Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/21/23 HEATED DEBATE: 2024 GOP Candidate Will Hurd Calls For Russia Strikes

Episode Date: September 21, 2023

Krystal and Saagar interview GOP 2024 presidential candidate Will Hurd on why he's running for president, his stances on Ukraine, abortion, 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. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at the recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to it. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145.

Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Joining us now is presidential candidate, former Congressman Will Hurd. It's great to see you, sir. Thanks for joining us. I appreciate y'all having me on. It's awesome. Absolutely. From my own home state of Texas, so it's always fun to see you, sir. Thanks for joining us. I appreciate y'all having me on. It's awesome. Absolutely. From my own home state of Texas, so it's always fun to see you.

I actually kind of forgot that you guys were- Oh, yeah. He went to A&M. That's right. There's a lot of interaction there. Giga Maggie's. Giga Maggie's. We have a big Aggie audience,

so they'll be happy about that. We always ask the same question to everybody who joins us here in the studio. Why are you running for president, sir? I think America needs a better choice than a rematch from hell between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I think we're faced with a number of generational defining challenges. The Chinese government trying to surpass us as a global superpower. The fact that every industry is going to get impacted by advanced technologies like

artificial intelligence. We continue to have a growing humanitarian crisis on the border. And our kids and grandkids are scoring the lowest on math, science, and reading in this century. These are the issues that we should be addressing. And these are the reasons I'm in the race, because we need someone that has a mix of foreign policy experience, domestic policy experience, technology experience in order to address this. And one of the things I've learned from my time when I was in Congress, way more unites

us than divides us. Most people wouldn't think that's the case if you only look at social media and watch cable news. But I think we're better together. And the only way we're gonna continue to make sure this experiment called America exists for another 247 years is if we solve these problems together. Okay. You can read a poll as well as easily as I can. Certainly former President Trump still has a very dominant position within the Republican primary. What is your sort of theory of what led him to find such appeal within the Republican base

and leads them to still really, you know, support him so strongly in spite of everything that we saw happen under his presidency, you know, a lot of broken promises, tax cuts for the rich, in spite of him positioning himself as a populist, to say nothing of January 6th, stop the steal and the, what is it, 91 criminal charges that he's facing. And didn't build a wall and made it harder for agriculture in many parts of the states. You know, the list goes on of his deficiencies. Look, he is someone, when he ran, he had 100% name ID. He is someone that has, I think,

tapped into an anger and fear of the future, and he's stoking those flames. And there's no question that he's the front runner in this GOP race. There's no question that I'm a dark horse candidate in this race. I understand that and appreciate that. But when you really start thinking and look at state by state, his frontrunner status is not as dramatic as it is in some of the national polling. And so there is a way.

We do not have to accept Donald Trump as the nominee. It's not a fait accompli that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. And it's a matter of galvanizing all those other folks who want positive actions. But we have to win, right? That's the reality. If we elect Donald Trump, and I've made it very clear, I think Donald Trump is running for president to stay out of prison. He is not running to make America great again. And if we put Donald Trump up as a nominee, we are giving four more years to a Democrat. And the opportunity for Republicans is to appeal to those independents and Democrats who are sick and tired of the direction the Democratic Party is going. And that's the upside, that's

the opportunity. And we need more people voting in primaries. Only 23% of the country votes in primaries, and that's part of the problem too. It's true. It's an important point. You're considering your dark horse status, didn't get on the debate stage last time. A lot of critics, I think, of people who are running against Trump, at least for the big race, is that you're splitting the ticket just like you did in 2016. So if you can't even get on the debate stage and you said you'd reconsider it by the fall, why not support somebody like Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, or anybody who you may agree with more, who may actually have a chance of rolling up the anti-Trump vote in the front

row? Well, I've made it very clear that by late fall, early winter, it needs to be some consolidation. So I think that's the right strategy. I think Governor Sununu from New Hampshire had articulated that a while ago and I subscribe to that. And so we're still, look, I've been in this for 90 days, I believe, one quarter. We had started with the lowest name ID and the least amount of money. And this was never about peaking today or tomorrow.

It's about peaking today or tomorrow. It's got peaking in late fall. And so we're going to continue to push this. And if your viewers, watchers, subscribers want to help, go to hurtforamerica.com and give at least one dollar, right? And help a brother out because if you want to see something different, right? And so, like I said, I'm a reasonable guy. All right. So you were saying that you see Trump as coming to power as part of an expression of this rage that not just, I think, the Republican Party, I mean, I think you can see a similar angst and anger that led to the rise of Bernie Sanders, you know, very different people with very different solutions, but I think that was a commonality. Where do you think that comes from?

And do you think that the, you know, version of the Republican Party that, you know, you've cued very closely to, do you think that was part of creating that rage through failures around, you know, deregulating Wall Street, through failures around the Iraq war, et cetera? So this rage begins with a lack of trust in our institutions. And we've seen that lack of trust. And this is not just a recent phenomenon, it's been going on for decades. And that mistrust specifically within the federal government comes from when people run for office they say one thing and when they get in office they do something else.

And so that exacerbates this lack of trust, why people are like, you're upset. Repeal and replace Obamacare, everybody talked about it, but when Donald Trump came into office, they weren't able to do it. And so that's part of the problem. And so for me, the way I've always been successful is talk about the things you can solve, right? And that's how I continue to get elected in a district that nobody thought a black Republican could win. The 23rd district that I represented for six years was 72% Latino. And when I first ran, nobody thought I had a chance. And the way I won was because I talked about things people cared about. I solved problems that were impacting the community.

And then I went around and said, hey, this is the things that I did. And so that's how we build trust back in this. And so, yes, I believe that these opinions and things that I articulate are reflective of probably a majority of the country. And the majority of the country wants someone who's actually going to solve problems and not just have some fancy slogan on TV. Well, what do you think about abortion? Do you think abortion is hurting the Republican Party today? Yes, I think it is. I'm of the opinion. I've been pro-life my entire career. If the Senate put a 15-week abortion ban on my desk, I would sign it. But the other thing, now that it's back in the state's hands, the states that are restricting this need to be the greatest places on the planet for health care for mothers, for neonatal health care. The fact that in some communities, especially black women, black women having kids in the United States are more likely to die during

childbirth than in many parts of the developing world. To me, that's outrageous. And that's an issue that, look, we can champion that. And our governors need to be pushing that. Our elected officials need to be pushing that. And so I think that's one of those issues that, you know, look, I don't think you're going to change people's opinion on this broader topic, but you can be talking about things that we can all agree on. So speaking of issues, people are very interested in big auto workers strike against the big three going on right now. You have somewhere around 75% of the American public on the side of the workers. Are you on the side of the workers? Well, I'm on the side of one, I'm not a big government Republican. So the federal government doesn't have a role in this. Two, having led organizations, you know, when the organization

benefits, the people involved in the organization should benefit, right? And so I don't know the details of the case, but yeah, if you're having a company that's making a lot of money, then you should make sure your workers are benefit. It's the worker's right. So my issue with unions, look, if you want to join a union, join a union. That's fine. Just don't force people to join a union, right, is my position on this. So look, I think- So does that mean you're in favor of right to work? Would you work for a federal right to work passage? I would not do that on the federal government side. I think there's difference when it comes to the federal unions. Now, again, I've worked with a lot of the existing federal unions, whether it's a Border

Patrol union, even SEIU. When I was in Congress, we worked closely with them. But again, if people want to be able to join a union, they should. I want to ask you about Ukraine as well. This is an interesting, so we have some polling, if we can go ahead and put this up there on the screen. We've got a majority of Republicans who are opposing Ukraine funding right now. Considering your stance on this, and if the majority of the party doesn't support it,

why do you fall on the other side? Because it's the right thing to do, and here's why, and I'll explain why. And Zelensky's here in Washington today, so it's a pertinent question. For sure. So the issue is nobody wants to see a forever war in Ukraine. Nobody wants to see a lack of accountability of the resources or the material that we send to that, right? These are things that we can all agree on. One of my long-term problems I have with the federal government, our ability to account for

dollar spend is crazy. If you want to know how much money DOD spent on office supplies last month, it would take you a year to figure that problem out. So so those two are problems however the United States of America built an international order that benefits us and when we don't defend that international order that hurts us and And and the reality is if Ukraine doesn't win and the way I define winning I was gonna say the way I define winning is pushing the Russians out of all of Ukraine. That includes Crimea and Donbass. And I'm probably more aggressive than most on that position.

And so if we don't do that and the Russians, let's say the Russians go back to February 2022. That's a win and a victory for Russia. Eastern Europe is not going to care about what Western Europe or the United States of America thinks. Western Europe is not gonna care what America thinks. The fact that Macron, the French president, this summer, I wanna say it was June, was in China talking to an American newspaper saying that, hey, America, don't make us choose. Don't make France choose between the US and China.

Ukraine losing is gonna exacerbate that problem, right? And I think the biggest issue that the United States of America is facing is this new Cold War between us and the Chinese government. So these things are connected. And I also, and again, I'm sorry for my long-winded answer. I think we would not be fighting a war the way we're trying to make the Ukrainians fight this war. So the issue is not the percentage of how much money we're spending. It's about 5% of the entire DOD budget that is going to dismantling the Russian military.

The fact that Russia has to go to North Korea to get weapons is a sign things aren't going that well. And so I think the speed at which this equipment and support goes is part of the problem. So you would actually ramp things up then, spend more, provide – would you provide the long-range missiles they're asking for? How far would you go? Yes, I would provide – so troops on the ground. Okay. But Ukrainians using F-16s. So you're saying you wouldn't have troops on the ground?

I would not have – yes. I just want to clarify on your – I appreciates. So you're saying you wouldn't have troops on the ground? I would not have. I just want to clarify on your- I appreciate you. Thank you. If the Ukrainian military uses a long-range missile to strike, not in Crimea, Rostov, a well-established Russian territory, you're okay with that? Yes. So with U.S.-provided weapons?

With U.S.-provided weapons. And the counter to that is that escalation, right? And so I think that the concept of escalation has gotten out of control. When the Iranians provided UAVs to this conflict, did we escalate against the Iranians? No. When the Chinese provided additional support to the Russians, did we escalate against them, right? And so will the Russians use a tactical nuclear weapon, right? And so will the Russians use a tactical nuclear weapon, right? Putin's rule, and we found

out what is Vladimir Putin going to do when he's pushed? We saw Prokofiev decide that. And instead of escalating, what did he do? He capitulated, right? Now he ended up killing him. He ended up killing him. Now guess what? If I was Prokofian, I probably wouldn't be flying around in Russian military equipment in Russia. No question. So, again, if we want – at the moment, is Ukraine winning? Well, the answer to that is no. Sure. But is Russia winning?

Well, it depends on what you look at. They have an industrial base. They've ramped up their defense spending. Their artillery production and all that outpaces the war. The sanctions actually haven't worked. I mean, I want to flip things around. So I believe that you served in the CIA at the time that we were at the war in Iraq. That's correct. Right?

Yes. Okay, so the Iranians were providing EFPs, these very deadly IEDs that killed upwards of hundreds of American soldiers. Don't you think that that was an attack and an escalation on our behalf? Or against us? So if the Iranians are providing Shia militias, IEDs that are killing Americans, a lot of people in this country at that time understood that as an attack or an indirect attack against us. How is it not vice versa when we're doing that to Russia? And then what would stop them from doing things similar to us? Yeah? So in my opinion, the error in that was we should have attacked the Iranian locations in Iraq. So we should have gone to war with Iran.

Not gone to war with Iran. We knew where the Quds Force was. Let's go back to Qasem Soleimani. I think the attack on Qasem Soleimani was absolutely correct. And what was the response by the Iranians in that moment? They telegraphed launching missiles at a US location that injured nobody. And then it was squashed. So in that case, we knew, so that is the example of how the Iranians were gonna escalate. And we have an example already of how Vladimir Putin is gonna escalate. And we have an example already of how Vladimir Putin is going to escalate. And so will

that force the Russians to do something more? So do you think that Russia would be able to defend if they attack something in Poland or if they hit somebody in the US and you get NATO forces in? That sounds like a nightmare. I mean, this is a nuclear nightmare. For Vladimir Putin. Well, for us too. But again, what have we seen the Russians do? And if the goal is- You may be correct. You might be correct. Just like the bet was right in terms of Iran's response to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. But if there is even a small percentage chance that we could end up in a world-destroying nuclear conflict, isn't that something that we have to take seriously?

Of course we take it seriously, but you make a calculation on whether, does that prevent you to stop from doing something? Well, we're talking here. So let's play that out. So we go to, let's say, Zelensky, for for some reason sits down with Vladimir Putin and decides to have, say, hey, we're gonna go back to February 2022. How does the world change from that? So we prevented a nuclear war, but then does that exacerbate America's role in the world? And here's why I'm concerned about this issue. Because of this order that we built, we've become the greatest economy on the world. And here's why I'm concerned about this issue. Because of this order that we

built, we've become the greatest economy on the planet. And if the Chinese government surpasses us in their percentage of global GDP, in their ability to work and increase their access to allies, that means the dollar is not going to go as far as it has as we've gotten used to it. Our 401ks and retirement accounts are not going to go as far as we expected it. Our kids are not going to have access to the best paying jobs. These are the consequences because no one's going to care about us

because there's no such thing as security guarantees anymore. There's no such things as improving a cooperation between our economies. We have no security guarantee with Ukraine. Let's be clear. I mean, we do with NATO. But essentially, you said at the start, you said, I don't want to sign us up for endless

war. You effectively, we're talking here about 24 billion. The intelligence community briefed senators yesterday. They said this is just the first of many asked. We've already provided 100 billion. The same amount we provided the Afghan National Security Forces over 20 years of war. If this is what they need on a quarterly basis, aren't you signing us up for an endless war? I mean, that's 100 billion a year expenditure for what you're talking about. Ukraine is our 67th largest trading partner. Russia is like number 25. 50% of world GDP

is China and the rest of Asia. They don't care about Ukraine. I was just in India. They could care less about what's going on in there. Shouldn't you be managing this relationship that's happening here as opposed to risking a nuclear conflict over non-security guaranteed country and talking again about something irrelevant to the global economy? Well, there was a security guarantee between us, the Russians, the United States, the Budapest memorandum when the Ukrainians willingly gave up nuclear weapons. Well, it's not NATO. It's not NATO, but there is an agreement in place.

So how is the money being used? What are the objectives, right? Like, these are all valuable questions. We should be suspicious of the amount of money that is being spent. And I'm not saying blank check or anything, but these are some of the conversations that need to be had. Now, I wasn't in the intel briefing or stuff like that, but when I'm president, we're going to be having these issues because guess what? What was the failure in Iraq? The invasion of Iraq was a failure, right?

It was a failure because it was based on flawed intelligence and you ignored information on the ground. The consequences of that was the number of deaths, destabilization in the region, and then a long-term impact on the socio-political fabric of Iraq, right? In Syria. In Syria. But there was zero plan post-invasion, right? There shouldn't have been an invasion. Of course. If they didn't need a plan, they just needed to not do it. But I agree with that, right? But if you're going to go, you need to have a plan. So in your ideal world, because this is one of the things that I just struggle to understand, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? Because what we were sold, I mean,

that's a nice thing to say, but it's not anywhere close to reality. And we were sold the idea that, okay, we've got this counteroffensive coming. Let's do what we can. We're going to ship more aid. We're going to, you know, really fund this thing to the hilt. They're going to have a chance to break through and at least disrupt this land bridge that the Russians have to cry. It didn't happen. So what is the strategy now? What does it look like to bring what has been a brutal and horrific conflict that has devastated so many people's lives? And the Ukrainians are doing all of this. The Ukrainians are doing all of this without air superiority, right?

We would never be fighting that war that way. And so the— But we're a global superpower. Sure. But we're also restricting how they can use the equipment, right? So lay that out for me. So what are you advocating for specifically here? Continue to let Poland, and again, now we have problems with Poland today, right? Because again, if I was advising today, Zelensky, or yesterday, I guess it was-

She knows, it's the Ukraine deal. Yeah, the Ukraine deal. If I was advising Zelensky, I wouldn't be saying, hey, be critical of your partners that are helping you, right? And I think that was a mistake with Poland. But give them F-16s, right? Let them use the equipment the way they want to use it. And again, so this notion that – so y'all think that if Zelensky attacks sites that he's already attacked with drones. With his drones, Ukrainian drones, not American drones. So Vladimir Putin's going to launch a nuclear weapon into San Francisco? Maybe he bombs Lviv or maybe that accidentally goes across the border into Poland and Article 5 gets anything and now we're in a full blown- Sure. Even if the nukes don't go, half a million people have lost limbs already in Ukraine.

Outpacing some of the prosthetic statistics that came out of the First World War. I've been to the graves in France, okay? We don't need any of that over here, especially over- I agree with that. I agree with that. Okay, obviously there's a lot that we could get into on this. I do actually wanna go back. I appreciate that.

Of course. We appreciate the experience. These are the kind of debates that I wish we had more often, right? Yeah, well, that's why we had this show. That's the premise. Yes, we don't have a timeline, which is kind of a benefit. Yeah, no, absolutely. I did want to ask, so you worked in the CIA. Yeah.

We've always been curious to ask somebody who was in there. Sure. Do you think the CIA had anything to do with the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Oh, I'm not equipped to answer that. Like CIA, like, official. Yeah, I don't know. No, no, no. I mean, you've worked there.

You guys have talked about it. So here's what I always say about, there's two things about movies about the CIA that kind of, like, you know, rubbed me the wrong way. It always shows that, like, when you're handling an asset, their lives is like throwaway. My one job, these are people that are giving us information to keep our country safe.

My number one job was to keep them safe. I would never do something with an asset that would ultimately hurt them. And then the CIA is going to violate laws in the United States, right? Now. Well, it's happened. So let's not be saying that. So no, no.

Let me give you a look. It was a different, you know, I started in October of 2000, right? Yeah. And so the CIA was very different from the time when we were doing things

in Central America and even in Vietnam. And, you know, my job was to stop terrorists from blowing up our homeland, right? To prevent Russian spies and Chinese spies from stealing our secrets and to put, you know, my job was to stop terrorists from blowing up our homeland, right? To prevent Russian spies and Chinese spies from stealing our secrets and to put, you know, nuclear weapons

proliferators out of business. And I always tell people, if they knew how many threats to the country, valid threats there were, most people wouldn't come out of their homes, right? But it was a job that I loved and enjoyed and got to do it in exotic places. Okay.

Well, I always wanted to ask. We got a noncommittal answer. There you go. We appreciate you joining us, sir. Thank you. Always a pleasure. And you can shout out your website. Yeah, sure.

HerdforAmerica.com. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future

where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir.

Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community.

I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an iHeart Podcast.