Watch the full episode HERE
Hey, everybody, Michael Tracey here. Glenn is not here – as you may have noticed – instead, it's me, Michael Tracey, because we are at the Republican National Convention. I've never had more fun in my life. I guess I haven't had a very fun life.
It's the final night. Trump is going to be speaking tonight, we're told. I have no reason to doubt that. But you can never quite predict the future, so we'll have to see, I suppose.
Glenn is going to be doing a live streaming, allegedly, after the Trump speech. In the meantime, enjoy many of the interviews that we've conducted over the course of the Republican National Convention here in Milwaukee, to repeat myself, lots of hot shots, politicos meandering around thinking they own the place, maybe in a way, they do. We have Marco Rubio. We have, chairman McCaul, one of the big chairmen in the House, asked all these people about, you know, lots of stuff involving topics that are familiar to viewers of the show: Israel, Ukraine, aspects of foreign policy, how would Trump in a second term run foreign policy and the like? So, it's a pretty wide array of different figures. We hope you enjoy it, and, again, allegedly, Glenn will be back sometime later tonight.
Congressman Marco Rubio (R- FL)
M. Tracey: Senator, in your view, has the strategic ambiguity policy vis-a-vis Taiwan outlived its purpose. And what do you anticipate or hope for a second Trump administration to revise that policy for a more explicit commitment to defend Taiwan?
Marco Rubio: That's a complex public policy question that probably doesn't lend itself to the hallway of a convention. Suffice it to say that it is on our national interest to discourage China from carrying out an invasion of Taiwan that would be really destabilizing and not to mention dangerous.
M. Tracey: And one more question. What was your reaction to the Julian Assange plea deal that the Biden DOJ brokered a few weeks ago? Do you view that as a threat to national security? Are you okay with the outcome threat?
Marco Rubio: Not a threat, but unfortunately, you know, we are rewarding terrible behavior. But, I mean, I wasn't a fan of it, but [...]
Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX)
M. Tracey: Hey, Congressman. Michael Tracy with Rumble. So just a couple of minutes of your time. We're with Congressman Michael McCaul, of Texas, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Correct?
Michael McCaul: That's right.
M. Tracey: I didn't even have to Wikipedia that. So, what are the running themes over the course of this Convention, since the dawn of the Trump era has been America First. How is that defined? You were a staunch supporter of the National Security Supplemental that passed in April. Is being a stalwart supporter of, Ukraine, of Israel, of the Indo-Pacific, consistent with America First as you see it? Because, you know, sometimes there's debate about that among even some of the Republican, members. So how do you square that circle? Does it need squaring?
Michael McCaul: Well, I think it is our adversary, foreign adversaries Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. If we allow them to – and they're getting very aggressive under this administration, which is projecting weakness. And that's why you're seeing wars. We wouldn't have seen this with President Trump. But, the fact is, if we allow them to take over territories, that puts America last. And my dad, World-War-II generation, D-Day veteran, you know, they won for the free world against, you know, dictatorship, tyranny, for better, you know, world, America for the next generation that's mine. So that's kind of the worldview that I have. I get the point that people care about back home. And that's 100% right. And I think J.D. Vance is right about that. But at the same time, that doesn't mean we have to be number two overseas. And I think we need to, like Reagan did, project strength and power, overseas, with our allies against our adversaries.
M. Tracey: Do you think in a second Trump administration, there ought to be a revision to the strategic ambiguity concept vis-a-vis Taiwan? Should there be a more direct, overt, policy statement on the part of the United States to come to Taiwan's, defense, in the event that there's some incursion by China? Has (our) strategic ambiguity outlived its purpose?
Michael McCaul: I think that's something we need to be taking a look at to provide deterrence against China. I just came back from Taiwan. I was with the newly elected president. The Chinese encircled the island with battleships and aircraft carriers and a blockade, which would be a prelude to an invasion, what it would look like. So that's something we are taking a look at. You know, the status quo doesn't sound right, but it does keep Taiwan and China from going to war. One of the red lines that China has is if they violate the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which calls for that status quo agreement. So, we have to be careful with that, but I think we need to give them, you know, a sign-off on all foreign military sales, $20 billion that Taiwan – we didn't give it to them, they bought it from us – and only half of those have gone into Taiwan. I think we need more of those to go in to provide that deterrence. So, we're going to be talking about a war.
M. Tracey: There are some people in the Republican coalition who at least purport to be skeptics now, maybe, newcomer skeptics of the concept of the military-industrial complex, the derisive way of putting it, but, you know, you're involved in that process by overseeing military sales. Does peace through strength, does it not require pouring endless expenditures in? Some might call them boondoggles for the defense contractors. How do you sort of manage that skepticism that might be burgeoning somewhat within the Republican ranks toward the military contractors right now?
Michael McCaul: You know, I understand that sentiment, but if you don't have a strong military, you know, we spend more percentage of GDP in the 1980s under Reagan than we spend today. I was with the Indo Pacom commander, you know, the admiral talking about the threats in the Pacific, and he doesn't have the resources. A lot of these foreign military sales to our allies and countries we want to be our allies, we can't fulfill those contracts for five years because our defense industrial base has been broken to some extent. This involves manufacturing here at home, 80% of the supplemental on Ukraine goes to manufacturing in the United States, which I think J.D. Vance would agree with and certainly Tom Cotton, I agree with that's a good [...]
M. Tracey: J.D. Vance voted against the Supplemental.
Michael McCaul: I know, I know. But, you know, manufacturing here […]
M. Tracey: So did Marco Rubio, which was a little bit odd, but neither here nor there […]
Michael McCaul: And I think he came back around. You know, Cotton certainly agrees with that premise. And I think that provides deterrence. You know, if you don't, he can have rhetoric but if you don't have the means to back it up, then what good is that? I'll tell you, under Trump, the rhetoric was helpful. I mean, he's told me personally the things when he talked to Putin, Putin knew if he invaded Ukraine, it would come at a high price. Same thing with Chairman XI. He knew with Trump, if he invaded Taiwan, there would be a high price to pay for it. And this President Biden, there's absolutely zero deterrence.
M. Tracey: What is the current U.S. policy vis-a-vis what areas in territorial Russia, Ukraine is permitted to use U.S. weaponry to strike? We were told initially it was just in the Kharkiv area. Then Jake Sullivan seemed to expand the parameters. It's just not well-defined. So, as best as you can tell, what is the current policy, what is the range that Ukraine is permitted to strike using U.S. operational coordination? And how would those constraints that have been imposed by the Biden administration be lifted under the Trump administration? Would they become more stringent under the Trump administration? What's your forecast for that?
Michael McCaul: President Trump's that kind of guy, he would let him take the gloves off, give him everything they need to win. You know, Jake Sullivan has been restricting the Ukrainians from day one with weapons systems. I had to write into the Supplemental, and even now he's restricting their use. The cross border, where all the bases are, where these glide bombs or bombers are coming across. He saw the one that killed the children at the hospital in Kyiv. That's no way to manage a war. And that's one reason the American people are not supportive, if they see it mismanaged like that. My view has always been like, general Jack Keane is like, you either get into win all into one, or get the hell out of there. And Jake Sullivan has completely […]
M. Tracey: The National Security Advisor, if viewers aren't aware.
Michael McCaul: Correct. And I think he's hurting the Ukrainians. I've met with the Zelenskyy’s team and they tell us these restrictions are not allowing us to… I think the goal here is to push the Russians out as far as they can have a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement. My hope is that President Trump will allow that to happen and then call for a cease-fire. And he's a master of the deal.
M. Tracey: Yeah. I don't know if you saw the Policy Paper. Final question. That was, Fred Flights and Keith Kellogg, affiliated with the America First Policy Institute, submitted a policy framework to Trump. And he received the report as far as, you know, certain accounts of it went and I read that Policy Paper, it actually is the diametric opposite of what the conventional media narrative would be around Trump's posture vis-a-vis Ukraine and Russia. Right? It calls for continuing to arm Ukraine. Yeah. It calls for, declaring that Ukraine will never accede to any territorial concessions to Russia. It seems like rather maximalist and not all that different from the Biden administration's, at least their claimed policy. So, are these, supposed differences may be exaggerated at times in terms of how a Republican and a Democratic administration would handle Ukraine?
Michael McCaul: Yeah. When you look at the people around President Trump, certainly one of them, you know, Mike Pompeo is very hawkish. He's very much behind – because if Ukraine loses, the United States loses to Putin.
M. Tracey: On Pompeo, really quickly, my impression is that Pompeo was one of the very few senior administration officials who Trump never had a falling out with, who remained on good terms with him all throughout that first administration. Is that accurate? […]
Michael McCaul: He spent a lot of time with the president and Keith Kellogg, a good friend of mine, he sees it, like I do, like, give them everything they need to win. And, you know, we can't allow them because China can only get Taiwan. And now, you know, the Middle East is on fire. But if you look at the people around him, general Jack Keane, same, same thinking. Robert O'Brien, former national security advisor to President Trump, we all see this same worldview and the same way. And I think that's what's going to matter at the end of the day.
M. Tracey: Finally, what was your reaction to the plea deal that enabled Julian Assange to exit incarceration, he had been there for five years, I think, under Belmarsh, in the UK, actually indicted under the Trump administration. And some deal was brokered to enable him to go back to Australia, did you have a positive reaction to that or a negative reaction to that?
Michael McCaul: I have a worse reaction to what's allowing an Iran prisoner or hostage swap for six innocent Americans and six, you know, Iranian spies and then giving Iran $6 billion. That's, that gives me a lot more heartburn, to be honest.
M. Tracey: What about, I mean, on the merits? What about the Assange development?
Michael McCaul: I haven't followed it very closely, I’ll be honest with you. I know the Wikileaks is a big deal. But, you know, I think a court of laws and verdict should be followed, so.
M. Tracey: All right. Congressman McCaul, thank you very much.
Nigel Farage (MP from Clacton, UK)
M. Tracey: We're with Nigel Farage, newly elected MP from Clacton. So, congratulations on that.
Nigel Farage: Thank you very much. Yeah, it's been a busy day. I was in Parliament this morning for the King's Speech. So, I saw the king this morning with his crown. And here I am this evening in Milwaukee. So, it's been a good day.
M. Tracey: Have you supplanted the conservatives officially yet? I know that was one of your election goals.
Nigel Farage: Yes, it was, and we better start. You know, this is the first important step. I literally had a month at this. We've made a big impact. I know we are going to reconfigure the center-right of British politics in just the same way Donald Trump has done it here in America.
M. Tracey: So, I'm a bit of a connoisseur of British politics myself. One question that came to mind as I was following the most recent campaign was you became a sensation on TikTok. In the United States, there's a controversy about TikTok allegedly being a tool of Chinese espionage. Do you see that as there is any validity to that allegation? How does that kind of dictated or not your use of that particular platform?
Nigel Farage: I'll be honest with you: I was deeply conflicted over it, deeply, deeply conflicted over it and have been for a couple of years. I came to the conclusion that this is what Gen Z does. This is what they do. TikTok is what they do. And whilst I've got concerns about the ownership, and certainly the American authorities of course are looking very hard […]
M. Tracey: Joe Biden signed a bill that, in theory, will prohibit or prescribe TikTok within a matter of months if they don't change ownership […]
Nigel Farage: In theory. Whether it happens, I mean, we'll see, we'll see, we'll see. Look, I'm reaching out to young voters, young people. I've done it partly with passion, partly with humor. You know what? Everybody's jealous of me, so, it works. And, you know, there are things in the world we can't change.
M. Tracey: Yeah. Finally, last question. Many Republican members of Congress who have spoken today believe Trump was spared, the worst of that would-be assassin's bullet, thanks to divine intervention. Did that thought ever cross your mind?
Nigel Farage: I was nearly killed in a plane crash 15 years ago. I shouldn't have survived. I believe in guardian angels. Trump last Saturday had a guardian angel. No question.
M. Tracey: All right, Nigel Farage, thank you very much.
Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-CO)
M. Tracey: So, we're with Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, of Colorado. How are you?
Lauren Boebert: Hi there. I'm doing fantastic. It is great to be here in Milwaukee at the RNC convention. President Trump, the leader of our party, has been here, has been strong and encouraging. I can't even begin to describe the enthusiasm, the excitement and the passion from the people here at this convention.
M. Tracey: So, Congresswoman, you are one of only 21 members of the House who voted against both the Ukraine Supplemental Funding bill in April and the Israel Supplemental Funding bill. Have you received pushback for the Israel vote in particular? Obviously the pro-Israel is a strong lobby in Washington. Sometimes they do intervene in primary races. What have been the political ramifications, if any, you just won the primary yourself in Colorado. What's the aftermath of that been like?
