. I mean, it's kind of crazy that we'd
Speaker 2: let government regulate things to cost teenagers anxiety. The most
Speaker 2: famous case is Greta Thunberg, that foolish girl from Europe
Speaker 2: who was crazy about climate alarmism. I think the world's
Speaker 2: going to end. She didn't eat for a year because
Speaker 2: she's anxious about the climate. Harvard did a study in
Speaker 2: sixty five percent of young people between the ages of
Speaker 2: fifteen and thirty say that they're anxious enough about the
Speaker 2: climate that it affects their daily routine. Does that mean
Speaker 2: that when I tell them it's all a bunch of
Speaker 2: bunk and it's climate alarmism and they're exaggerators, that maybe
Speaker 2: I should be banned and the teenagers shouldn't be allowed
Speaker 2: to see my website if I say that because it
Speaker 2: causes anxiety. Either this Pandora's box of censorship. It's well
Speaker 2: intended by you know, moms who have lost kids to
Speaker 2: suicide and things like this, and it's so tragic, and
Speaker 2: everybody wants an answer for suicide. And you know, I
Speaker 2: hanging members a kid having friends who committed suicide. No,
Speaker 2: we all wanted explanations, but you know, sometimes there isn't.
Speaker 2: And you know, here's another example. I love to watch
Speaker 2: golf golf has nothing but gambling heads on now, and
Speaker 2: you can argue pros and cons of it, but you
Speaker 2: can watch it on TV. This bill would actually ban
Speaker 2: streaming of PGA golf and fan duel commercials on certain
Speaker 2: websites for fear that kids might see gambling advertisements. Same
Speaker 2: with beer. They would the screen beer commercials. So the
Speaker 2: kid can watch the Super Bowl on TV, they can
Speaker 2: watch PGA golf on TV, but they can't watch it
Speaker 2: on Facebook. So it's just this bizarre thing. It's to
Speaker 2: be a terrible bill. I think the courts may eventually
Speaker 2: strike it down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and these decisions on what is harmful or not
Speaker 1: made by a panel within the federal government is my understanding.
Speaker 2: Right, and it used to be that conservatives understood and
Speaker 2: still a lot of us do that. It's the family unit.
Speaker 2: It's the responsibility to the parents, and tragedies happen. Look,
Speaker 2: they have to put to good parents. Yes, you know,
Speaker 2: everybody tries to keep their kids from bad stuff online
Speaker 2: and keep them but ultimately the only way to make
Speaker 2: the judgment on it. You know, some parents are really
Speaker 2: hardcore them to give their kids smartphones till a certain
Speaker 2: age and that's one way of doing it. But I'm
Speaker 2: not for a rule or a law of decision. Kid
Speaker 2: can't have a smartphone, you know. I mean that's a
Speaker 2: decision each parent, sort of like violent video games. Some
Speaker 2: kids with mental problems. Violent video games might not be good.
Speaker 2: But I'm not for telling every American family that their
Speaker 2: kids can't play these games. Someone should talk about the
Speaker 2: games and whether they're good or bad, and maybe parents
Speaker 2: can make better decisions. But some things just aren't the
Speaker 2: progative of government.
Speaker 1: Gosh, I love when you make those points. I could
Speaker 1: not agree with you more. Senator Ran Paul, thank you
Speaker 1: for the time you spent with my listeners of me today.
Speaker 1: Truly appreciate your willingness to come on the fifty five
Speaker 1: Careceny morning Sure and keep fighting that good fight on
Speaker 1: behalf of all of us.