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