Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/26/23 EXCLUSIVE: Marianne Williamson On Ukraine, Biden, Vaccines

Episode Date: June 26, 2023

Krystal and Saagar invite Marianne Williamson to the studio for an interview on her 2024 campaign, the Ukraine War, Vaccines, Biden, Israel, and more.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. The unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Very excited to be joined today by a presidential contender and also, full disclosure, a close personal friend, Marianne Williamson. Great to see you. Great to see you, too. Both of you. Thank you.

Absolutely. So as someone who wants to be commander-in-chief, thought we would start with the breaking news out of Russia, which we've been covering extensively. What do you think that this aborted coup attempt means for Putin and especially means for the Ukraine war and our involvement in it? Well, in terms of what it means for Putin overall, we don't know all the facts yet. I mean, we went from Prokofiev's a traitor to, oh, all charges are dropped. We're sending him to Belarus. So we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes. But we do know this. We do know that Putin looks vulnerable now in a way that he hasn't during his entire tenure. And the oligarchs are watching. The people who are really in power in Russia are watching. So this definitely hurt him that way, no matter how it shapes up now regarding the specifics of prokoshen.

And that will affect the Ukraine war. I certainly think it has given a psychological boost to the Ukrainians. So, Marianne, what do you think about continued U.S. military aid currently to Ukraine? How would your policy be different from Joe Biden's should you be elected president? And do you think that regime change instability like this inside of Russia is a desirable goal? Well, the reason it's not a desirable goal is because of nuclear bombs. It's dangerous. If there were to be regime change in Russia, we don't know that it would be people who would be better for us. So any instability there, it cannot be taken for granted as a good thing for the United

States. That's number one. In terms of Joe Biden, he seems to be taking an attitude of for as long as it takes. I certainly don't think we should be saying as long as it takes. We should be putting this thing to bed as soon as possible. The issue is how do you do that? It's easy enough to say we need a ceasefire. Well, both the Ukrainians and the Russians want a ceasefire. Sure. But the Russians definitely want a ceasefire. Great. Right now. And what that means? They want. The Ukrainians say, we want to cease fire. Russians need to leave here. We should support whatever efforts might be possible. There was a time when Xi went to Russia.

We thought something big and important might happen. Zelensky said to Xi, call me. I want this. We're not living in a unipolar world anymore. The United States is not the only power broker here. Denmark, the foreign minister of Denmark recently said, we'll host a summit. He said it can't just be Ukrainian allies. It has to also be others. I think that that's really what we're talking about here. I think some people see the United States as the only power broker that matters here, and it's simply not the case. We do matter, though. We

are a significant power broker, if not the only one. Would you support potentially withholding military aid to sort of pressure Zelensky to come to the table and accept what, in any circumstance, is going to be some difficult concessions if you were going to come to a negotiated settlement here? At a certain point. I don't think this week is that point. Yeah, we're in the middle of a counteroffensive, and especially now with what's going on with Prokofiev. Absolutely, that time might come. So that time might come, but I think that the question is around the limiting principles, and what does that look for you? So obviously, you're concerned around nuclear war. We should also be concerned about the integrity of the Ukrainian regime, some of the makeup of those forces. Do any of the makeup of the forces

concern you? We've been casting them almost as a unilateral force, some force of democracy, and unfortunately that doesn't remain the case. It doesn't mean that they don't mean to be invaded. So what is your view currently of the makeup of the Ukrainian government? What are some of the things that you would look for

in terms of what a potential negotiation would look like and then what a future of Ukraine should look like? Well, first of all, I do believe that they have a right to sovereignty. Of course. I do believe that they have a right to their own free agency. And I don't believe that they would be fighting the way they're fighting if they were just agents and puppets of the U.S. State Department. I don't. I think that and I think they have a right to their country. On the other hand, sometimes in war, you don't get everything that you wanted at the beginning. And there is a point at which, listen, it's not even there is a point at which, we're

already at the point where this has to be a negotiated settlement. Nothing else is possible. I would like to see, as Europeans would like to see, this to be a settlement in which there is still a Ukraine. Now, some people and some of my opponents here seem to think that if it just stops the way it is and we just withdraw support, Putin is just this nice guy and everything will be great because he's gotten everything that he wants. That's really what we're talking about here. One of us is wrong and one of us is right. I don't believe that about Putin. I look at the Ukrainian-Russian situation within the context of a broader sense of where the world is now. This is no longer a unipolar world. When it was a unipolar world, we misused our power. We misused our power in many, many ways. We were manipulative. We were exploitative. We were militaristic. We were imperialistic, both economically and militarily.

We squandered our resources of moral authority. We squandered our resources of military authority or even military respect from people around the world. So we are now one of many great powers. We have to become more humble and realize that. I see foreign relationships the same way I see domestic relationships. Nobody owns this country. We all have to live here in this country. We all own it.

We don't always agree. We have to own it. At the same time, you don't get to invade my space. And that's how I see foreign relations as well so we have to it there has to be a deep reset of our relationship whether it's with China whether it's with India whether it's with Russia with Latin America with Africa and within that you don't get to invade my space and that's really what's happening with Ukraine. Russia feels that

we have invaded his space. Ukraine feels they have invaded Ukraine's space. I feel that they have invaded Ukraine's space. So you used the term, though, my space. So, I mean, are we saying that we have a security guarantee to Ukraine? I mean, would Ukraine ever be a NATO under your presidency? Would you entertain that? Well, even that, you know, I heard one of my opponents say, what we need to do is just make sure that Ukraine says we will never join NATO. To me, that is an example of America doing what many people on the left say we don't want America to do. I don't think that that should just be America's decision to say whether you will join NATO or you won't join NATO. I know that we're the most important player there, but we're part of a European alliance.

And I find, you know, you look at someone like Finland. Finland stayed neutral for decades, and now they've joined NATO? You know, the Europeans, you know, I was in, I just spent a month in London, and I heard several times the word narcissistic about a lot of the views of the Ukrainian war expressed by some on the American left. They said, what a narcissistic view. This is not just about you. international alliance and part of a deeply held Western alliance, then we take very seriously such issues as a nation doing what it wants to do. But at the same time, if you were to be president of the United States, your priorities first and foremost, the safety and security of the American people. And Ukraine entering NATO means obviously then we are extending Article 5

protection to the Ukrainians and saying our sons and daughters would go and fight a war to protect their sovereignty. Of course, we spend a lot more money in terms of NATO than any other country in the world. It's our nuclear umbrella that becomes involved. So there is a sort of, you know, a central position, and especially with regards to an American president, in terms of how they think about Ukraine potentially joining NATO. Because the reporting is right now that a lot of the European allies are like, yes, let's give Ukraine a specific pathway into NATO. But we also know that that was not all of it, but part of the provocation that led to this illegal war on Russia's behalf, where they felt like their sovereignty was at stake.

Well, I know that that's sort of the line. It was a provocation and they felt their sovereignty was at stake. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. So let's be really clear about that. What one person calls provocation, another person just sees as the excuse. Right. But this is an empire behaving as an empire does. Which is exactly what Russia is doing right now. That's what I'm saying. Exactly. You have to understand that they're an empire and that if you, you know, engage in things that they view as provocations, this is not a justification. It's just an empire is going to behave in the way that an empire does. Right. So in the fact that there has to be

a negotiated settlement, obviously the question of NATO, of Ukraine joining NATO as part of that settlement, it would certainly seem to me likely that there would be a... Depending on what the settlement is, obviously, it's probably not the best time

right now, anyway. So you're leaving the door open, though, to possible Ukrainian... I have a hard time with... Yeah. Even, I know what you said. You said you're the American commander-in-chief, but that's exactly the kind of thing I think

that we should not be, the posture we should not be taking. I don't think as the American president I should be making a statement one way or the other as a candidate. Yes, they should, or yes, they shouldn't. NATO chief recently came to Washington to lobby Biden for that. And Biden himself, he said, let's stay away from that.

So no, I don't want to say that they should. Let's move on to talk a little bit about Israel, which has been another subject of continued controversy and concern about how our relationship with Israel should or could change. Just a specific question, do you support a two-state solution? What is your view of the ideal sort of settlement at this point, recognizing that Israel has continued to engage in these illegal settlements, taking more and more of the territory of the occupied territories and making it so difficult to come to any sort of two-state solution? The settlements are illegal. The occupation is illegal. The blockade of Gaza is immoral and it's wrong. There is a moral flaw at the founding of the state of Israel,

just as there was a moral flaw at the founding of the United States. And just as the United States has had to deal with that and needs to deal with it, and just as they say in Black Lives Matter, no justice, no peace, the same applies to Israel. They're going to have to deal with this and there will be no justice. There will be no peace until there's justice and there is no military solution there. One of the problems we have is that we now have the most right-wing government that they've ever had. This isn't even the Netanyahu of a few years ago. So at this point, the United States needs to make it very, very clear that the basic tenor and the basic behavioral patterns of the Israeli government go against our own values, go against the values that we consider that which we should in any way support. Now, in terms of the money that is given

right now, there's a memorandum of understanding until 2028. So we take an act of Congress, actually, to withhold that money. But the United States absolutely can say that that money will not in any way go to activities such as something in the settlement, something in the occupied territory that in any way transgresses against our values. And as president, I would definitely make this clear. Biden's handoff approach there is not acceptable. So you would condition military aid based upon the behavior of the Israeli government? Yeah, like I said, the military aid, well, the aid itself is not specifically military. State Department aid as well. Yeah, so the State Department aid goes until 2028. It would take an act of Congress to change that.

But absolutely, as president, I would say this money cannot be used in any ways which transgress against our values. And I would say it, and it needs to be said. So you just leveled one criticism against current President Joe Biden. You know, how do you think he's done in office? And obviously, a lot of voters have concerns just about his age and his basic fitness to serve, concerns that he has been unable to put to bed because he doesn't subject himself to a lot of interviews. He's not planning to debate you or RFK Jr. or anyone else who jumps in the race. Do you personally believe Joe Biden is fit to serve another term as president? I think to look at a man his age and think forward four years, I think for me, it's an

unreasonable assumption that he would be at the top of his game. But to me, even if he was at the top of his game, I'm not running because he's not at the top of his game. Even if he is at the top of his game, I'm running because I do not agree with the direction that that administration is leading the country. I do not believe that it's the direction that will even be able to defeat the Republicans in 2024. And I don't think that it's a direction that is good for this country over the next four years. I feel that this country is in bigger trouble than the political elites seem to realize. I think that the rabble, what they would call the rabble, is closer to the gates of the Bastille than they have any idea. And I feel like what we're living through right now is a kind of slow motion,

it's like watching a slow motion car crash, except it's actually 2016. People simply did not realize how much pain there is out there, how much despair, how much anger. In 2016, there were two candidates who said it. Bernie said it and Trump said it. And the difference was that Bernie really meant it. And as president would have effectuated the change that is necessary. It is a fundamental change. Biden does not represent fundamental economic reform. He represents incremental change. He represents policies that are saying, given the way things are, I'd like to ameliorate your stress. And I believe what the Democratic Party should stand for and what as president I would stand for

is the actual end to the injustice that is causing all that stress. What the corporatist Democrats do, including President Biden, is we want to make your life easier to survive, easier to survive what is essentially an unjust system. We need to end the injustice. That would mean universal health care, Medicare for all type situation. That would mean tuition free college and tech school. That would mean child care, paid family leave, guaranteed housing, guaranteed sick pay, guaranteed living wage. The ship is so far to the side. We have 70% of Americans who report to CNBC that they live with constant economic stress. You know, we call it a mental health crisis, but the mental health crisis is a symptom,

and we need to look deeper at all these things. We need to look at cause, and we cannot, there's no way to overestimate the role that economic tension and anxiety plays. You have 60% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. We have one in four Americans who live with medical debt. A majority of Americans who live with debt, period. You know, the American dream used to be

that I could have a house with a picket fence. Now the American dream for a lot of people is that they will die having gotten out of debt. Right. So, Marianne, right now, there's a big debate happening right now as to whether you should run as a Democrat or whether it's more effective to run like a third party, like Dr. Cornel West.

So why are you running as a Democrat as opposed to Cornel West kind of attacking the system from the outside? Well, first of all, I don't think either choice is illegitimate. You know, if you look at American history, third party voices are very significant. You know, abolition came from the abolitionist party. Women's suffrage came from the women's party. Social security came from the socialist party. So I think it's terrible the way the Democrats and the Republicans have formed an unholy alliance over the last few years, making it very difficult for third party voices to be heard. That is true.

But I also believe that there was once a soul of the Democratic party. There was the Rooseveltian unabashed, unequivocal commitment to the well-being of the working people of the United States. We cannot allow a vision of real justice to be completely peripheralized. I'm not willing to say, OK, two major political parties, you get it, corporate power, corporate control, peripheralize any sense of real humanitarian values when they in any way challenge the corporatist tyranny that now has hold of our country. No, I'm not willing to say, I'll just stand over here and say it, okay?

If I want to do that, I can just write about it in books, which I have. They don't mind third-party candidates unless they feel that the third-party candidate could actually be a threat. And perhaps that's what Cornel West will represent. Marianne, as you probably heard, we interviewed here one of your opponents, RFK Jr., and we asked him specifically about Medicare for All.

And his response, and people can go back and watch the exact words, but it's paraphrasing here, was effectively, in theory, I support single-payer health care, but I think it's politically infeasible. You just laid out the domestic agenda that many people, including people on the left, but I think more broadly, would really support, including universal health care, including universal child care, paid family leave, all of those things. But how do you get around the fact that, you know, you're certainly going to have, even if you have basic control of the Senate, you're unlikely to have a filibuster-proof majority. You're certainly not even going to have all the Democrats on board with a more ambitious program of economic reform because of all the failures of the Democratic Party that you've laid out before. So how do you

make such an important agenda actually politically feasible? Or is that a, you know, legitimate critique? Well, you know, Bobby, when he was here, also said in that same interview, I think, I'm a free market capitalism guy. So I don't agree that his only problem with getting to Medicare for all is that he doesn't think it's politically feasible. There's something else going on there. So this whole issue of agency capture by pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, big food, I certainly agree with that. But there's more to it than just getting them out of office. You've got to change the economic structure. And as long as the corporate subsidies continue, as long as the tax structure continues the way it is, of course, it will never be feasible. That's what that's,

you know, that's what Obama said before he went in. He said, oh, I'm all for universal health care. Then, of course, once Democrats get in power, it's just not politically feasible. You were the one, Crystal, who I once heard say a phrase that just has stayed with me. We have been trained to limit our political imaginations. You don't lead from a place of what's politically feasible. A great leader leads from a place of this is what we need to do. Abolition wasn't politically feasible. The 19th Amendment wasn't politically feasible. Establishing the right of people to unionize wasn't politically

feasible. Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, desegregation wasn't politically feasible. We have become a people who acquiesce so easily to just whatever we can get. That's what Obamacare represented initially. He went from supporting universal health care to getting in there and was clearly told you can, the insurance companies will allow you to go this far. And that's what the corporate Democrats do. They try to help you out as much as they can within the space of not challenging their corporate donors. So I'm not running. I mean, I am aware that what I am saying is completely counter to the corporatist paradigm that now rules our country. However, the issues that I'm standing on, whether it's Medicare for all, tuition-free college,

greater mitigation of climate disaster, and so forth. These are the views that the majority of Americans agree with. So what's happening is that our Congress acts more at the behest of the short-term profits of their corporate donors than at the behest of even the will, much less the safety and well-being of the American people. So my candidacy opens the door of possibility. Obviously, I would need more than Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate, because the issue is what kind of Democrats, if you have Manchin and Sinema types. But people, I hope this is an awakening. And I think with Bobby running, with Cornell running, with my running, I think there is a greater awakening going on. We don't have to accept what those people are offering, what the corporatists. And just, of course, they're giving us just Trump and Biden again. It's a sclerotic system.

And we can expect more. We should. We should demand more. And that would mean, of course, for someone like myself, don't just, I figure, this is how I look at it. If this country gets to a point where they would put me in office, they would also be at a point where they would be putting some congressional people and senators in office as well. So this has to be something where people are thinking in terms of their primaries, their congressional and Senate primaries as well. Makes sense. So we had RFK Jr. on the show. You referenced just this disagreement on free market capitalism. Polls are to be believed. He's actually doing quite well. He's currently higher than you are. So why do you think that

his message is resonating? What's the biggest difference since this is clearly also another significant opponent that you'll have to get over should you want to become the primary or win the primary of the Democrats? I don't think it takes anything from his message. And it's not to show any personal disrespect, but he is a man and he is a Kennedy. And anybody who doesn't see that, I think I would say it to him. I would think he'd say, yeah. Bobby's perspective about corporate capture, how, as I've always said, we've become a government of the people, by the people, for the people, has moved to other corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. He and I agree on that. I've been saying those things myself.

We have deep disagreements about Israel. His comments about Israel, I was telling you the other day, they sounded like an AIPAC conference in 2005. His view of the border, I mean, his views of what we should do with the border in some ways are almost right of Donald Trump. So Bobby Kennedy and I have some differences. To me, you know, the worst forms of oppression that I want to talk about are not being deplatformed from Instagram. The worst forms of oppression that I want to talk about is the well-being of the average American person. During the 1970s, we had a thriving middle class in this country. The average American worker could afford a house, could afford a car, could afford a yearly vacation, could afford for one person, one member of the couple to stay home if they wished,

and they could afford to send their kids to college. There has been a $50 trillion, a massive transfer of wealth and wealth-creating opportunity into the hands of 1% of the American people. That's what I want to talk about. And I don't think fundamentalist free market capitalism, you sort of can't have it both ways. You cannot have a return to a thriving middle class without having a conversation about the fact that American capitalism, modern American capitalism has lost its moral center. Let me ask you though, because the fact that he's a man in a Kennedy isn't going to change. The fact that Joe Biden is a man in the, you know, incumbent president also not going to change. So how do you reach the people? How do you change the polls?

Listen, the American people should hear what Bobby has to say. I just want the American people also to hear what I have to say. And I'm very clear about the forces. Some of the forces that are making it very, very hard for me to be heard are also working overtime to make it very, very hard that he would be heard. But he has other megaphones. You know what I'm saying? I don't have the elite bros, you know, oh, Jack. And when he was on this show talking about, you know,

Elon said and Jack said and Joe. And, you know, I don't have that crap, right? So what do you have? Huh? I have the people that I talk to when I'm on the ground. When I'm on the ground in New Hampshire, when I'm on the ground in South Carolina, when I'm actually talking to people about their pain and how so much of American public policy contributes to that pain. So, you know, and he's smeared for his some views and I'm smeared for.

Listen, we have a system. I've mentioned it before, this political, you know, media, industrial empire. And this is why, as Bobby himself has been saying, he talks about going on podcasts, talks about shows like yours. This is how we are getting our word out. People should hear what Bobby has to say. They should hear what I have to say. They should hear what the president has to say. That's democracy. They should hear what Bobby has to say. They should hear what I have to say. They should hear what the president has to say. That's democracy. They should hear what Cornell has to say. No disagreement here. You referenced his positions on vaccines there.

Do you have a disagreement with him on the issue of vaccines? I know you expressed interest and want before for an independent review board, something that's one of his desires, but what about the underlying claims he's made here before? Well, the independent review board, something that's one of his desires. But what about the underlying claims he's made here before? Well, the independent review board, I do agree with. I stand for safe vaccines. Well, that's what he says too. And then he goes into some other things as well. One of the things that really upset me during the COVID vaccine was how little conversation was even allowed about treatment, whether it was ivermectin or hydrochloroquine. So I would notice that friends of mine would say, oh, you know, my doctor gave me ivermectin or my doctor gave me

hydrochloroquine. So I realized it was this kind of elite America that was having one conversation while the CDC and the administrations were both using the media to focus us on this idea. No, it's got to be, it's got to be just a vaccine. It's got to be just a vaccine, just a vaccine. And I think that was wrong. You couldn't even talk about a vitamin C. And there's a bigger problem that this, that, that incurs here. We have a dangerously high level of distrust now of the institutions on which we depend. And in many cases, it is the malfeasance of these institutions which has caused so much of this distrust. So let's just drill down on some of the specifics here so that people understand fully your view. Do you think that the COVID vaccines were effective at preventing severe illness and

death? I think that the American people deserved to hear the truth. I think there's a very good argument for the fact that they did. I do believe that. But I also believe that there were risks that the government and governmental agencies knew about, and they did not trust the American people to make that decision for themselves. And do you see any link? Have you been convinced by any evidence that would show that there's a link between autism and other childhood immunizations, which is one of the things that he asserts? I have not seen evidence, but remember, I'm old enough to remember that time. I remember that time. I remember Richard Lugar, who was an Indiana, a Republican Senator from Indiana. I'm pretty sure that Lugar, yeah.

He was from Indiana. And his grandson, there was autism. There was a whole conversation about mercury in particular vaccines. There was a cluster up in San Francisco. There was a whole conversation about they didn't want to spend the money to keep the mercury cold enough. So, yeah, I mean, I've heard enough stuff. Certainly you heard enough anecdotal stuff that I've always listened. I've never flipped over to any one perspective, but I have stood and I do stand for the kind of individual, non-pharmaceutically based, non-pharmaceutically funded, independent research, whether it has to do with childhood vaccines or any other vaccines. So mercury was taken out in 2001. Right. And rates

of autism continued to rise. So the idea that there was a, you know, a correlation there and that equaled causation, that seems to have been ruled out. Exactly. I guess bottom line, for your kids, would you have them, if you had little kids now and they were getting ready to go to school and they had their whole schedule of immunizations, would you get them those immunizations? Are there things, and in terms of your governance, are there things that you would do differently? How would your views impact your governance? Okay. So I have known women who were like PhDs in biochemistry, women who were not just, they didn't know what they were talking about. These were scientists

who were mothers, who back when I was living in Los Angeles, particularly, were saying, why is it that so many more of these chemicals are in ours, that there's so much more bundling compared to people in Europe? Why is it that we're taking these vaccines so close together compared to how they're giving them in Europe? And I saw firsthand how these women were demonized. I saw how they were treated like they were anti-vax. Listen, I'm running for president. I know how this system works. And I saw it last time when I ran. If you even come close to suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are not just pure as the driven snow, I see what they do to you. They've done it to me and they did it to those women. So absolutely, I would stand for independent

research. What's happening here? And Bobby is absolutely right about that when it comes to the way these industries have power. Look what's happening with our defense budget. Raytheon and Northrop Grumman and Boeing get to regulate themselves. We know how they're price gouging, whether it has to do with big food, big chemical, big ag. You have guys who represent big ag who are heading the Department of Agriculture. You have a former board member at Raytheon who's heading the Department of Agriculture. You have a former board member at Raytheon who's heading the Defense Department.

So whenever you have these agencies that theoretically are there to advocate for us, but have now become double advocates, which is impossible, that's the problem. And so, yes, pharmaceutical companies are giving too much free reign, and I want to see independent research, and that's the way it is. So to me, it doesn't sound like there's a big difference between you and RFK Jr., especially in terms of policy outcomes. I'll ask you the same

question that Crystal asked him, which is, how are you going to convince people, especially Democrats who are hearing a lot of what you're saying and associated with the right? We asked him that exact same question. And it does seem to be a thorny issue, given the way that a lot of the Democratic base does feel towards a COVID vaccine, towards childhood immunizations and more. No matter what, you're going to have to convince them what you're saying is not either cougary or is not right wing explicitly coded. many that the core sort of center, what we think of now, of the Democratic Party has such a codependent relationship with the DNC, such a codependent relationship with the Democratic establishment. Being a Democrat doesn't mean that you should give up your healthy skepticism. Being a Democrat shouldn't mean that you give up your healthy skepticism about Democratic leaders and Democratic presidents. That's what has happened to this

party. So the Democratic Party, if you're really going to be a big tent, then the Democratic Party should also be able to include people who are saying the CDC doesn't come out looking so good in everything that happened here. And that I believe that a certain kind of healthy skepticism is part of being a good citizen. And you shouldn't give that up just because you're a Democrat and the Democratic line has become something different. You have publicly had some turmoil within your campaign. I saw a report, you can confirm or deny this, that a second campaign manager has left the campaign. Can you speak to that? And can you speak to your ability to run the country when you've had trouble retaining top-level staff on the campaign?

I wish that Breaking Points could come today to a team meeting, meet the people on our staff, talk to them, recognize the consciousness there, the passion there, the beauty there, really, in an organizational sense. If you are tried in a court of law, there are rules of due process. Somebody accuses you and your lawyer says, gets to cross-examine them. May I ask who you work for? If somebody presents evidence against you, your lawyer gets to say to the judge, that's, you know, that's not okay. And the judge will say, throw it out if the judge doesn't feel it's something that jury could see. If you were tried in the media, particularly political regs, if you were tried in the court of political opinion,

then anybody can say anything and anybody can do anything. And you are sort of powerless. And they do that. And for whatever reason, they love doing it towards me. And so, I don't know, I keep hearing the song lyric, the Simon and Garfunkel song, I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers. If anybody saw the truth of what's going on there and what has gone on, I don't believe it. I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers. Now, as far as the fact that two campaign managers, one of whom now has said,

I'm willing to come back, et cetera, we're fine the way we are now. Lincoln went through 12 generals before he got to Ulysses S. Grant. Sure. You know, so these narratives are created. Once again, if somebody wants to come talk to my team and see how it goes, I've heard some stories about things going on in some other campaigns.

Oh, you should spill. We would love to hear it. You're talking to millions of people right now. I'm not who I am. Okay. All right. Lastly, Marianne, you know, what is your plan to force Biden to have to debate you all, to force the Democratic Party to have to reckon with you and Bobby and anyone else who gets in the race?

How do we, you know, because, listen, their plan clearly right now is just to shut everyone out. And even though I think RFK in particular, but you two have pulled higher than the Democrats expected, Biden is still on track to win today. So what does the plan look like for you going forward? Well, first of all, what really matters is what the people in New Hampshire have to say. What really matters is what the people in these other early primaries have to say. There are various ways, as Bobby himself has said, there are other ways to be seen other than through debates with the president. It's important.

I'm sure they're noticing that eight out of 10 Democratic voters are saying that they would like to see debates, they would like to see someone else. And I think that if this energy continues and people keep talking about it, I think it's a very unpredictable moment. Anything could happen. And if the polls of Bobby and myself continue to rise, if the polls of the president continue to fall, poll numbers continue to fall, I wouldn't be surprised if some other Democrats jumped in. And are they going to say no debates then? If Gavin Newsom comes in or

Pritzker comes in or any of them come in, are they still going to say no debates? You know, I grew up at a time when Eugene McCarthy, primary Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, senior primary Johnson, no one thought it was weird. This is a democracy. You're not just, they act like it's an anointment just because he is the incumbent. That's why we have, that's why we have elections. It's not an anointment. The people get to choose every four years. And candidate suppression is a form of voter suppression. And candidate suppression happens in various ways. And I see how that's happening here.

No disagreement here. Marianne, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Welcome back on the show anytime. Thank you. Thank you, Marianne. Great to see you. We will see you all later.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance.

Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime

podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected, showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger

than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.