JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories Explained

Moore To Consider: Welcome to Moore to consider again with Jack and Charles Charles. are you brother?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm doing all right yourself.

Moore To Consider: I'm doing good. Okay. So the show Moore to consider. So those of you that watch and ⁓ our subscriptions are certainly going up more more people are subscribing. Great. Appreciate that. I just did a show with Gerald Posner and seems like we're getting a lot of traction on that. Of course, he's very famous for writing case closed. And when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, you don't go far in that world of Kenny assassination analysis without his book coming up. And he is a major player. Now, one of the points that I'm going to lead into it with this, one of the points that I brought to him in that show is that I think it's David Kaiser, the author who wrote Road to Dallas, made the point of two major churches of the assassination, the Church of the Grand Conspiracy and the Church of the Lone Nut. And Posner is in, according to this historian, he gets labeled as sort of the one of the high priest of the low nut. He buys the low nut. Oswald did it. Vincent Bugliosi mentioned David Bellin, who was one of the ⁓ lawyers that acted in support of the Warren Commission, was a big defender, wrote a book in defense of the Warren Commission. And then he said the Church of the Grand Conspiracy, its greatest high priest, Mark Lane, followed by

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: You know, some almost 25 to 30 years later, what had been about 25 years later after a rush to judgment 1966 is Oliver Stone and the 1991 cinematic masterpiece in some people's minds, JFK, which, which I agree with Posner and we got some response on that. think it was a great movie. ⁓ and I love Oliver Stone. he's the first movie I ever saw, ⁓ at the first movie I ever saw with Oliver Stone was midnight express.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: And he won the Academy Award, I think for best picture that year. think it was his first movie. Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street. All of those spoke to contemporary America and sometimes from angles that he took in his own life. If I'm not mistaken, he was like a Yale college student, university student that went off to Vietnam, sort of mimicking or sort of the background for the character in Platoon that Charlie Sheen played. So I like Oliver Stone. And I think Oliver Stone is absolutely operating in what he thinks is the best interest of the American public to bring about, hey, there may be sinister actions at the crossroads that some of these people that run our government are not acting in the best interest of truth or the people, cetera. So I don't have no problem with him. But the argument that Kaiser made was that those that are in the church, and you can be... driven from the church. You can be driven out of these churches by having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things. It is definitely a church type atmosphere. You don't want to be excommunicated. If you're flying with the flag, you got to stay with it. And he said, in the church of the grand conspiracy, anything that cannot be fully explained means mass conspiracy. And he goes, there's another lane. And I brought this to Gerald Posner, because I think him and I are kindred spirits on this. The third lane is... All the evidence of the assassination would point to Oswald being the shooter, but it doesn't mean he wasn't involved with someone else. It doesn't mean he was put up to it by someone. It doesn't mean he did it and thought he was going to then be, you know, whisk away from the schoolbook depository and then went, ⁓ nobody came to pick me up. Like they said, they were going to, I got to run because I know I did it. And that would imply Patsy. I'm down with that. So his point was you can believe Oswald did it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: All right.

Moore To Consider: But you don't have to think necessarily that he wasn't involved with others. And last point, then I'm let you go after me here. The last point was a Gary Hart during, so when the church committee and the Rockefeller commission met in the mid seventies, they're investigating coming out of Watergate. What has the CIA been involved in? This is when it's discovered the CIA CIA had enlisted the mob to kill Castro and other things. And then March 6th, 1975 is a watershed event. Geraldo Rivera brings on Robert Groton, Dick Gregory, the comedian and activist. They go on Good Night America on ABC. I'm 13. I'll never forget this night because I'm here and they're going to show there's a Pruder film to the American public, not in just still pictures as Life magazine had done following the assassination. They're going to actually show it in motion on national TV. I couldn't sleep for three weeks when hit when Kennedy's head explodes. Seriously. And I brought up this point about young people today with video games and the rest. I was a 13 year old.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Heh.

Moore To Consider: who had never seen an image like that. And even though kids may see it in cartoonish type of figures or cartoonish type of figures and whatever they see, that was really earth shattering to people. They had no idea. They've heard descriptions, Kennedy's hit, and you see the film the first time, like I did. got the close, Grodin had stabilized the film. You see his head open up and I'm like, ⁓ my, that's what really happened. So it was earth shattering. And a lot of people saw in that video, finally seeing it nationally. It damn sure looks like Kennedy's head goes backwards, which I'm going to address at some point here and why, but his head goes backwards. Then there's a call for a new investigation. Congress gets involved. The first director, they fire the first chief counsel, then they go to Robert Blakey. They go through several years, really debunking a lot of the conspiracy theories they do a pretty good job with. Then this Dicta Belt recording. is brought in with weeks left to go and it kind of changes the whole outcome of the final findings of the House select committee. But during that time, Gary Hart was quoted as saying, you know, there's two things you have to think about with with the assassination of Kennedy. One is the how it happened. And two is the who done it. And I think he was exactly right. It has been said that was the most insightful thing he ever said. Maybe that's the only insightful thing, but Gary Hart, Senator at the time. says, I think something that's very important. There is a way it happened. And my point to you has been the chief criticism of the Warren commission from Jump Street, namely Mark Lane, and to some degree Josiah Thompson with Six Seconds. And I love Josiah Thompson. I just love to listen to him. I think he's a great, wonderful man. I'd love to get him on a show. He must be around right around 90 years, 90 years of age now, but he wrote a really famous work, Six Seconds in Dallas. Where most of, if not all of the criticism early on was Oswald couldn't do it. It's an impossible shot. No one could pull it off. And as I mentioned to Posner the other day, somebody did. There was a headshot and it wasn't a pistol up close. Regardless of what people think about William Greer, the driver, he did not shoot Kennedy. In some of the more degraded additions of the Zapruder film, when they're really grainy and they're not in the greatest of quality,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: There is an illusion that some people believe with Greer with both of his hands on the wheel is actually turning in the car to kill Kennedy. We can cover that sometime, but I hear that all the time. You know, driver did it. It was the driver, know, so there's all the different conspiracies when it comes to the how it happened, but it leaves open the whole lane of the who done it. So Charles, we've gone back and forth. And by the way, folks, when you guys, I love this guy. He's my best friend. We're best friends. Fair?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes, ⁓ yes.

Moore To Consider: But we love to get on here and argue with each other. Fair? So maybe I ruined the plot there. Maybe everybody likes that we argue, but we do argue a lot. So Charles, pick it apart. Like if I say to you, I think all the solid evidence suggests that Oswald did the shooting. You tell me why that doesn't matter.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. ⁓ Because I look at it as a distraction as to whether or not he did the shooting. The evidence specifically, which you most hear people talk about is the evidence around the actual shooting itself. I don't really care that much about that part. I'm more concerned because you had mentioned earlier the who and the how. I'm way more concerned about the why.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: way more concerned about that because there's a whole bunch of people and entities that had a lot of incentive to get rid of a lot. And they also had the ability to make it look pretty much any way that they wanted to make it look. They've done it before. It's not like anything out of the ordinary for them. It really isn't. I'm not going say this is child's play, but I mean, this has happened before when it comes to these people. So why wouldn't they do it this time?

Moore To Consider: Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I just don't, you know, I think.

Moore To Consider: That brings up an important, I'm going to say real quick, one of the people that made a comment after the Gerald Posner show made a comment about a specific murder trial. And this is true as a practicing attorney who did both criminal defense and criminal prosecution. I'm not Clarence Darrow. mean, I'm not saying I was doing like, you know, massively famous. Nobody knows me from the massively famous cases I worked on as an attorney, but I did time as a state prosecutor, Commonwealth of Virginia. And I did time as a defense attorney. And I used to. really beat the students over the head about this when I taught criminal justice. I believe there may be, and I should probably do little chat, a little, a little, ⁓ some kind of research on this. I know I think I've run into a couple of cases, but as a general rule, motive is never an element of a crime. So the most element rich crime when you're teaching it, like one of the most element rich crimes you ever have. to teach students with is robbery. It's the taking of property from a person with intent to impermanently deprive them thereof through force, threat, or intimidation or something along that line. So I used to use this example. If you were standing in front of a seven or you were walking into a seven 11, the guy goes, Hey, I need 20 bucks from you. And you're like, whatever you blow past me comes back out. Then the guy goes, Hey, if you know what's good for you, you're going to give me 20 bucks. You're like, all right already. So you give this panhandler 20 bucks. If you walked away, would you go, wait a minute? Did I just get robbed? You know, it'd be a question of did you voluntarily give the... So it could really come down to that. The cops get called in like, or what did the guy say to you? He goes, well, if I know what's best for you. Well, he might be saying, if I know what's best for you, I'll get a blessing from the creator if I give you the $20. Did he really threaten you? So that would be the question of that's literally what you come down to an analysis of the elements where all the elements met. But juries, I can tell you this, juries will sit there and listen to evidence and go, yeah,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: There were three witnesses. Yeah, the guy pulled the weapon out. Yeah, he shot the guy. Yeah, he kind of, it's actually on the videotape, the security camera. They'll see all of it. And they'll go, I don't think I know why he did it. And they might have quit the guy. Then when they're asked the jury, like, why did, why did you quit him? Cause I never understood why he did it. Are you pretty sure he pulled the gun out and shot the guy? Yeah, but they never proved emotive to me. Like it's like, they literally see all the evidence of the shooting, but they get tied up on.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: Motive is, and a good prosecutor will say, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, when you hear the jury charge, when you hear the elements read to you, motive will not be one. But if you can teach mode or you can present motive to a jury money. So if you can find the smoking gun up three weeks earlier, he told a friend, I want, I want that son of a bitch dead. Okay. That helps because it sounds like he was motivated to kill, but it's not an element. So I say all that to say most of the attack again, early on in the Warren commission.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: was over, I don't think he could have done it. So now you're accepting that yes, Oswald could have done it, could have been his rifle, ballistically matched, et cetera. Had he had a trial in Texas, they never would had to prove why Oswald did it. And one of the comments I got was made that point. You don't have to prove motivation. You just have to prove that he took a rifle, pointed it down Elm street, pulled the trigger and struck Kennedy. Now go.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I agree. Yeah, but that's why we think that's useless. That's why we think the whole argument about Oswald is absolutely useless.

Moore To Consider: What argument about Oswald?

Charles Hundley Jnr: as in him, ⁓ whether or not he took the shot or not. That's, ⁓ I really don't care. Well, I hear what you're saying, but again, on the pyramid of ⁓ the who, how, why trumps all of that. It's the why that trumps all of that. I don't understand. ⁓

Moore To Consider: ⁓ it's definitely useless into who did it. Right? Be careful with Trump when you say Trump. Right, right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It is at the top of the pyramid for the fact that there's so many entities, as I said earlier, that wanted him dead. There were so many. Because he was going to stop them from making money. Now you would say that I use a situation where, a robbery situation. Somebody comes up and robs me for my money and they shoot me because they wanted the money. That's why. And I put up a resistance to them.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's why they shot me. Well, okay, that's their motive. They wanted my money. Well, I could see the same motive with the people who wanted Kennedy dead. Why should we not talk about that? Why worry about, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, no, no, no, hold on, man, hold on, hold on, okay, hold on, hold on, but the thing is, okay, the guy shot me. Okay, that's fine, that's fine.

Moore To Consider: Okay, I don't just well let me say real quick. All right. All right. All right There's a point to be needs to be made right now, but go ahead

Charles Hundley Jnr: If the jury, that's what they want to see, fine, whatever. But the rest of us, specifically when it comes to this JFK thing, want to know why. Why? Because again, whether or not one person did it, okay, this one person did it because he just doesn't like Kennedy or whatever, that's really easy for the people who really want him dead to get people to believe. Because it takes all of the responsibility off of them. It turns all of the focus to whether or not the bullet tumbled. again, we don't really care about that. We wanna know who were the individuals that were involved in this. Because it clearly, if Oswald did it, I mean, how about this? I'm gonna go and say, yes, Oswald did do it. That does not take away the fact that Johnson, had a motivation for him to disappear. The CIA had a motivation for him to disappear. The military industrial complex had a motivation for him to disappear. Other countries had a motivation for him to disappear. I don't really care about the one individual when it comes to Oswald. Yes, sure.

Moore To Consider: Okay, Charles, I gotta jump back in. gotta jump back in. Posner's made this point many times and I get it. I'm a fan of Posner, get it, everybody gets that too, but I think you made a great point. The fact that many powers may have been aligning to eliminate Kennedy. There's the argument for the mob, there's the argument for Castro. forgot, Castro would, well, Castro knew that the US government... was trying to eliminate him. That certainly gives them a motive. Okay, listen, there's all types of powers. Here's the point. All types of powers that may have wanted him eliminated, but Posters made this point several times. I've given him credit for this point. It doesn't mean that Oswald didn't beat him to it. It didn't mean that Johnson didn't greatly benefit from Oswald not getting along with Marina and had Marina taking him back, he leaves the rifle. What we talked about on that episode. I don't know. Maybe, you know, one person in the comments after the show with Posner said, nah, I think he still would have done it. Even if Marina said, I'll take you back. don't know. Marina Oswald on the night before the assassination sort of wondered like, Hey, maybe if I just said, but something I didn't mention in that show that I want to mention now, she said it was the first time she had power over him before she was always being dragged around by whatever he wanted to do or couldn't do. And now that she had. Ruth Payne to fall back on. She's like, I got a place to stay. So I'm going do like, yeah, Lee, you're not quite there yet. Show me some more what you can do for me to be man and wife. Buy me some things, take care of some things. He's miffed. He leaves the cash he has minus just about enough to get him to the border and a bus ticket. So he seems to be disgruntled. He seems to be heartbroken. He leaves his wedding band, blah, blah, blah. So there is a chance that whoever this person Oswald is, possibly

Charles Hundley Jnr: Ahem.

Moore To Consider: would not have committed the murder had it been for her coming back. So then you'd say that he just do all that to leave a good story, to make it look like he was indifferent. We don't know any of those things, but when you bring up all of those powers that could have wanted Kennedy dead or should have wanted Kennedy dead, it doesn't mean that some rogue agent or just somebody with the death wish or whatever decided on that day.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Thank

Moore To Consider: I'm going to go do something as extreme as shooting at the chief executive. And then all these other people lined up and say, wow, that really worked to our benefit, but we had nothing to do with him. If you agree that Oswald could have been the shooter and you think it doesn't matter, you've still got to make a connection between all these agents that wanted him dead and Oswald. You have to.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Ahem. Okay, so all right. This is the one that really sticks out to me when it comes to the connection.

Moore To Consider: Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Would you, would you, do you think that Oswald worked with, I didn't say for, I said with the CIA?

Moore To Consider: I have definitely heard there was a connection, but I've never seen any concrete evidence of it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, I'm going to give you one and I really love to hear your opinion about this. Please explain to me how someone during the height of the Cold War could leave the United States, go to the Soviet Union, marry a woman whose father was a high muckety muck in the KGB. I'm sorry, uncle.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. It was actually the uncle. It was an uncle that had some connection. Yeah, but it wasn't the father, but yeah, there was a connection. I don't think it was a great connection, but.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And then just get let back into the country without being run through the wringer. Without him being paid, I said, working for that agency to go over there and do whatever.

Moore To Consider: Totally agree.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Of course, there's no question that they got work for the CIA, worked with the CIA. So that's just one. So if that's the case, and you know what they say, once you work for them, once you're a company man, you're always a company man, always. And I'm going to say that I...

Moore To Consider: I get it. Fair enough.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's a binary choice that people are presented with when it comes to this. Did he do it or did he not do it? Well, no, I'm gonna say was he part of a conspiracy who planned to do it? And of course, and especially a high level of conspiracy like this, you always, always, always have to have a fall guy, always. And what you try to do is funnel all of the information or should I say all the focus. down to a single person. That way once that single person is eliminated, ⁓ then it's a whole bunch of guessing.

Moore To Consider: Well, don't you think Ruby was on the hook? All right. Ruby kills Oswald. Somebody had to tell him to do it. Right. Okay. Well then you got to kill Ruby and some say he was killed. They injected him with cancer. He's gone by 1967. So then whoever did that, you got to kill them too.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I would say he was part of it too. Do you remember who Ruby Psychiatrist was after this?

Moore To Consider: ⁓ it was the same guy that, it was a CIA type, wasn't he, played with Manson as well? Yeah, yeah. I don't remember the name.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Exactly. That's exactly right. Yes. It was also Sir Hand and Sir Hand. Him too. ⁓ yeah. was, was, this guy was handpicked to go and talk to all of these people that allegedly were high level assassins, if you want, let's just call them high level murderers. Yeah. Okay. He was a company man. Okay. So, so

Moore To Consider: Okay. So you think he did it. So explain. right. Well, okay. Now you don't accept that. Is he on the second floor eating lunch while somebody else takes his rifle and fires the shots and then he goes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, again, man, I don't talk about that because honestly, it is focusing on the wrong thing. I'm not gonna waste my time talking about it. Yes.

Moore To Consider: You're just, okay. All When you say the wrong thing, then you tell me which one of these organizations did it. No, no, no. You tell me you, I think Oswald shot Kennedy and ran from the scene and killed a cop and got arrested. I want to know who is the organization that did it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, no, again, man. No, I will, I will. Let me, that's fine. And I agree with you. I agree with you. Can we move on from it? Dude, I agree with you. Can we move on from that and go to something else?

Moore To Consider: I want to go to something else, you tell me who the hell did it? Who put them up to it? Tell me who did it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, can we first agree that Oswald did it? Can we agree? Okay, thanks. Can we stop talking about it and go on to something else? No, no, no, listen to me. Listen to what I'm saying, man. Listen what I'm saying. It is a waste of time talking about that part of it. It is a waste of time because that is called, as I said, do it.

Moore To Consider: I think Oswald's a shooter. ⁓ so now you've accepted the single bullet theory, because you did the other day. I don't think it's a waste of time at all. think in a murder, identifying the shooter is really important. think identifying who actually fired the shots is very important to a murder. Go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And that's exactly what they want you to argue about. Something that really doesn't even matter. Let me finish, Ren. Let me finish and I'll get to that. Okay. Let me finish and I'll get to that. That is that whole thing about saying squirrel. Yeah. When you say squirrel, your dog looks and starts focusing on that squirrel instead of, or if your dog sees a squirrel, instead of right, was right in front of his face.

Moore To Consider: Who's they? Who's they? Okay. Alright. Alright. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: and he stops asking questions, he stopped worrying about food, he stops doing everything, he's solely focused on the squirrel.

Moore To Consider: Let me ask Cadets, are you focused on the squirrel?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, there's a squirrel over there, fine, whatever.

Moore To Consider: No, no, no. Are you focused on, is Charles focused on the squirrel? Are you focused on the squirrel? All right, I'm trying, okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, listen what I'm saying, man. Listen to what I'm saying, man. I see the squirrel, but I'm not letting the squirrel distract me from everything else. That's what I'm saying.

Moore To Consider: All right. Okay, so since you're not distracted by the squirrel, tell me who did it. CIA, mob, combinations of, tell me who did it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So, as I said, you were talking about motivation. You were talking about motivation earlier. If somebody robs me, their motivation is to get my money, right?

Moore To Consider: Right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. No, that's their intent to get your money. Their motivation might be they got to pay their friends drug habits.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Call it what you want. Call it what you want.

Moore To Consider: Well, I'm saying there's a distinction. Motivation would be the reason why. You have an intent. Once I pulled the gun and say, give me your money, my intent is to rob you. My motivation might be a lot of different things. I'm supporting a drug habit. My old lady needs money. Yeah, that's motivation. Motivation, even to why I picked you and not somebody else. You won't put up a fight and the other guy will. Well, that's the, that's more selection, but you go ahead. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, I'll give you that. I'll give you that. Yeah, my- My, no, I agree with you. My motivation is I need my company to make money. There is somebody, let me fix, You're making this more difficult than it needs to be, Really, you're making this more difficult. Well, the thing is I don't wanna talk about Oswald because that really doesn't, fine, he shot him. Okay, listen.

Moore To Consider: Who's your company? I wanna hear some concrete, so go ahead. The shooter doesn't matter. Okay. Who actually fired the shots and ran from the scene? Doesn't matter to this. Okay. Fine. got you. Waste of time. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, listen to, listen to, it is a waste of time to even focus on it. And the reason that it's a waste of time to focus on it, because you spend, you literally waste time and effort on why. That's the most important reason, the most important thing, why. Why would somebody want to do this? There's a whole, okay, and there's, all these forces were infinitely,

Moore To Consider: Tell me why. was lots of forces at one at Kennedy did.

Charles Hundley Jnr: way more powerful than Oswald. Why are we focusing on that? Well, Oswald was just a guy who was mad at Kennedy. Okay, big whoop.

Moore To Consider: Okay. There's no evidence he was mad at Kennedy.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay then... Okay. I mean, then...

Moore To Consider: There wasn't any evidence he was mad. He never spoke ill of Kennedy.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, so why then?

Moore To Consider: Some have said, and this is Pazner said the other day, if he'd been back at the Soviet Union, he might've been taking a shot at Nikita Khrushchev. It would have just been because he was of the nature, I'm going to be known in history. He's got to make an historical statement. The shot he took at General Walker back in April of 63. He's just that guy. He is a malcontent. hates every, when he was in the Soviet Union, they didn't do communism well enough. That's why he wants to go to Cuba. Wherever he goes, he's a malcontent. That's the argument. It's the argument that the Warren Commission made.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why? Why is it?

Moore To Consider: Which a lot of people poo poo. He was actually this really bright guy down on his luck. However, every job he had, he lost. He never was, he always felt he was smarter than everyone around him. He wasn't a particularly popular Marine when he was with the Marine Corps. was, was bullied a lot by other Marines because he's always running around telling everybody how smart he is. And, you know, he made rank and lost it. He was court-martialed. He shot himself one time when he was in a Marine Corps barracks.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Moore To Consider: A lot of stuff that wasn't really good as far as an historical record, now that all might have been, this all might have been to create a profile of somebody to fit what they needed to be the Patsy. I get it. I've heard all these arguments. I'm asking you though, who is the who behind it?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Well, again, we've done as a government done much worse for less. Medley Butler talked about this, you know, the latter part of his life.

Moore To Consider: the internal overthrow of the United States.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, not that part. I'm talking about what he did as a Marine. As in, he's like all the people that were killed, all the countries that we overthrew, all because of business. And there's a lot of people during the early 60s who had a lot to lose if we didn't go to war. And what was their roadblock? Kennedy was. He was a roadblock. They have no issue with getting rid of one person.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Okay. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And okay, what office that person holds, it doesn't really matter to them. This one person is a roadblock. We have to get rid of them. We've done it before. You're asking me to show you concrete evidence. All I'm asking is why aren't you asking more questions instead of focusing on Oswald? That's all we're asking. I don't understand why. ⁓

Moore To Consider: I'm totally lost now. I'm totally lost. What I'm saying is Kennedy drove around and opened the car. Probably not a good move. Somebody blew his brains out. Probably not, know, bad time in American history. Now for you to say that, and I'll give you one of these things. I don't know what it means. It might've all been orchestrated or it might've been setting for a later explanation. Johnson was recording phone calls. Lyndon Johnson recorded phone calls. And in the phone call. In a phone call with J Edgar Hoover, what do you think he asked Hoover days after the assassination? He's like, J Edgar, what do you think happened? it's this Oswald cat. He's the one that did it. That was the FBI's conclusion. And I didn't make this point clear the other day with Posner. We've talked around and around about this and, and I was actually doing a show, another show where I think with you, where I didn't make this clear. Yeah. It was a show that you and I did actually, where you get into this question of did the Warren commission lie?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't know.

Moore To Consider: Really what the Warren commission was put in position to do was rely on the FBI for all the investigation. They did a five volume work by December 9th and they even screwed up a lot about the shooting sequence. And right. Okay. It was a rubber stamp type of thing, but it didn't mean that these staff attorneys like Arlen Specter, Bert Griffith and others that were involved, David Bellin, it didn't mean that they weren't

Charles Hundley Jnr: I can't believe that. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: trying to do their best to investigate their individual. When they broke up to staff attorneys, it was like, you got Ruby? You got Oswald's background? You got this, you got that. They went into all these different parts of the assassination. And they then used whatever the FBI had given them. And the FBI clearly kept things from the Warren commission and staff. So it was an incomplete investigation.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: When I brought this up the other day, again, I think Earl Warren was playing the Patriots, like, let's rubber stamp this move on because we don't want World War III. As I said, I think people ⁓ like Richard Russell were probably indifferent. Screw it. I didn't like Kennedy anyway. I'm a segregationist for the South. I don't even want to show up for the Warren Commission hearings. So they're all over the map about really how much they care, but they were the ones that were doing the investigation. Yeah, it was probably an incomplete investigation. But I think they wanted to put it to bed, but Johnson's on this call with Hoover, who's really in charge of the entire investigation because the FBI is controlling it. when Hoover in in this phone, it's a recorded phone call. You can find it on YouTube when he says, well, Mr. President, clearly, ⁓ this Oswald character, bad guy, bad guy, know, bad intentions. He's the one firing the shots. What do you think Johnson then asked Hoover?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't know.

Moore To Consider: You think he was shooting at me? Do think he was shooting at me? What does that sound like?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. that he's concerned about his own life? Okay.

Moore To Consider: Yep. He might've been that egotistical, a lot of people say, but isn't that a strange question to ask if you're a part of a conspiracy to kill the president?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, I will. Yeah, okay. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: But again, he might've been doing it like, know what? Some people are going to question where their eyes are. Here's what I'm going do. I'm going to ask the FBI director, hey, do think I was in the crosshairs too? Oh no, Mr. President. right. So if it comes back later and somebody's like, Hey, we think you did it, Johnson. He goes like, well, hell, I was even concerned that I wasn't a target. I even asked the FBI director it's on a recording. I don't know, but it seems like a strange question. If I'm involved in spearheading the assassination of the guy that puts me in the head position. then it seems like a strange question to ask was I also a target?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Are you familiar with the book of Enoch?

Moore To Consider: Tell me more. I'm not. Tell me more.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The book of Enoch is one of the books that was left out of what you would call a King James version or any. Do you know why they left it out?

Moore To Consider: Okay, yeah, yeah, okay, right. Probably because it was bad press. I don't know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, because it would have called into question the rest of it.

Moore To Consider: like the birth and resurrection of Christ.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So, I mean a whole bunch of stuff in there that the book of Enoch, there's things in there that call the question a lot of stuff that's worship, if you want to call it that, in the Bible. So they had to leave it out. Okay, so how much evidence do you think the Warren Commission turned a blind eye to?

Moore To Consider: Okay, so it was okay. I don't know that they turned a blind eye or they were working. Gosh, tell me what you mean by that question.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. How much evidence do you think? And the reason I'm asking the question this way is because say, for instance, there is some evidence or was some evidence put in front of them that actually turned that focus away from the squirrel back onto them. Of course, they're going to leave it out.

Moore To Consider: Right?

Charles Hundley Jnr: course.

Moore To Consider: I know they didn't go down. I know they didn't go down certain roads. I don't. Okay. I'm getting ready to tell you one. All right. Sylvia Duran was the young lady at the Mexican or in the Mexico city at the Cuban embassy that had contact with Oswald. Some researchers have said she even had a romantic affair with him. Excuse me.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why wouldn't they? Okay.

Moore To Consider: She may have even had an affair with him, but there's apparently some contact she has with him. It's pretty intimate. And she's taken into custody by Mexican officials after the assassination. She's apparently, she's still alive and she's apparently roughed up a little bit or something like, what do you know about Oswald and whatever. So some members of that staff that are doing the investigation of the trip to Mexico city, which took place late September, early October of 63. you know, finishes about two weeks before he starts working at the schoolbook depository. They're like, Hey, we need to get to that Sylvia Duran young lady and find out what she knows. And they take it before Earl Warren, because he has to approve the, you know, the travel vouchers, whatever. He goes, no, no, no, we're not even going to talk to her. And they're like, but boss, like she had direct contact with Oswald. Maybe some of his intentions when he went to Mexico city, things he may have, and he's like, well, she's a communist. And she did, she was, she was kind of a

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: Certainly extreme leftist type working at the embassy in Mexico city. And he goes, well, you can't trust communists. Now it's in Philip Sheehan's book, A Cruel and Shocking Act. He talks about it pretty extensively. Well, that's what this whole book is great about. It gets into the inner workings of the Warren commission. And he said, some of the staff members like chief, what are you saying? But he may have come from a worldview. He may have actually come from a worldview. It's like, well, you can't talk to commies. Commies aren't going to tell you the truth. But he wouldn't approve it. Now, looking back, there's some real questions about, that would probably have been pretty prudent to try to find out what this young lady could have said, would have said, but they didn't even go down that road. Now, then again, conspiracy people could say, nah, nah, Warren didn't want to go down there and sniff around down there because he might uncover something that's not going to play well for the conclusion. Let's get out of this, blame it on Oswald, move on. and don't go down roads that might give us more information, because it might be roads that lead to bad information. Talk to me, what?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Remember the whole term conspiracy theory, theorists and theory were created by the CIA just for this reason. Just for this. Well to get people, anyone who asks questions about what the official story is alleging or they're saying that you put this label on them conspiracy theorists. And you know the whole...

Moore To Consider: CIA. For what reason? Yeah. It's a demeaning, it's a demeaning label. Yes. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And you know that whole thing about conspiracy theories? No, they're just fortune tellers because usually it ends up coming true. Okay, so they did that to get you to focus on the squirrel. They did that, came up with this term, this label to get you to focus on the squirrel and not ask any questions. ⁓ no, no, listen.

Moore To Consider: Who's they? Are you going back to the squirrel and I'm throwing to you the Earl warned as to relates to the Sylvia Duran. What do you mean? How does that relate to the squirrel again?

Charles Hundley Jnr: because you use the term conspiracy theorists say this. No, they're just asking questions. That's what I'm saying.

Moore To Consider: Okay, okay. I'll stop CT. I'll start. Give me another term. The anti-war report people.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, there's no other term. No, no, there's no anti or whatever. It is just a person just asking a question. What is wrong with asking the question? That's all it is. Don't put any labels on it. Don't put any, because how about this? I could use the same technique by saying the Oswald-only people.

Moore To Consider: Well, I... Okay... ⁓ Yeah, and I think that's a reasonable thing to call certain people.

Charles Hundley Jnr: because that's your perspective. Okay, but again, it's not either right or wrong. When you put a label on it like that.

Moore To Consider: No, I accept it brother. You're right. When I've said conspiracy theorists or anti-warn commission report, whatever, you're right. It's using a label. It's sometimes just shorthand. It's just shorthand. There are people that don't believe the Warren commission got anything right. The date and time of the assassination that is in question. Are you really sure it was November 22, 63? Are you really sure it happened in Dallas just because the Warren commission said so? So there are people that are extremely against it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: sure hand but it always had a Okay, that's. ⁓ that's...

Moore To Consider: And there are some that I think have lanes. just brought out that I think it's a deficiency in the Warren report that Earl Warren didn't want the commission or its staff members to speak to Sylvia Duran. I think that's a huge thing. His motivation. Why might've been, he really thought commies lie all the time and it might've been some higher upset. No, no, no. Cut that out right now. Cause if we get down there and we start talking to somebody that had direct contact with Oswald in Mexico city, it might go down a road. can't go. I get it. I get it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It might go down a road that we can't go that makes us look bad. So we just leave it out.

Moore To Consider: Well, you say look bad, make who look bad? Who's them?

Charles Hundley Jnr: them because well remember right I had said this before I had said this before it is a these people will circle the wagons to to to protect their own agency they will do that they will lie cheat and steal to do that they do it all the time it's part hold on a second it's part of the job so for them to say hold on man hold on hold on

Moore To Consider: Who's them? All right, all right, here's one thing. ⁓ OK. All right. All right. But you're, okay, but Earl Warren is, wait a minute, Earl Warren is answering to the CIA? ⁓

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why Whitney?

Moore To Consider: even think he's aware of the CIA. What evidence can you show me that CIA types are in there pushing him around?

Charles Hundley Jnr: that would be impossible that he...

Moore To Consider: I told you the story of doubt.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hey, I got a, I don't know if I said it last time, I got this bridge in Brooklyn.

Moore To Consider: You've tried the bridge in Brooklyn a lot, actually. You've said that before.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, I've got, and I have some oceanfront property in Oklahoma I'm trying to get rid of too. Yeah, I do. If you don't think that those people, if you don't think that that agency, yeah, has unbelievable amounts of control over government officials. ⁓ you know what, how about this? Not just the CIA. Remember what you said about J. Edgar Hoover essentially having a file?

Moore To Consider: oceanfront property, bridges in Brooklyn, whatever. I'm saying what evidence you have that the pinch, who are those people? CIA. ⁓ Alright, I just think to make a comment.

Charles Hundley Jnr: on just about everybody in Washington DC. Thank you. Then I don't have to go any further then. I don't have to go any further then. You're literally making my point. You're literally making my point.

Moore To Consider: He had a file on everybody. There's no question about that. And the mob had a file on him. I don't know what point you're making.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Are you being serious?

Moore To Consider: I'm being serious because you're saying that you've, you seem to be saying that Earl Warren made a decision to cut out any contact with Sylvia Duran or any further investigation of her because the CIA leaned on him or Hoover leaned on him whatever. What evidence you have of that? That's all I'm asking.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It makes the... No, no, no. Again, don't put this on me as to why or what was going through his head. You would have to ask the question, why wouldn't he want to interview her? Okay. And we all know that's BS. We all know that's BS. Yeah, we do. We all... Yes. We all know that's BS,

Moore To Consider: He said why. He said the communist lie. We do. We think that he couldn't have come from a worldview that, oh, and by the way, another cleanup in aisle six. The other day when we did the show together, I said he was governor of Georgia. I saw that in the replay. think, yeah, and I didn't even catch it until I watched it again. And I think Laura cleaned it up with some type of thing, but he was governor of California. I don't know. Yeah. I think in the rush the other day, but I was saying he was a world war one veteran. He was a true believer. He was the governor of California during world war two.

Charles Hundley Jnr: You ⁓ okay. ⁓

Moore To Consider: And he was sort of a rising star. The guy that he always hated, Earl Warren, was Richard Nixon. Cause he kind of short-circuited his chance to be Eisenhower's vice presidential nominee. Nixon jumps in and Nixon's young. Nixon's born in 1913. He's only four years younger than Kennedy. So he's a fairly young, he's less than 50. Right. So Warren is a much older man. So the throwback to Earl Warren of not being selected as the running mate for Eisenhower is they throw him this Supreme court nomination.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. ⁓ excuse me.

Moore To Consider: Which Eisenhower later says was the worst mistake he ever made because he went far more liberal and he loved Jack Kennedy. So Earl Warren cared about Kennedy was kind of a very left of center. Well, he leaned more left as a Republican in that time and he was from California. But anyway, ⁓ I think he could have been a man from a time in history, given the nature of when he grew up and the war he was in and

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: you know, the following World War II and, you know, the change or basically the world structure following second World War. He may have been someone that genuinely thought if you bring a communist in to question them, they'll lie. That might be really what he believes, but I don't see any evidence that any other agency leaned on him. And I made that point too. I don't know how sincere this point was I made from the book that when Dulles said, well, if you call Hoover in, to give up information about a potential connection between Oswald and the FBI. He's only going to lie. And as I stated from Sheehan's book, Warren was, wait a minute, no, he won't lie. He's the director of the FBI. Dallas was like, damn right he'd lie. Yeah. So I think that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ yeah, of course. So if both were lie, then why would you believe what they say?

Moore To Consider: Wait a minute.

Charles Hundley Jnr: If the FBI would lie and they're providing evidence to the Warren Commission, CIA is providing evidence to the Warren Commission.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah? No, they're not. They're basically just stupid around, make sure that none of their CIA stuff comes out.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ so they're going to delete stuff also. ⁓ to protect the agency. ⁓ okay. Yeah. Okay. By deleting stuff. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: No, they're just going to make sure nothing. All they do is protect the agency. Yes. They wanted to make sure. I don't know how much stuff they, maybe, yeah, maybe they burn files or shredded files. It's a time they can't just dump stuff from a computer. don't know all the actions they took. Charles, what I'm talking about is Earl Warren may have been the kind of governor, bureaucrat, soldier, and all the other things in his history that he truly believed in the whole American dream thing. And that's what I said in the illustrating in that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: point that Sheehan illustrated in the book, The Cruel and Shocking Act, he's saying that when a former director of the CIA said that a good agency guy wouldn't tell the whole truth or any of the truth, he was genuinely shocked. I'm just saying that feeds that maybe he'd also be the guy that didn't want to speak to Sylvia Duran because he genuinely believed that commies couldn't be trusted to tell the truth. I don't know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, again, I go back to Smedley Butler, two time earner of the Medal of Honor.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm all right. I'm, I'm, settle this for me now. know what am I, who am I confusing with the one that put out the fire where there was kind of a coup being run before FDR took over? There was some military.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ yeah. ⁓ Actually, he was asked to participate in this and he turned it down.

Moore To Consider: Right. And didn't he come clean to Congress? Didn't he? Right. But didn't he come before Congress and actually testify related to that? Or am I missing the story somehow? Okay. I thought that Smidley... Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm not exactly sure about that part. I just know that he was approached to do this, but he did protest when it came to the, ⁓ gosh, I'm gonna screw this up. ⁓ When the veterans from World War I didn't get their pensions, Yes, the bonuses. So Smellly Butler again earned him Medal of Honor twice.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. One of their pen- Yeah, their bonuses, bonuses act. Yeah. Right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: While he was earning those Medal of Honours, he thought he was doing the right thing, but later in life he realized that, ⁓ I was just being lied to and used. I can't see why Earl One wouldn't have fallen into the same category.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Here's a little history, Smadley, but it was highly decorated U S Marine Corps general who became famous both for his military career and for later criticizing American military intervention and corporate influence. Key facts. Born 1881, died 1940. He made the rank of major general in the United States Marine Corps. One of the few Marines to receive the medal of honor twice. He served in the Spanish American war interventions in central America and the Caribbean. ⁓ the actions in China and Mexico later in life, Butler became sharply critical of war profiteering and us foreign intervention. He died in 1940. And, know, we're not even at post-World War II yet. He wrote the short, but influential book, influential book, war is a racket. In it, he argued that corporations and financial interests often benefit. God, he's saying all this 20 years before Eisenhower on the way out. And like I said, they're not even a post-war yet. He's also known for exposing the alleged business plot. Butler testified before Congress that wealthy businessmen had approached him in supporting a plan to challenge FDR. Historians still debate how serious and organized that plot was. That's what I thought. I thought there was a connection between Butler and testify before Congress because there was a plot by someone to try to basically overthrow FDR as he came into office in 33. All right. So Butler sounds like he's yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Yeah, but my whole point, my whole point is that while he was doing what he was doing, he thought he was doing it for good. He thought that, that...

Moore To Consider: doing the things that he later criticized the government for doing.

Charles Hundley Jnr: because he realized that he was just being used. So I could see one or one be in the same way.

Moore To Consider: Gotcha. Okay. Well, I'm sure a lot of soldiers have thought that. ⁓ I'm, I listen, the experience of having being put on the commission and being made the, you know, the, you know, being chief justice and being thrown into this, heading this commission, I'm sure he was a very upset person. They said it did a lot to his health. It really destroyed his health. It was a bad experience for him. He did not want to be in, he had his whole docket. He had to deal with on the Supreme court. He didn't think it was right. And I looked up to justice Jackson was never chief justice, but ⁓ justice Jackson that served as the prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials was heavily, also heavily criticized for leaving the country to be a prosecutor in these crimes of Nazi war criminals, cetera. And, ⁓ he wasn't at his post as a member of the Supreme court and something else Earl Warren brought up. And it was very valid. What if he goes, goes and does this work at the commission and they discover. that there's some kind of conspiracy involved. I say conspiracy theorists, I'm saying an actual conspiracy. And then some people are charged. And then the charges go up the chain and then it becomes some constitutional question. It reaches the Supreme court and he's basically out. He's going to be conflicted out because he served on the Warren commission. I don't know that when he said that, well, he said that he goes, this whole thing could end up, yeah, Oswald's dead, but we don't know where this is, path it's going to take.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Wow, even better reason to put him up there. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Do I think it's possible that Earl Warren wanted to just shut this down as a national interest and move on with everyone's life? ⁓ I think that's possible. He said the truth was our only client though. He did say that. The truth is our only client.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't think that. I don't think that it was just him. I'm not going to lay all this on him to say that he was just this great person on the war commission that didn't want to drag the country through this stuff. You know, that excuse has been used a bunch when actually the country should have been dragged to figure out why this happened and to bring to justice the people who were involved. Sometimes you have to put the country through it because technically they did. They're putting the country through things. It has to stop. I could use the Epstein situation right now. We all know that if these names come out and these people go to jail, which they should, a lot of entities, agencies, whatever, they're going to collapse, but do we let it continue? Those, I mean, if this is a country of ⁓ justice for all, ⁓ they need to go to jail. else we continue having the same problems that we have. And this goes back to the Kennedy situation. Don't use or try to get me to believe that you're keeping this from me just for my own good. Now, I'm really asking questions now because how do you know what exactly is my own good?

Moore To Consider: Okay, I'm saying, and I said it in the last show and we're spinning this whole thing around again, we've gotten really deep into the inner workings of Earl Warren or whatever. mean, it's just one person put in a position that he was put in. But what I'm saying is I could understand, and this is what some historians have said, and I think it kind of makes some sense. And I think historians see things differently than military personnel, agency heads, and all the rest. Historians try to go in. But they have their bias as well. They're going to have a particular bias and probably try to push a particular narrative. They have their heroes. They have their villains. They like certain people. They like certain things and some things they don't. But I can see where some historians have said that waking up on the morning of November 23rd, just before Oswald's dead, ⁓ there already may be concerns that how do we know this isn't the Soviet Union? How do we know? My dad was in the military at the time. He goes, the whole military apparatus was on the move. People were getting called out of reserves, back into service. They were moving. The troops were moving because a killing like this of Kennedy, nobody knows what the hell this is about. They don't know. especially when they find that Oswald has a connection to the Soviet Union, had lived there, had been a Marine, had been at a Sugi Air Base in Japan, where they flew the U-2s. Francis Gary Powers was shot down in 1960. That's one of the first things people, wait a minute.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's understandable.

Moore To Consider: Did he give up some technology? Now I understand later, this is what I understand from some of my research, the Soviet Union already knew about the U-2. It wasn't anything Oswald gave up, but there was concerns because, you know, when's he coming out of the Soviet Union? About 1959. ⁓ I'm sorry. He's going in in 59. He's getting out of the Marine Corps going in. Then it's funny how right before a summit between Eisenhower and Khrushchev in the spring of 1960, Francis Gary, Francis Gary Powers is shot down. think he's a Virginia native too. And then it's kind of like Khrushchev calls them out. I think it was a UN calling out that was basically like, yeah, tell us that you don't have a U2. You know, it's basically put in the U.S. with, are you going to admit that you have this plane that we shot down, this high level? And it put the U.S. on the, not only defensive, it kind of was an embarrassing situation because they had the remains of the plane. They knew damn well that they'd shot this thing down. They wanted to see if the U.S. would come clean. So there's all these problems that come about. So when Oswald's found, a lot of people go to, wait a minute, wait a minute, this cat was in the Marine Corps where they flew the U-2 and this thing happened in 1960. How deep does this go with this guy? So all that being said, then on the 24th when Oswald's killed, now Oswald's eliminated. You could understand where some people were like, wait a minute, if we shake enough bushes and go down enough roads, we might find out an unlocked. that there are some sinister forces around the world behind the death of our president. And to tell the American public the truth could lead to a 50 million deaths, World War III exchange of nuclear weapons, et cetera. That's a real thing. That's a real thing where you could understand where people in powerful positions were like, it's best we cover this over. Oswald's dead, make him the single shooter, move on. Let's not have World War III. That doesn't necessarily.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Yeah. It's very convenient.

Moore To Consider: All right, but would you not at least accept that that's a reasonable possibility? Okay, that's all I'm saying. That's all I said the last show we did.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ yeah, yeah, but yeah, on the hierarchy of possibilities, I think they were way more concerned about what would happen here if it was found out that we got rid of our president because we wanted to make money. So ask this question, which is, which is,

Moore To Consider: ⁓ no doubt. No doubt. No doubt. Cover up for two different reasons. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Wuh-hmm. I'm not gonna say which would have been more likely, which would have been more devastating. Well, if we're using nuclear weapons, obviously that's devastating. Okay, but which would have been worse for our country?

Moore To Consider: to find that the CIA was behind it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Exactly. what do you, which one do you think they would have tried their damnness to cover up the most?

Moore To Consider: Well, there is another lane that people have discussed. It could have been members of the CIA that were willing to act in this way. And it wasn't from the head. I've even heard the Bobby Kennedy. How was it Robert McClellan? ⁓ what was the name of? I got to check this cause it's gonna drive me crazy. There was the now CIA director that Kennedy named after Dulles. And I understand in the hours after the assassination. Bobby Kennedy looked right at him and said, did you guys kill my brother? So yeah. And, ⁓ if that's true, that he now he also apparently was quoted as saying that I knew they were going to get one of us. thought they'd get me. And that was some of the also taken on the mob. They might, maybe the mob would get me. They wouldn't get Jack. And then there's the argument that the mob said, well, when you want the dog out, you don't cut off its tail. You cut off its head. So

Charles Hundley Jnr: I wonder why I would ask that.

Moore To Consider: And there was supposed to be the argument that it was some mob figure, I think said after the Kennedy death, well now Bobby Kennedy is just another lawyer. He was attorney general under his brother, but he wasn't so important. So it was take out Jack Kennedy. Then there's a whole argument that Kennedy and running Bobby Kennedy and running a 68 was like, Hey, if I get back into presidents, if I get back into the white house, I worked there kind of with my brother. If I get back there, I'm going to open up the whole investigation back into my brother's Then June 5, LA.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right. He's gotta go. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: And he's got to go. Yeah. Because he's going to kick that can again and you're not supposed to do that. So.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right, you're not supposed to open up, not kick the can, not open up the can.

Moore To Consider: Disturb the bees nest, whatever you want to call it. It was, it was McCone. So John McCone served as a director of the central intelligence agency from November 29th, 61 to April 28th, 65 during he followed the Alan Dulles, ⁓ resignation. And I do believe he was the one that Kennedy reportedly, Bobby Kennedy reportedly said, Hey, did you guys kill my brother? So it might've been on his mind for sure.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right.

Moore To Consider: Now there are also arguments that he rubber stamped the Warren commission because he knew better and he knew better to make waves at the time. They never really examined it. He never really studied. He never really cared, but he told the American public like, I agree with what the Warren commission said.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I believe that they could get anybody to do anything. Really. Yes, they.

Moore To Consider: They, they, again, when you say they universally across the show, you mean CIA. They could be generic for, yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, I'm going to say not just CIA. Remember the FBI had files on everybody too. So I'm not going to say the CIA. ⁓ and he wasn't sharing it. Well, how did he get the files? Did he go out there and do it himself?

Moore To Consider: Well, Hooverhead files on everybody, No, actually, I think it was a directive he gave his, I think there was a directive he gave his secretary. I'd have to research this. can't remember where I saw this, upon his death, go to my office and clear all the files. Yeah. I don't think he wanted anybody else in the FBI to have his files or even knowledge that there were files.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, yeah, again. ⁓ ⁓ I'm sure that he didn't go out there and get them himself. So, yeah. Right.

Moore To Consider: No, there's no doubt he had an apparatus to get it, but they were in his personal possession in his draw. And it was like, Hey Senator, Senator, whoever wouldn't it be a real tragedy if the American public knew about your affair with, or Hey, well, the story is, you know, he called Jack Kennedy in and told him. I got the goods on you. And I think Bobby was a part of this, this meeting. They were supposed to have had a famous meeting and he flat told Jack Kennedy, I got the goods on you. And he's been. putting together that file since he was in Congress, from the time in the house to the Senate, he was at a file on him the whole time because he had a file on everybody. But that was personal. That was personal. don't, I wouldn't say it didn't become an effect, an FBI directive or it wasn't, what's the term I'm looking for? It wasn't a feature of the FBI because he was director. But again, everybody, said everybody, there were forces out there that had stuff on him too.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Right, had to, yes he had to fall over.

Moore To Consider: Now, again, I've said it before, Meyer Lansky was supposed to be the boss that had a bunch of pictures of Hoover and compromising positions with another man. And that was the, and I said this in the last show, that's why supposedly when Bobby Kennedy went in and put his war on the mob, that Hoover had always been, what mob? There's no mob. I don't see a mob. Do you think there's really a mob? And I even heard a guy that was a FBI agent from 51.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm. Right, right.

Moore To Consider: until 1980, I saw him on a documentary, I remember the years, I'll never forget it. And he said he was in a morning session of his indoctrination into the school, the FBI Academy. And he's in the hallway with the guy and he goes, Hey, when are we going to get into mob stuff? And guy goes, shut up, shut up. And he goes, what? He goes, there is no mob. You don't say that in the FBI. Like literally he's like he in 51, he's in training. And he said, did they do a thing on organized crime or the mob? it's other fellow classmate or somebody else in this position of education yelled like, no, we don't say that. We don't say the mob word. Now, if that's true or not, I don't know. But he said, once he got in, he realized that's not anything they really sniffed around on. They weren't ever really going after the mob. But in large part, because Hoover knew what they had on him.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So they turn a blind eye to it. Yeah, there's so many people that have so much stuff on them that they're again willing to turn a blind eye to quote unquote justice. don't, again, that's why I say I'm not really worried about Oswald. That's exactly why I say that because there's a whole bunch of people that were literally trying to survive and Kennedy was a roadblock.

Moore To Consider: That would be the argument. Yeah. Sure, that's just survival. I don't disagree with that's what makes it such an intriguing case even 60 plus years later is you can see why the mob wanted him dead. You can see why the military industrial complex wanted him dead. can see why you can see why anti Castro Cubans wanted him dead. There's there's 10 I can list off the top of my head that want Kennedy dead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, hold on. Hold on. And all of them had the capability of killing him.

Moore To Consider: Sure.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, that's what we're saying. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: But Oswald did it. I'm saying that it's still upon you to prove what the connection to, if you accept that Oswald fired the shots and again, all the conspiracy theorists, and I'm not using that in the negative, just to identify all the people that started with Mark Lane started with, he couldn't possibly do the shooting. And that's what I bought into as a teenager. Then I started going, huh, the more I study this, the more I see, not only do I think it happened that way, it's the only way it could have happened. So now you got Oswald being potentially the shooter. So now it's incumbent upon whoever says, ⁓ I know it's one of these organizations, then what's the connection to Oswald?

Charles Hundley Jnr: He's dead. that is... Well, hold on. I shouldn't say problem. There's a reason that you kill the assassin. We all know that. This is no different than all the other hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times that assassins have been killed themselves. We all know why they do it. No, because you can't interview the assassin to ask them or to get any information out of them.

Moore To Consider: So who killed him? And what's that reason? Shut him up? I just said shut him up is the reason. What you're saying is shorthand is shut him up. Okay so Oswald's dead. Alright what about Ruby?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, yes. Yeah, yes, exactly. Yes. ⁓ He died too.

Moore To Consider: He died three years later, roughly. Actually, about two years later, really. Yeah. No, no, three years, three years, three years later. He died January of 67.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, but... What gets you, the first time that, I mean, when Oswald died, you know, I'm sure anybody with two brain cells that rubbed together would say, as they depicted in the movie JFK, oh, you know, you gotta get rid of the assassin. Yeah, you gotta get rid of him. You gotta start cutting it off right there because that's the last person you want to stay alive.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The last person. So that's why, I'm sorry.

Moore To Consider: Okay, could Ruby talk? Could Ruby talk?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Ruby probably could talk, but all he knows is we need you to go kill this guy because you owe a lot of money and bub. That could have been anybody. That could have been, that could have been anybody in the mob. That could have been anybody. And more than likely it was somebody in the mob, more than likely. Okay. But again, again, the mob didn't want to be chased by Bobby. Okay. I get that. Who?

Moore To Consider: He knows who told him to do it, right? Who's anybody? Right?

Charles Hundley Jnr: That doesn't mean that the other entities still didn't have anything to do with it,

Moore To Consider: Why didn't Ruby shoot Oswald Friday night?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, I, dude, I don't know. But he did though. But he did though. Okay, but he, but he did shoot him.

Moore To Consider: I mean if somebody needs him dead, no he shot him Sunday. He had a weapon. He was in the presence of Oswald Friday night. Why didn't he kill him?

Charles Hundley Jnr: was he able to get a gun through wherever he was at? I don't know.

Moore To Consider: He had a gun in his pocket. He always had the gun. This is 1963. There's no metal detector at the door. And he gets in and says he's with Jewish press or something. It's Israeli press. And he gets in, everybody thinks he's a part of the press team. Some people think he's law enforcement because he's always got his suit and tie. So we've talked about this. Sunday morning. When is Oswald supposed to be moved? What time?

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's true. That's true. You got a point there. Okay. You asked me again, remember man, there's...

Moore To Consider: 10 AM, 10 AM. What time does Ruby shoot Oswald? 11, 21 AM. Well, the problem, the problem we, okay. The problem we have is there were members of the Dallas police department, namely Jim Lavelle. It was one of the detectives that tells Jesse Curry, the chief of police, you bought to move him in the middle of the night. Nah, we got to let the press see him because they're going to think we're beating them up and all this kind of stuff. So he wants to make this press thing. And he says,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Again, I don't focus on Oswald, man, so I don't know any of these questions that you're about to ask.

Moore To Consider: If you're there by 10 o'clock, you won't miss the move, implying we're going to move him by 10 o'clock. So get there early. And if you're there by 10, you won't miss it. So that morning, a member of the post post office service in Dallas, Texas, drops his wife off at church and goes, you know what, son of a gun, I got some more questions for Oswald goes back and holds them up. Meantime, Ruby's in his apartment at nine 30 and his boxer shorts and gets a call from little Lynn who's one of these strippers. who didn't get paid Friday night because he shut down the carousel club. And she goes, Jack, I got a problem. I didn't get the dollar bills the other night. So I need money for rent and I got to buy groceries. And what does he do? He's like, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll get in the car in a few minutes and I'll go to the Western Union Telegraph office and I'll wire you the money, which he does at 11, 17 AM. He's behind three people. He's not in a rush. He waits patiently. He goes up, comes out the door, got his dog, Sheba in his car. He's got his pistol on him. He carried large amounts of money, carried the pistol all the time. He sees a commotion down the street. He walks down, goes down the ramp, shoots Oswald at 1121. If that's a planned hit, if somebody has him put up to do in the hit, should he not be not in his boxers at 9 30 in the morning, not yet out and about dressed and ready to go? If he's Oswald, if Oswald, if Oswald is going to be moved to 10 o'clock, isn't that a risky thing for a put up hit man to do to hang around his apartment that late?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, I agree with you.

Moore To Consider: So that is a monkey wrench in the whole idea that he was put up to it. Now I know a whole group of people, or I've heard these people say, nah, nah, that was all done. The whole going to the Western union, that was to create a cover story for later. The cops held him, they're in contact with Jack, where he'd be like, Jack, you need to get on the move. Now I will say my buddy, and I've told you about this, my buddy in Minnesota got an opportunity to sit, went to dinner with Jim Lavelle, the tall. detective that was handcuffed to Oswald. And he said, what did you think of this whole thing? And he said, I can't understand why people are still talking about it. I thought six weeks later, everybody would let it go. And this guy lived to be 99. And this was like when he's in his early nineties. And he said, do you believe out that Ruby acted alone? He goes, yeah, I knew Jack. Jack was nutty as fruit cake, blah, blah, blah. And then he made this point. He said, when we had him in lockup moments after the shooting. I said, Jack, what the hell were you thinking? He was like, ⁓ I'm to be a hero. You know, he thought it was going to be, you know, I thought everybody would like me doing this. And there was a thought that he did it as much. Well, he said he did it to spare Jackie Kennedy a trial and all that stuff has been said, but also it may not have been so ill received by the Dallas police because one of their own had been apparently shot by, Oswald Tippett. But anyway, he said, well, how the hell'd you get in there?

Charles Hundley Jnr: All right. All right.

Moore To Consider: And this is what my buddy said. said, I thought it was fascinating. They took a large like Brinks truck, armored truck down that ramp. So the ramp comes from the commerce side. comes from the main side. goes down and under and through. And when they got part of the way down, they ran into some kind of air conditioning unit or some type of, ⁓ of an air ventilation system. And they're like, we can't get the truck all the way. So they're in these moments where they're getting ready to bring Oswald out. And they're realizing they're going to have to back that truck out. And they got a patrol car right behind it. So the patrol car has to roll out. The guy that was manning the entrance to the ramp has to back up into the street and wave that car back and then get the truck out. So LaVelle, when he asked Ruby, according to this friend of mine, Jack, how the hell did you get in? He goes, well, so and so officer was in the car. He got it right. And when I saw him back up, I saw this other officer that that Ruby knew go out into the street to direct traffic. And he nailed that officer as well. He said the guy that was in the police car and the guy that was the guy that was manning the door, he goes, and when that guy backed out to direct traffic, I slipped down the ramp. So Lavelle told his friend of mine, he's like, it made sense to me because Ruby absolutely positively identified the two cops. He knew them both. So if that's true. I don't know why the gentleman would have been lying to him. He's like, well, that's what convinced me that Jack just slipped down the ramp, walks down, sees Oswald come out. He breaks through the press that are there and you know, everybody's in a suit and tie then he breaks through. He has on the fedora. He goes up, bang, kills Oswald. Does it look like a hit? Yes, it does. Does it make everybody suspect it's something else? But the bottom line is he's, there's a world clock timestamp of his transmission of the money.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hmm.

Moore To Consider: The wiring of the money to little land at 11 17, four minutes later, he shoots Oswald. They walked the police walk the distance from one to the other. And the average was 90 seconds, minute and a half. ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So where did the money come from?

Moore To Consider: Where did what money come from?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Western Union. You say there's a Western Union transfer, right? Where'd it come from?

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Ruby.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And who did it go to?

Moore To Consider: Little Lynn, the stripper that lived in Fort Worth, she needed money because she didn't get paid Friday night because he shut down the Carousel club. she could, then George Senator, okay, to finish this story, George Senator's living with Ruby and he tells the Warren commission, yeah, the guy sitting in his boxers at 930 phone rings. And he goes, yeah, it's Jack. What can I do for you? He goes, Hey Jack, this is Little Lynn, one of his strippers. I didn't get paid Friday and Saturday night because over this Kennedy thing, yeah, yeah. I shut down the Carousel club. It a classy thing to do. Well, I ain't got no money, Jack. And I got to pay rent and I need groceries. All right, all right. I'll get out of here in a few minutes and I'll take $25 and wire it to you. So then he got in his car, put on his suit and took his docs and his little dog, the female Sheba that he referred to as his wife. And there were people that knew him said there's no way he would have put that dog in the car if he thought he was going to be arrested later for shooting at Oswald. And he said, Ruby, people can believe it or not, that when he came out, he looked and went, Huh, what's going on down there? sees the people, he sees the cars, police cars, and then he decides to walk. And he told his rabbi, dumbest thing I ever did, I had this feeling that when I came back outside, I just needed to get in the car and leave. But when I saw these people outside, decided, yeah, I think I'm going to walk down there see what's going on. Which led to curiosity, down the ramp, shoots Oswald. If it's a planned hit, he's not on the scene at 10 a.m. But again, there's a whole group of people, I've seen the whole thing where it's, yeah, the police were in on it. They're like, Jack, all right, we're going to make it look like you went to Western Union. Create that cover story. Then we're going to give you a signal. Yep. Come on down. I don't know. Is that possible? Absolutely. But there's like, you know, system of windows and lights and windows and told him when to go and when to be there or randomly he went to Western Union.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Ahem.

Moore To Consider: arrived and waited for three people to complete transactions without rushing, without making the sound. There were three people that told the Warren commission. Yes, he was in line behind us. He didn't seem to be in a hurry. The guy that's working in the Western union office said, I didn't seem to be in a hurry. I complete the transaction 11, 17 time stamped it. And he walked out. Didn't seem to be in a hurry. I don't know if there's some other orchestrated thing to give him a cover story. Okay. Prove it to me. I don't know. I'm just saying that's an awful strange coincidence that he's there four minutes prior to the shooting at the Western Union, walks 90 seconds and then walks right down and then identifies to Detective Lavelle. Yeah. I remember the cop that backed the car out. Now I recognize the officer that worked the traffic. So what do you got for me on all that? Cause we're gonna, we're going to wrap up here. Yeah. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hmm I'm trying to think of the guy's name right now. Who's that guy that wrote the book about... out. MK Ultra. He was on the Joe Rogan podcast. And he wrote a really, really famous book about it. And he was the one that actually turned me on to the psychiatrist that ⁓ that Oswald had seen. I'm not Oswald that ⁓ Ruby had seen Sir Hay and her fans. Yeah, what is the I can't remember the of the book, man.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ I don't know. I mean, I'm familiar with it. Okay. Sirhan Sirhan

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's right, right at tip of my tongue too. I don't think it's Stephen Kinsey. No, name doesn't sound familiar. Regardless. It's no, that's not it. Gosh, I can't remember the guy's name. When he talked about the person, as a matter of he brought this up during a podcast. Anyone who has seen Band of Brothers, there is one of the officers in Easy Company.

Moore To Consider: Stephen Kinzer. That's the first book that I've... Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ended up being the prosecutor in LA who who tried

Moore To Consider: Vince Siboliosi. Vincent Boleosi is the one that prosecuted Manson.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's enough. He did something else. He did something else. The one who prosecuted Sirhan Sirhan.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ I can't find that out real quick.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Buck Compton. Yeah, name is... Buck Compton was the guy, regardless. ⁓ anyway, he was telling the story about MKUltra that the first instance that was, let's just say made popular, was in the 50s when some airmen was...

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: out in the woods and you didn't know what had happened but they're like dude you just killed somebody like I don't know what you're talking about well that's kind of sort of and come to find out this psychiatrist is involved in that too and there people you know I'm gonna put on my tinfoil hat hat here real quick there are people that saying that that they had developed a a technique to get people to go kill other people and they not remember a thing, nothing. And some, again, people who have thicker tinfoil hats than the one I'm wearing right now would say that Jack Ruby was one of them, but I don't believe that. I just don't. I personally don't believe that one. I believe that he was paid off to do it.

Moore To Consider: I don't know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: He wanted to be kind of like a Henry Hill guy, whereas he was a mob, he was mob adjacent. He couldn't be made, obviously, because obviously he was a Sicilian, but he would pretty much do whatever they wanted him to do. And. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, I think he might've been a lower level mob figure. One thing I will say that is one account that I've heard that I think feeds what you're saying is that he became kind of a health nut at some level. He never drank. He was not a drinker. ⁓ and he came up with a twist device to exercise and he was trying to sell that all the time. So the argument is, I think he kicked smoking. He wasn't a drinker, kind of got into exercise supposed to be for that timeframe. sort of a health nut adjacent, call it that. And that when he got brought in after shooting Oswald, you know, they put Oswald on the floor and they bring Oswald back out, put him on an ambulance. The O'Neill people take him out again, I believe the same ones that moved Kennedy. And then they've rushed Jack Ruby into a room. And the story is they put him like in a holding cell.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: And while he's in the holding cell, he's sweating profusely and he asks one of the guards, one of the, uh, or one of the sheriffs or one of, guess, one of the, uh, the police department, Hey, you got a cigarette? And they're like, Jack, don't smoke. And he goes in, he starts like chain smoking a couple of cigarettes. Then Oswald's pronounced dead at 107. He shoots him at 1121. He's pronounced dead at 107. So the word back in some of the police, of course, escorted the, the ambulance to, ⁓ Parkland hospital. now the words coming back that Oswald's dead. So the story is supposed to be the one account I've heard. One of the officers come in, well, Jack, it's murder one now, buddy. You shot him and he just died and you're going to get X you're going to get electrocuted. You're going to get the electric chair. And they said he stopped smoking the cigarettes and went into complete calm. He completely calmed down. the argument has been that. supports this account is that the mob figures came by and said, Jack, think we're going to need you to kill Oswald. Oh, I don't want to get involved in that. Well, he was very close to his sister. Don't think he had the same relationship with his brother, but he was supposed to be really close to his sister. So the argument was they said something like, how about this? If Oswald's not dead by tomorrow, maybe your sister will be. right. So if that's fair,

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ wow.

Moore To Consider: That's a possibility. Then you could see where he was sweating profusely, chain smoking cigarettes. And then bam, they come in and say, Hey Jack, murder one. I just saved my sister's life. Who the hell knows? I mean, that is an argument that he did become uncommonly calm after he found out that Oswald died and now he's going to get hit with the murder one charge. Seems like that's kind of strange to be quite upset as the guy gets carted out. You would think he would be like,

Charles Hundley Jnr: Mm-hmm.

Moore To Consider: Boy, I sure hope this guy doesn't die or I'm going to get the electric chair, but instead he becomes calm upon finding that he did die. You can understand his.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, that didn't even make any sense. ⁓ okay, I see that basically they was like, you need to go kill him. And he wasn't dead yet. And it's like, uh-oh, ⁓ boy. Okay.

Moore To Consider: Right. yeah, that's the whole argument about why he did it was the mob figures came by and said, you need to kill Oswald for us. Please, please don't make me do something like that. It's Oswald or your sister. Which one's it going to be? Okay. So now once he fires the shot, don't know if it's a fatal shot. A matter of fact, it has been said though, is it left the left, is it entered the left part of his abdomen and worked across his body. He couldn't hit more vital organs other than the heart. I mean, it was a pretty bad shot and Oswald dies at 107. So from between 1121 to 11 to 107, he's dead. Now, again, that would feed a pretty reasonable response that it's like, Oh my gosh, I'm sweating. I'm sweating. Oh my gosh. Give me a cigarette. Give me a cigarette. Cause if this guy doesn't die, my sister's dead. Hey, guess what? Jack murder one. Okay. Come back down. Cause now at least my sister's spared. That is the argument that I have heard that that was the account of some of the officers.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The name of the book is Chaos by Tom O'Neill. Yeah. That whole psychiatrist thing, man, it is really, really interesting. Why has this guy talked to all the people? Hinckley also, he a Hinckley psychiatrist.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, okay. saw a kick. Yep. Tom O'Neill. Yep. I saw that among the ones. Yeah. Yeah. If the one guy is involved with all those, would see, and one of the things about Sirhan Sirhan too, if I'm not mistaken, he was like five, six and 125 pounds of 130 or something like that. And Roosevelt Greer, Rosie Greer played with the New York giants and then played with the Los Angeles Rams was a very famous and well-loved NFL star. He and Rayford Johnson, who was the decathlon winner with 1960 Olympics, think the two of them kind of rode

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: shotgun for Bobby Kennedy. They were both in the Bobby Kennedy campaign and Rosie Greer was six feet five, 300 pounds. Played defensive tackle during that era. Big guy. So when the shooting starts, he sees Sirhan Sirhan has the weapon. And according to his account, I go to grab the weapon from this little guy. And this is Rosie Greer, six five, 300. And I cannot get this guy to let go of the gun. And he's raining shots. And I think it was a 10 shot, 22 revolver. Check that I think. And then there was like 13 shots accounted for and Bobby Kennedy is shot behind the right ear. It's a brain shot. It's a shot that enters behind his right ear and does the brain damage that leads to his death. And none of the people that witnessed this ever see Sirhan Sirhan get behind Bobby Kennedy. He's always shooting straight on. But when Greer was talked to about it, he goes, I'm trying to get this gun from this five foot six hundred and twenty some odd pound guy and I cannot pry this gun. I've never seen a human being that strong in any moment. Then according that is part of this argument that when he was interviewed, I think by the first team of attorneys that might've been in his defense, he's like, I don't even know what you guys are talking about. And they seem sincere. You know, then they go into his possessions and they find a Bobby Kennedy must die. Bobby Kennedy must die. Bobby. He's writing out all this stuff and it kind of gives that same type of profile of different handwritings, different times. He seems to be a different person, split personalities, whatever. But there are people that believe he truly did not believe he did it. Or he didn't even know what they were talking about. And that plus what Greer is saying about some guy in a trance like stake with superhuman power. I don't know what this guy's on, but I can't get the pistol from him. So that's another whole, I mean, that's another whole, gosh, I am absolutely convinced there's a lot of hanky panky in the Bobby Kennedy death without question.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Have we? I think that the JFK was just a precursor or a test run.

Moore To Consider: Well, could have been two brothers who messed with the wrong people.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I can go with that too. Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. mean, you know, there, there is the fact that, you know, this is something that, that, ⁓ Poser and I talked about the other day. There's no question. Jack Kennedy was having marital or extramarital affairs with many women, including Judith Exner or Judith Campbell at that time. And, ⁓ she was sleeping with a guy named Sam Giancana. And it's pretty good evidence that they were running, there was messages being sent back and forth. So the old man, Joseph Kennedy definitely had mob connections.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay.

Moore To Consider: And there are those that say that he funded in funding his son's election in 1960 mobsters in Chicago were involved and clearly the teamsters union was involved in West Virginia. And those were two important States for him to win. And the feeling was, it was a whole book that came out. was Sam Giancana's Godson. He was the nephew of Sam Giancana called it was book was titled double cross. And in that he says everybody in the business knew the mob wanted him out because he, because Jack Kennedy in effect and Bobby Kennedy. had double crossed the mob. It's like, hey, help me win the presidency. You're going to back off, right? And then Bobby Kennedy increases prosecutions against the mob by 700%. So you got Hoover going into the administration. Mob, what mob? I don't see a mob. I don't even see it. He's like, he's going after communists at every turn. Everybody's a communist. Then Bobby Kennedy comes in and goes after the mob. And our good friend made a good point too. Have you ever seen that video where Bobby Kennedy is saying to Sam Giancana, Mr. Giancana, are you giggling? I thought little girls giggled. You ever seen that video? Now that was when Jack Kennedy was in the Senate. You know, and our mutual friend there made a good point. He goes, you don't do that to mob guys. That might've been his demise. And then Carlos Marchello in New Orleans is actually picked up on violations of immigration and dropped in Guatemala for dead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Thank

Moore To Consider: And he makes it back to the U S and he swears vengeance against the Kennedys, namely Bobby. So the whole mob angle and G Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the House select committee, he's the father of the Rico statutes. He served with Bobby Kennedy in the justice department. He always thought it was the mob. He wrote a book plot to kill the president. It was the mob. Could have been the mob in conjunction with the CIA because they had similar interests and back to what you said the other day. They want the mob wants Cuba back where the casinos were and the CIA had a mutual interest. It's all there. There's a lot of mutual interest, but it's still, you have to explain Oswald. You have to explain the shooting. Once you have the shooting down, you do. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Yes, you do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yes. Ahem. Ahem. No, I don't. No, no, no, no, I don't. nope, sorry. I'm sorry. And you're not going to try to pinch your homey with this. I'm not. I'm not even going down that road. You literally just made my point. And that's all I have to say.

Moore To Consider: I don't think I made anybody's point. said that there's all kinds of, no, yes. that means, but, you're a logical man. You're one of the brightest people I know. Charles, it is very possible that lots of forces want a man dead and another guy slips in without any other contact and does it by himself. You have to destroy that to get to where you are. No, you do. No, you do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do you just say it as a whole bunch of people that wanted him dead? Okay. Yeah. No, I know. No, because they're not, no. Dude, they're not, they're not, no, I don't, man. I really don't.

Moore To Consider: All right. All right. Let's imagine, gosh, I hate to this route, but let's imagine there are eight of your surrounding neighbors that have all kinds of interests in taking out one of your neighbors. They all have gone the streets. don't like this. It's terrible, but they all say it. And then a guy comes in from another village that has nothing to with your neighborhood and kills them. And then the police come in and investigate all the people who've said all kinds of terrible things about the neighbor that everyone knew they wanted to take out. Would you not then look to see if the guy from the other village had any connection to all the people that ran their mouth about what the guy did? Or would you just say, doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. It has to be all the guys in the other houses because they talk. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, literally that's what we're saying. That unfortunately, the guy who came in from... Hold on, hold on. No, no, what I'm saying... No, I'm not gonna say that it's not possible. What I'm gonna say is it is more possible, more likely that the guy who came in from the other village knew what was going on in my neighborhood and had some ties to one of my neighbors.

Moore To Consider: The guy from the other village can't come in on his own and kill the guy without connection. That's not possible? Yeah? All the things, that's all projection of what you think is most likely, but if you don't make a, no, I know, but I'm saying would you not have to connect the killer to someone in the neighborhood to get a conviction against anyone in the neighborhood? Or would you just say, well, it has to be the neighborhood because they all wanted him dead and this guy came in and did it. So has to be him. He has to have been involved.

Charles Hundley Jnr: which you're asking. ⁓ And I would say that more than likely the neighbors would try their damnedest to get rid of that guy.

Moore To Consider: So then we get away with it the same way the apparatus did is what you're saying. But you still don't have a connection between Oswald and the apparatus. You're just assuming.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, exactly. That's why you kill the assassin. That's exactly why.

Moore To Consider: No, I don't disagree with anything you're saying there. don't know, but I'm just saying from a stance, from a standpoint of logic, you would have to concede the point that Oswald could have gone to his wife the night before and said, baby, come back. And she would have said yes. And he would have gone, okay, I'll leave the rifle here. go back to work and forget all this. And then positive made the point the other day, which is true. Had he made it to Cuba, you're doing that face. If he made it to Cuba back in September, October, if they had said, yeah, go on. He wouldn't have been in Dallas in November.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ no, did. agree with that. I get the quick question. Quick question. Did that did that rifle have a scope on it? OK, so I'll I could say, I mean, you throw all this out there. I could say that on his way up to drop the rifle off, he could have slipped. Going up the steps and knock the scope off site. I could say that, too. We could say.

Moore To Consider: So then somebody else would have done it and I think that's possible. Yeah. Yes. Well, the scope was found to be, okay, the scope was found to be misaligned, but what did he also do after the shooting most likely? He threw it between a stack of boxes and misaligned it. What's the point of a misaligned? Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Are we? No, no, hold hold on, hold on, man. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack, my whole point, dude, dude, my whole point is we can sit here and say all these hypotheticals about whatta, whatta, whatta, whatta, whatta, that's my whole point is saying what I just said. You can say that all day long. My point is, is that he has a tie to one of those agencies that wanted him dead.

Moore To Consider: I think that there are arguments for that that kind of sound somewhat plausible.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's not arguments that he has a tie to one of those agencies who wanted him dead, period. The CIA, like I said earlier.

Moore To Consider: Which one is that? You know that Oswald has a connection to the CIA. Show it to me then. Just show it to me. Stop hiding it. If you know it, show it to me.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, I will say that, again man, again, like I said earlier, just because you don't carry an ID card that says CIA on it, or how about this, just because you don't carry a card that says Mossad on it, you work with them.

Moore To Consider: Yeah? Yeah? Okay, just show it to me. I'm fine with that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no. Listen, again, what did I do? What did I just say? You don't have to have an ID card that says CIA or MESA or whatever on it.

Moore To Consider: Charles has assumed, Charles has agreed to assume, or he has agreed in his own mind that Oswald has a direct connection to CIA. While Charles cannot possibly show that because he has the out of saying, well, they don't carry cards.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's the point that they don't have them directly. That's the whole point. It's called plausible deniability, That's why they do that.

Moore To Consider: Okay, okay, all right. I can't accept.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I mean, gracious, If you think that it's going to be a direct, if you really believe there's going to be a direct, ⁓ his name was on the application and he's got an ID card, it doesn't work that way,

Moore To Consider: No, no, I'm, I am conceding to you that it's possible that Oswald had a connection to the CIA where it is impossible to prove that connection. But that's all I can say is that. Well, I don't know. You're saying you're speaking for the CIA. I don't know that you've served in CIA. You probably know some people that have been in the CIA. I don't know. You read some good books. You read some John Grisham novels or something. don't know. No, he didn't really write about the CIA. Did he? Yeah. Tell me what you're saying. Tell me what you're.

Charles Hundley Jnr: But that's why they do that, man. That's my whole point. No, listen to what I'm saying man. Listen to what saying. Listen to what saying. It doesn't work the way that you... Obviously, it doesn't work the way that you think that it works. You don't... Let me finish man. You think that there's always going to be on paper a direct link. Then you're making my point then.

Moore To Consider: What do you wa- no no, what way do you think I think it works? No, hell no. I just conceded the point that Oswald could have been involved with the CIA with no way to detect it. I just said that. But in saying that, because you're making an assertion that there was a connection that you can't prove.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, so why are you asking me to prove why you asking me to give you evidence of it then? Dude, if you're gonna sit here and say that you already agreeing that they will cover up whatever con... That they will cover up whatever connection they have...

Moore To Consider: I'm agreeing it's possible. I didn't say what they'll do because I don't know. I don't work within the CIA. ⁓

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, can tell you they will. Okay, they will do that. And for this reason, for anybody, dude, anybody who thinks that these people are not gonna tie up, should I say, these loose ends, again, I have ⁓ some oceanfront property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Moore To Consider: Okay, you tell me they will. Yeah? So what you're saying, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what you're saying. What you're saying is Oswald was certainly an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency without question.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm gonna say that it's way more evidence that he was than that he wasn't. No, no, no, no. Listen what I'm saying, No, Jack, Jack, ⁓ no. I am not making this debate based on, ⁓ should I say absolutes. What I'm saying is don't, what I'm saying is don't.

Moore To Consider: Now you brought it back from a hundred down to something else. Give me a... Well, you said way more. Really?

Charles Hundley Jnr: say because it's not absolutely 100 % or zero not asked questions. You're saying do...

Moore To Consider: You can ask all the questions you want. You're making assertions and I'm just asking you what evidence you have for the assertion. And you're saying that this is how they operate. And I'm like, okay, I would concede the fact that the CIA could have used Oswald as an operative. Oswald could have acted for the CIA and then they covered it up. I can see that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: but you are.

Moore To Consider: could have. I can see it all that they could have. But what I'm saying is you or no one else has any direct evidence that he was that maybe in some of these declassified or these files that are still yet to be declassified. But I think all it will be will be the connection between the agencies. And I've told the story a million times again, but the guy that I met in Dealey Plaza in 94, when we were leaving and he'd been on the House Select Committee as a page when he was 19 years old, I said, dude, tell me what I'm not going to learn for 50 years. And he looked in the car and he goes, dude, Oswald did it. I was there. I saw everything. I said, then what am I not going to learn? He goes, what his connection was to federal agencies. And that stuck with me ever since he said that he said he was on the inside and he saw this that Oswald had connections to agencies. But even that the connections he has to agencies doesn't mean he did it for an agency. Maybe he did have agency connections, went rogue, did it on his own, whatever. So maybe with the last thing, but one thing we will not see. We're not going to see a release document that goes today, headings, CIA, Langley, Virginia, whatever. It's going to be, you know, you're to have the heading at the top of the paper today. One November 22, 1963 at 1230 central standard time. We did kill one JFK and we use Lee Oswald, make sure he gets paid this week. We're not going to find that document. What we can, but we may find documents that show that they damn sure had a greater connection to Oswald.

Charles Hundley Jnr: then why are you asking me to produce it? Do again, but why are you asking me to produce that document then? By saying, can you show me the evidence?

Moore To Consider: I'm not asking you to produce it. I'm asking you to concede the fact that you don't have a hundred percent certainty that Oswald acted for the CIA. ⁓

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, you don't have 100 % certainty that he did it. But I'm not asking you to give me 100%. Okay, dude, but again, I'm not gonna waste my time on that. I'm just not. And I wish people would stop. I really do. They're wasting their time. They're wasting, no, no, no, hold on, man. Hold on, hold on. Dude, again, fine, he did it. Can you move on to something else such as who? I said why?

Moore To Consider: ⁓ yes, I do. I definitely have a hundred percent certain he did it. Yes. I just think in a murder, I think in a murder case, who actually did the murder is important. You don't seem to think that that matters. I think it does. All right. If he did it, then you have to say, who did he do it for? Who did he do it for? Motive is never, motive's never an element.

Charles Hundley Jnr: as why. Now, why? Once you start with why, but again,

Moore To Consider: Motive's not an element. He could have done it for kicks. He could have done it because Marina wouldn't come back to him. He could have done it because Marina said he's a good looking man. That's even been argued.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And no, to you, to you, motive is not an element. But the person, okay, but again, man, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This isn't a court.

Moore To Consider: Motives not an element in a criminal matter. If everybody in the neighborhood wants someone dead and somebody with no motivation whatsoever does it, it doesn't mean the people that wanted that person dead have anything to do with it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: But more than likely, more than likely that is the case.

Moore To Consider: I don't know that more than likely is even something that you can consider. I think it's a non-factor.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I would say more than likely it is for the fact that if a stranger comes into your neighborhood and shoots you, stranger, and they have no motivation, they don't know you, no ties to you, whatever, I would then ask.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Yeah. ⁓ if you're talking about the techniques of a detective and you want to start looking into, okay, who wanted this guy dead? And you go around the neighborhood and find out there's all kinds of people, then yeah, that's definitely leads into like, Hey, we got to find out why all these people won this guy did. Cause some rogue agent comes in and does it. And we can't really see a clear motivation. Wonder if he got hired by one of these other neighbors. Sure. It's a link. There's a lot of unsolved cases though, because sometimes you can't find a link.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, you can't find the link, but the best way to make sure you don't find the link, kill the person that did it. Okay, and again, that's what I've been saying throughout world history, you send out the assassin, first thing you do is that so you can't start putting two and two together.

Moore To Consider: No doubt about that too. I'm conceding the point that what Ruby did to Oswald appears to be a hit, but I'm also showing all that timeframe stuff that I talked about that presents a problem that it does seem like a random act. Okay. We don't know. We never going to really know. Did Ruby say some things where Ruby said some things in custody? There's the famous, when he's walking out of one of the courtroom hearings and they like, ⁓ he makes a comment about people in high places and he employs, why don't you ask the president now or whoever's in.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No we're not.

Moore To Consider: mean, there's all kinds of things that were said. He's the other big film of him. He's in the courtroom and he says, I'm stuck in this position because the people in high places and I can't really talk about it or something. He also supposedly told Earl Warren in Dallas, take me back to Washington and I'll tell you everything. And Gerald Ford was there and they're like, ⁓ we don't have that kind of security to make sure that you're secure. And I'll really, you're the, you're the chief justice and you're down here on Warren commission business. And you can't find a way to take him, put him in a holding cell in DC. He said, I can't speak here. Rubius famously said, I can't speak here safely, but take me back to Washington. I'll tell you things I won't tell you here. And they said, nah, that's okay. Say here. That seems kind of weird. I'm agreeing to all that. All I'm saying is from the structural argument aspect of this, what we can say is, and I can't, I can't say with a hundred percent certainty that Oswald fired the shots and no one else was firing. I'm like 99.9 % sure myself. I'm sure of that to 99 % accuracy or I'm secure at 99%. But I say that, I damn sure can't tell you I don't think he wasn't working for someone else. I damn sure wouldn't tell you I think that he did it alone without any other, ⁓ any other help or any other push or motivation from some others or he was part of something. But I do keep open that it might've just been random. that he may really have just had a broken marriage and a heartbroken and all the rest. And he was pissed off because he couldn't make it back to Cuba. And there is that argument I talked about in the last show that he supposedly says like, really, really? You won't let me go back to Cuba or you won't let me go to Cuba? How about if I go back and kill Kennedy? I'll show you guys. That might've been his motivation. And when he went to Marina, he's at his wit's end. He's never nothing ever works out. She's left him. He really loves her. They got two kids They just had the baby Rachel just month before and he's like baby Let's give it one more try and like Gerald Posner said in the show the other day He even promised her he was gonna buy her a washing machine, which was one of those sticking points like Lee We don't even have a washing machine like all the other jet-set people and he was like the table I'm buy you the washing machine. I'm gonna start taking care of things We're gonna get a new place and she goes no, I think I'm gonna stay here for a little bit longer Maybe that's what put him over the edge. Maybe he went there totally indifferent to killing the president or he went, let me see how this plays out. And he grabbed the rifle the next morning because he was pissed at her. I don't know. I think it's plausible, but I think he did the shooting.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's always a long nut. Because they're easy.

Moore To Consider: Let me ask you this, do you think that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln?

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ I'm way more concerned about why.

Moore To Consider: I'm just, I'm just, all right. We can get into all the reasons. We can get into all the reasons why Booth wanted Lincoln dead, but do you think he shot him? Do you think he did as part of a conspiracy?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm just saying, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he's fine, yes. Yes.

Moore To Consider: We know that he did. He had co-conspirators. Because the one guy was there supposed to be killing Stanton, one guy was supposed to be killing Grant, I mean not Grant, Johnson. Yeah, go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why do we know? ⁓ really? no, I'm, I'm, no, no, I agree with you, Trust me, I understand what you're saying. So, yeah, right. It was known to be a conspiracy. So we make sure that doesn't happen again.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. Yeah, it was known to be a conspiracy. Go ahead. We make sure that doesn't happen again?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes, we make sure that the assassin gets killed. Yeah. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Well, in the assassin of McKinley, nobody killed the assassin until he was executed. My memory of the Garfield assassination, that guy was executed.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ okay. Okay.

Moore To Consider: Brendan that shot Wallace was taken from the scene. Hinkley was taken from the scene. Who are these assassins that are getting killed on the scene or, shortly thereafter?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, no, no. So the thing about specifically about Oswald and but you brought up you brought up Booth. Yeah, I agree with you. It was conspiracy. Right. I understand. He got he got shut 12 weeks later. And yes, they and there was a grand conspiracy. All right. That's fine. Well.

Moore To Consider: Who's got shot 12 days later? Right. In a barn in Port Royal, Virginia, 12 miles from where I grew up. Yeah. And he may have gotten away and it might've been somebody else killed. Cause all those Union soldiers gained a lot of money at the time for taking out, know, there's, that's a theory that he got away and lived in Oklahoma until he was, you know, until 1904 that he did get away. I don't know. There's, a pretty good evidence of that. good. Well, there's some interesting tales about that, that the guy killed in Garrett's barn in Port Royal, Virginia, wasn't Ruth, wasn't Booth. And then once they found they shot the wrong guy. Cause they were burning, they were burning the barn down around him when they pulled out the, guy, you know, full of soot and smoke. It was like, oops, got the wrong guy. And they're like, okay, we stand to make a lot of money. Boston Corbett famously was the one that fired the shot. But if they pulled out the wrong guy and he died there on the porch, there was some motivation to go, we're getting a lot of money. We're splitting a lot of money over this reward for taking out booth. Let's, let's all lie about this because we're, know, that's possible.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So money is a motivator.

Moore To Consider: Well, if you're a Union troop on the grounds in Virginia, just post-American Civil War and Lincoln's dead and you just shot a guy and you're getting a hundred bucks, which in today's money from a guy that might be, you know, 10 grand, whatever the hell that, if you call that a motivation, it's like this. We can go ahead and accept, hey, we shot the wrong guy. Let's go ahead and tell our superiors we shot the wrong guy. How much cash do we get for that, Captain? Nothing. ⁓ Or we can lie and say it's Booth. Yeah, I don't know.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So it is a motorway.

Moore To Consider: ⁓ definitely that it may cover their ass a little bit too, going around shooting the wrong guy and claiming it's booth was a risk, but it might've made more sense, when they were ordered not to fire in Boston Corbett fired anyway, but yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Okay. Well, yeah, I can go with that. All right, so money is a motivator.

Moore To Consider: I think money's a motivator a lot. I don't know that was a motivator for Boston Corbett to shoot first when we told not to, but yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And how much money did the mob make once Kennedy was gone? How much money did the military industrial complex make once Kennedy was gone? Again, man, that's why I said if money's a motivator for the people, if money's a motivator for those guys who allegedly shot John, Wilkes Booth in that barn, why can you not think, think or say that money's a motivator for those two entities along with another one?

Moore To Consider: quite a bit in Vietnam. If you're saying me, okay, but.

Charles Hundley Jnr: who shall remain nameless right now is a motivator to get them to get rid of Kennedy. I'm just saying, man, please tell me. Please tell me. Please tell me.

Moore To Consider: Charles, I love you, brother. I love you. I love you, brother. I'm telling you what I'm saying. And I keep saying the same thing over and over. I started out in my youth obsessed with the Kennedy assassination, fascinating whodunit mystery and all the rest. I listened to the conspiracy theory. There's 47 shooters from 19 locations. I am, I am.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Not talking about the shooters, man. It's police.

Moore To Consider: And when I heard that and I heard all the impossibility and then over time, I started to see all these things slip away. I'm like, Hey, you know what? That person touting that conspiracy, selling the book and they're full of shit. They're wrong about this. They're wrong about that. And then I started looking at the evidence like, huh, son of a gun. As it turns out, kind of looks like that Oswald character probably did it. Okay. He did it. In my eyes, it started to seem more and more like he is actually the shooter. So then my views change and then I'm like, hmm, maybe it's a little bit more simple than I thought. But then I left open the lane. This is back to the churches. Maybe you've created another church. There's a church of the low nut. There's a church of the grand conspiracy. And there's where I am. I think Oswald did it, but I'm not quite sure for who or why. That's it. That's all I'm saying. There's no definitive answer. If you said he did it as someone working for the CIA, I'd be like, yeah, fine. Prove it to me. Or I'll accept that you may be right that that's what happened. But I also leave open the possibility that it was Amir. His wife rejected him from coming back and he said, yeah, screw it. I'll kill the president. That's it. That's all. He was somebody seeking historical fame that wouldn't let him back into Cuba. I'd like to know what Silvia Duran really had to say about him. What did he say in front of all these people? Was he really in Mexico City? Some dispute that. All these things are a mystery, but I understand what you're operating from. You're operating from... the big bad sinister government agencies that might cover up things. I don't disagree with that, but I still think that to make a valid argument about who these particular agencies are in the death of Kennedy, you got to show how they shot and Oswald didn't or Oswald shot for them.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I don't have to show why. No, no, no. All I have to... Dude, you're only giving me a binary choice, man. And these binary choices are... No, no. Those are the choices that you're giving me. I'm terribly sorry. Dude, I just, don't know how many times people have to say this.

Moore To Consider: Yes you do. That's what the binary choice is. Tell me another choice then. me another choice. Tell me another choice.

Charles Hundley Jnr: that another theory could be he was part of a conspiracy where they used him as a, quote unquote, patsy.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Now did he fire the shots and become a patsy or was he just wandering around inside the schoolbook depository perfectly innocent and went, shit, somebody's on the sixth floor with my rifle and I'm gonna get this pinned on me. Which one is it? Which one's most likely?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Why not? Again, man, how about this? It's awfully difficult to make this argument for the fact that, again, you only give binary choices. And if you're only gonna give a person a binary choice, then you're gonna say, one is what I believe and the other is a complete BS. And not give any great, hold on, man, hold on, and not, hold on, man, hold on, wait a second, man, one, two.

Moore To Consider: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. I gotta ask you this. Is it not a choice that you have to make on whether Oswald fired a shot, any shots, no shots?

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's kind of like this, man. It's kind of like the choice that you had given me in a previous podcast when it comes to either I vote for Democrats or I vote for Republicans, that choice. And it's like, no, I don't have to vote for either one of them. what you said is you need to vote for Republicans. No, what you said is was that

Moore To Consider: No, I never said that. I never said that. I never said that. I never said that. I said, one of the two are going to win. I said, one of the two are going to win. stick by that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: voting for a third party was a waste. So essentially what you're only trying to give people, what you're only trying to give people ⁓ options are your two options. That's not what everybody wants are your two options. That's what I'm saying to you,

Moore To Consider: I am saying that. I'm saying if you think that the Democrat and the Republican are equally evil and you want to make a third party vote to make a state. No, I'm saying, okay, in the last presidential election you had, you had a distinct difference between two parties. And I think that the choices were distinctly different.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, didn't say, no, again, but that's not what anybody else is saying, That's not what anybody else is saying. Jack, Jack, Jack, you have to understand that there's more choices than what you're willing to give people. Okay? Yes. No, actually it's not, man, because that's what you're doing here. That's what you're doing here, Dude, that's exactly what you're doing, man.

Moore To Consider: I'm not, whoa, whoa, whoa, Charles, that's way out of line. I've never, Charles, I'm saying when two major parties, one or the other is going to win, then to go to a third party pivot could feed the one that you don't want to win to win. That's all I'm saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Jack, that's exactly what you're doing is giving people your only two options.

Moore To Consider: How am I giving it to him? You telling me that somebody can't go in there and pull the third lever? Because I said something?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Because as I say, as, yes, no, no, what you're saying is if you don't pull for the one that I pull for, then you're wasting your option. Call it what you want, man, but the thing is, ⁓ well then, and I.

Moore To Consider: That's an assessment. That's an assessment. That's not a dictate. I'm not dictating that anybody do anything. I'm saying people are in the dark that keep saying that pulling the third party lever doesn't have a massive effect potentially in putting a worst candidate in the office.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And but what you should say honestly is those people who vote their conscience are not willing to go with the BS that is given to them by the other two parties. That's what you should say. Sure. But. ⁓

Moore To Consider: All right, let me try to lay this out. Let me try to lay this out. Let me try to lay this out and be clear. I think there have been presidential elections. I'll give you one. think like Gore, I think like Gore, but let me finish this point. I think like in Gore Bush 2000, I don't think there was a shit bit of difference between either one of them. I think the country would have gone probably in the same direction either way. If someone in there had said in that particular case, it's going to be a razor's hair, which it was in the electoral college.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, what are we talking about Oswald? Okay. Right?

Moore To Consider: You know, the popular votes can be pretty close. Gore took it by a little bit, but it's going to be close. I think in that case, if you're like, you know what? I want to make a political statement of my own personal statement. I'm going to go third party Ralph Nader. I'm going to go Winnie the Pooh. I'm going to go wherever. I think the resulting, that choice leads to a result where Bush Gore, who gives a shit, it's probably the same thing. I think there have been elections though, where there could have been a grave amount of difference if you get the wrong person in the office. You're going to get, my only point all along has been you're going to get a Republican or Democrat. You're going to get one or the other. And if you feed a third party vote enough, you might get the worst of the two choices, the two evil choices. If the evil is great enough between the two choices, I think sometimes you're going to want to go with the lesser of two evils because you don't want the evil choice. If the two evil choices are equally evil or they're just kind of benign and shit, go pull the third party.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ okay.

Moore To Consider: All I'm saying is only one of those two parties is going to win.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So who was worse of a choice? Bushicle.

Moore To Consider: I don't think there was any difference.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, I do see a difference between the two.

Moore To Consider: Then vote accordingly. Fine, knock yourself out. I don't care.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I understand what you're saying, but the thing is...

Moore To Consider: We're coming off of eight years of Clinton, which ⁓ weren't so bad. I don't think Gore was nearly as dangerous. I mean, it could be argued Bush was worse. Look what happened.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, exactly. So it's all about perspective. It's all about perspective. And really it has to do with if your side won a loss as to how you feel about a third party. That's really what happened. Your philosophy is not even philosophical side because they're both the same philosophies. That's the thing that really bothers me about it. And that's...

Moore To Consider: Okay. That's in hindsight. That's in hindsight. I don't have a side. I don't have a side. I don't disagree with you there too. I think though that between the Republicans and Democrats, one of the candidates can be uniquely a destructive person.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Depending on how you look at it, and that's why there's more than two parties. There's more. There's more than two two Thoughts there's more than two degrees. Yeah well

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right. You brought, you, you drugged this back out to make this argument that I'm trying to dictate what people do. I just expressed an opinion that people are in, that people are at odds with reality if they think a third party vote is going to do anything to not put one of those two party members in the White House.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Look, there's a reason. There's a reason. Okay, but the thing is you're contributing to our demise by supporting that.

Moore To Consider: Not fine. You know, what else you can do is exercise what I often exercise I have done for decades. I just don't vote at all because I don't think there's any difference.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And that's the thing that I said. Most people have a better argument not to vote at all. If they're going to contribute to our demise by voting for someone who supports their demise, then you're better off not voting. Or vote for someone that you do share a philosophical view with.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Sure. I don't disagree with that too. I'm not sure there's not a, okay. I-I-I-

Charles Hundley Jnr: Don't just vote for somebody who you know is ⁓ going to do the wrong thing. You know it. ⁓

Moore To Consider: Boy, I keep thinking I'm clear on this. I think I'm clear on this, but I guess I'm not. Here's what I'm saying. I think there are times that when the two choices are up, that a person could look logically at the two choices and say, I tell you what, that person's the son of a bitch, but damn, that one's a lot worse. And even though I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, it's paramount that I do so because if that person gets the end, it's gonna be really bad. Or you have equally bad. And I want to go third party to make a statement because that person more aligns with my true feelings. It is about making a statement. All right. Okay. Okay. You're going to make, you are making a statement to vote with somebody that aligns with your principles. That is making a statement. Now you're saying exactly it is making a statement.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no, it's not about making a statement. It's not about making a statement. No, it's not. No, it's not. It's not about making a statement. It's not, man. That's actually an insult. Exactly. No, no, that's not. ⁓ how about this? Which is worse? I'm going to support somebody that doesn't, that doesn't, that I don't align with philosophically. That's even worse. Dude, that's no, no, man. Think about, think about that, man. Think about how, how detrimental that is. Think about how detrimental that is, man.

Moore To Consider: If it keeps something out that makes things worse, that's a strategy. Are you drug all this back up for what reason? We were on the other thing. I got a lot more. You're giving me credit for a lot more power than I could possibly ever have. In that argument, I still think that people who are looking at a third party in a situation where there may be graver circumstances, if you don't try to keep somebody out of office, it's a choice you can make, but it's your choice. That's fine. I would never tell anybody not to.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Do it again, right? You How many times, how many times do people have to be fooled by what you just said?

Moore To Consider: I don't think anybody's fooled. You're acting like I have any influence on what anybody does.

Charles Hundley Jnr: actually everybody do they're not i didn't say you had any influence that's not my point man my point is people keep saying people keep saying well i'm just going to vote for the less of two evils it's still evil exactly and and that's what makes it so much worse man that's what makes it so much worse

Moore To Consider: You're acting like I'm on here. and still a choice. You can say it's worse, but voting for less evil is a strategy which would, if you're correct, would produce less evil. Your third party pick, I'm seeing in these examples, is more helping to guarantee that one of the potentially worst candidates could win.

Charles Hundley Jnr: You And that's all about perspective and usually that comes from the loser's point of view. Exactly. No, no, no, no, okay.

Moore To Consider: You act as if I give a shit about any of this, honestly, because look in 08, I wanted Alan Keyes or, or I wanted Ron Paul. That wasn't going to happen in the, what was then called the Republican party. That was the only two.

Charles Hundley Jnr: And I voted for them. I voted for them in 2008. I voted for Ron Paul 2008. I'm sorry, 2004, 2008, 2012. Yeah. I wrote them in. How about this? How about this? Because my, my, my, uh,

Moore To Consider: You wrote him in. Or did they appear on the ballot at all? Vote them in. I'm with that. McCain Obama, you wrote in Paul, I'm with you.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, listen what saying though Wayne. My current federal representative usually would run unopposed. And thinking about it this way, I wonder how many, and notice you never see this, I wonder how many votes Mickey Mouse gets every election. I'm sure, I'm sure. Because all they want you to think is that there's two choices.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Right? He gets a lot. Right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's what they want you to think. That is only two choices. Okay. Well, no, it's not. No, it's not. They got you to believe that. They got you to believe. Do you really think, do you really, I'm sorry if you keep voting for that and expecting a different result. Yeah, they did get over on you then. You're expecting a different result. But they don't give you a different result.

Moore To Consider: That is what it is, but yeah. Boy, they really put one over on me. Got it. Got it. I didn't know this, Charles. I wish you'd have told me 25 years ago that if I had voted third party, we'd stop getting the Democrat and Republican candidates we've been getting. I did not know that. am so damnified. I didn't know. I didn't know. Cause it seems to be, keep, we keep getting these same candidates. They seem to be named candidates. seem to follow the same pattern. And I didn't know that. I didn't know that me voting third party was going to change all that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no, but Because you keep voting for them. Because you keep voting for them. No, no, but Jack, the reason why we keep getting these really terrible candidates is because you keep voting for them.

Moore To Consider: Exactly. It's me voting for it. get it. So if I would stop doing it, I'm going to do that in the 2028 election. I'm going to change the whole dynamic. I'm going to change it because I'm going to go, I'm going to go third party. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ But I'm not talking to the rest of the country. I'm asking why would you expect something different with your vote? Why would you expect something different? You keep voting for the same people.

Moore To Consider: Okay. I didn't Charles, I don't, as long as I've known you, I've known you close to 30 years, 25 years, whatever. I don't know why the hell you did not tell me this some time ago. All this time, you didn't tell me that if I would vote third party, then that would change the presidential structure or the candidates for the presidency. I didn't know. I didn't know it was me. I didn't know I had the power to, to convince people not to do this. I didn't know I had that kind of power. You pointed that out to me and now I'm finding out all the time. All I had to do was vote third party and it would have changed the dynamics of everything. didn't know. Nobody told me.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, but I'm just asking why do you vote a certain way but expect a different result?

Moore To Consider: I tend not to vote at all because I don't see the point.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, but again, that's not answering my question. My question is, why do you vote a certain way but expect a different result? That's what I'm asking. Then why do you vote? It's a really simple question. Okay.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. I don't expect a different result. don't look, Charles, Charles, I'll try one more time. Charles, Charles, I'll try one more time. These are, these are my situations. It's again, to me, it seems logical. Okay. There's a Republican and a Democrat and I can be with a hundred percent certainty. One of the other is going to win. Okay. And I can look Bush Gore. I can look McCain Obama. All right. You're giving me the face, but you tell me the last time a Republican.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Ask Teddy Roosevelt about that. Ask, oh no, no, you say 100%. Call it what you want, man, you say that, but ask Teddy Roosevelt about it. I think he would disagree. So, because did he not win? Yeah, he did. Yeah, he sure, yes, he won. No, no, no. His second time he ran on the Bull Moose Party and he won.

Moore To Consider: Tell me the last time a Republican or Democrat didn't win the presidency. Tell me that. Why would he disagree? Did he win as a third party? No, he ran as a third party candidate and he, no he didn't. He was a Republican when he won. He won as a Republican. lost as the... No, it's when he lost. He took over from McKinley's assassination. He won in 04, then he skipped and gave Taft 08, and then he tried to run again in 12 and lost his bull moose. He ran as the incumbent president in 08.

Charles Hundley Jnr: You know, if I'm wrong on this, I own it, but I don't think I am.

Moore To Consider: Okay, I'm gonna check it quick. Here we go. All right, I've got it, so okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, regardless though, regardless. The question is, why do you vote a certain way but expect a different result?

Moore To Consider: ⁓ and by the way, him running in 1912, what did he assure? Who did he assure was going to win? That's a great point. Woodrow Wilson, Woodrow Wilson.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I don't know. I don't know. O-o-okay.

Moore To Consider: Yeah. He ran Taft out because he had a pissing contest, a contest with Taft. He couldn't get the Republican nomination again. He goes, I know what I'll do. I'll run as a third party. I'll show Taft. I'm upset with him because he was my handpicked boy to us, to follow me. And now he decides, well piss and moan on him. And you know what? He decided he went, he went right in and he put Woodrow Wilson in the white house.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. Interesting. So he decided not to go along with the BS. More power to him.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, and he put the bad guy in. So how about that? Figure that out.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ but at least he can sleep at night.

Moore To Consider: Republican, yeah, I see slept all right. Yeah. And a bunch of kids died in Europe too. Okay. And a war that they say weren't going to fight. And you have a progressive era and you get your 16th amendment and you get your 17th amendment and you get all these things and you get your league of nations. You get all that. Yeah. You get all that. Thanks to the, or Roosevelt.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ yeah, and that's kind of our point. and And that's kind of my point about vote your conscience. Really vote your conscience. Do what you believe philosophically. Philosophically.

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right. I looked it up though. He ran as president. He was a Republican through 1912. The only reason he went to the new party affiliation of Bull Moose was to run for president because Taft was the nominee. Exactly what I said. He was president. He was vice president when McKinley was shot. He took over. He served the 1901 through the end of that term. He ran in 04, was reelected as a Republican, and he handed it off to Taft, which he then had a falling out with. And then he jumps in in 1912. and runs bull moose and loses.

Charles Hundley Jnr: out within it. Like I said, I was mistaken. And because I was mistaken at that, I will no longer say that again.

Moore To Consider: Okay, but you also see how he basically put Woodrow Wilson in the White House too. Tell me if you don't agree with that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me finish. Let me finish though. As I was mistaken because I've seen the error of my ways and I will never say that again. Can please people stop voting for people that you know are only going to go in the opposite direction of which you believe in yourself. Do what I do. Do what I do. Do what I do. Because as I just said,

Moore To Consider: That's not what I'm saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm not going to go around saying what I just said about Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moves Party winning because I've been proven to be incorrect. You keep voting for the Democrats and Republicans and expecting them a different result. Use what I just did. Use the same philosophy and logic of what I just used to say that I will never do that again because I was wrong. Try that. Everybody try that.

Moore To Consider: Wow. I didn't even realize how much of a, how destructive this was. Theodore Roosevelt ended up with 4 million plus votes in 88 electoral votes and Taft ended up with 3.4 million in eight electoral votes. So he

Charles Hundley Jnr: So really, if you think about it, if you really think about it, was Taft that was more of a drag than Roosevelt was, right? Oh, okay. Okay. Oh, again. So again, Taft was more of a drag. Call it what you want. So technically, he came in third place. The Republican dude came in third place. But no, we're just gonna continue going because the party says to do this, we have to do this.

Moore To Consider: Well, he was more of a drag on the position of voting against Wilson, but he was a Republican nominee. He was the incumbent president. He was the incumbent president. He did. and he was the incumbent president. He was the incumbent pre- I mean, Charles, there's some realities you have to work in a political world. If a guy's a sitting president, if the former president says, step down, I don't know that sitting president generally has said, oh, okay, yeah, Teddy, jump back in. He would have been the better candidate.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Should have. Should have.

Moore To Consider: Well, from a standpoint of let's have the party win. Yeah, he probably would have been, but he didn't get the nomination taft.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So wow, so this is just another one of these instances where party affiliation just screwed everything up.

Moore To Consider: Maybe this is good. Maybe this is good podcast arguments, I mean, maybe everybody's going to enjoy a food fight like this. But what I'm saying is if everybody's operating outside of the constitution, you don't really have a choice. But what happens is all I'm saying is one of these two parties is going to win. You know it, I know it, everybody knows that. So sometimes I think the circumstances can be grave enough that you might want to go in and vote for one of the two evils to

Charles Hundley Jnr: This is another... you

Moore To Consider: try to avert the worst evil or the greater evil. And the rest of the time, I think it doesn't matter.

Charles Hundley Jnr: What? Are you? They're not? This is why I don't do that. avert the greater evil or just go to it slower. Because that's all they're doing. They're not averting anything.

Moore To Consider: avert. I, okay. I think everybody hears me and I guess everybody hears you, but I think everybody hears what I'm saying. I'm saying that the two major parties have a history of evil. don't disagree with that. They have policies. I don't expect them to do anything different. The only time I vote for the 173rd time, the only time I'm going to vote is to go in when I think it's grave enough that I vote against the bad guy.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So why do you expect them to do anything different? Then why do you give them your support then?

Moore To Consider: The worst guy should say worst guy, gal. Sometimes I might look at it and go, this might be grave enough to vote against this, but otherwise it's like, it's more the same as if you can show me a story where the third party person does anything but siphon votes away from what might be potentially not as bad a choice. Then I'm fine with that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I- I- Man, I wish. Again, but that's all perspective usually from the loser because the same people, it's interesting that the Republicans use that argument against Papprow, the Democrats use that arguments against Nader, when technically all of those candidates on both sides, the Democrats and Republicans, both of those elections, they were all garbage. They were. they're going to use a scapegoat as saying ⁓ but Nader if it wasn't for him you know ⁓ a gore would have won ⁓ okay yeah whatever whatever

Moore To Consider: All right. All right, let me try this. Let me try this. Let's say that one is extreme left and let's say 10 is extreme right. You can understand, let's use that. You can understand that in a primary season, Republicans tend to play around the seven, eight gap and the Democrats will play around with two, three, kind of the two, three on the scale. Once again, follow me. One is extreme left. 10 is extreme right. Republicans are going to go into primaries playing more right than they're going to run because they're trying to get their base. The lefty is going to go a little bit more left. Then they're going to come and the Republicans going to run as a six and the Democrats going to run as a four, roughly four and a half, five and a half. They're going to try to run in the center. Let me finish this point. And what you're having happen when you have a Nader or you have a Perot is they're more

Charles Hundley Jnr: Hold on, hold on a second. Hold on, is something that you're missing, in your explanation. No, no, it's something you're missing in your explanation. Are you saying that the Republicans are running on a seven on their side of side of zero? ⁓ okay.

Moore To Consider: Tell me. Tell me. Go. No, no, no, no. I just identified it. One to 10 left extreme one extreme right 10. So on that scale, the Republicans going to play in the seventh slot to get all of that stirred up. He's Republican. He's right leaning. He, she, whatever dog cat. Maybe even they play some eight in some audiences, but they're going to run five and a half six fair. Fair.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Oh, okay. That's why I was just mistaken. Okay. Okay. Bye.

Moore To Consider: Okay. So the Democrats play in the two and three, they go to some extreme leftist place. They're playing the two game. They're playing the three game. They're going to have to come to about four and a half to get any kind of votes nationally. Five being down the middle. Just follow me in my dynamics. Okay. So what I'm saying is what do you think happens if there's an electorate and you and I will know this, there's about a 40 % Democrat. There's about a 40 % Republican and there's 20 squishy in the middle.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, all right.

Moore To Consider: And a lot of people all think I'm an independent, I'm a free thinker. I'm not a party affiliated person. All right, whatever. Say that's 20 to 25 % in the squishy middle. Okay. Now the election comes. Let's say that there's a Republican running in the six gap. Okay. And there's a Democrat running in the four gap. And along comes a Republican that's playing the seven or eight and he gets third party. Some candidate gets a third party seven and eight. Do you not think that's going to pull some more extreme votes from the right wing?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, but same thing happens on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Okay. So then let's say that person carries some votes in the seven slot and the other guy trying to run the five and a half six to be that centrist to get elected. Now he's competing against the ones that are getting pulled from the more extreme and he's running against one candidate who's running the four and a half gap for it. Running that four and a half slot. Who wins?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I've heard that argument a thousand times, but it happens both sides.

Moore To Consider: All right, I can switch it. Now, Nader runs in the two gap. Call it Nader, some green party person, whatever. So now do they not siphon votes away from the four and a half Clinton? Okay. So that's why these people say that. I'm not justifying it. I'm just saying if you got two people on one side of the political spectrum that kind of split the vote of the people that lean more in that direction, that is a recipe for the other guy winning. That's it. That's all we're saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah? Right? Yeah Oh, I already, we all already know that. The thing is, it's all kind of.

Moore To Consider: But you keep saying, why does somebody vote for, why does somebody vote for the continue to vote for the evil? And I think with the Democrat party saying when they bitch about Nader, you better go for our four and a half Clinton guy pushing towards five because you can't go two, three Nader because it's siphoning votes off of us and we're going to lose. And now you're going to get, you're going to get a Bush for

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's why I say it is all about perspective. It's, and usually it's from the point of view of the loser. That's why and everybody knows that.

Moore To Consider: All right, Charles, you've lost me. I love you, brother. I love you, brother. You've totally lost me. You've totally lost me. You say it's per the perspective of the loser. I'm not involved. I'm not involved. I'm not the loser saying this. I'm saying any objective human being that saw two people on the side of a political spectrum that could draw votes from a common pool of people. And you got one that's playing kind of centrist to right on the other side. And you got two.

Charles Hundley Jnr: How did I lose you, That's I don't understand. Yes, because they're the only ones that ever bring up the third party thing.

Moore To Consider: that are on the political left, siphoning votes from each other, I think there's a good chance the one on the other side running alone is going to win.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's called math. Yeah, I get it.

Moore To Consider: Right, that's the math part. Now you're going, well, you only say that if you're a loser. I'm like, no, the objective truth is if you got a more centrist Democrat candidate running with the more extreme lefty that pulls lefty votes, then that's going to hurt them against the Republican who's running center right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I never disagreed with you on that because it's simple math.

Moore To Consider: then why do you keep saying, why do people keep making the stupid choice of voting for the lesser of two evils? You've just guaranteed. What if you're that lefty person that wants to make the Nader vote? Are you not guarantee a right-winger is going to win or somebody right of center?

Charles Hundley Jnr: You don't. ⁓ Maybe I don't see that there's a difference between Bush or Gore.

Moore To Consider: Alright. Alright, that's fine. That's fine. Then you vote Nader and you guarantee Bush. Okay?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, and that's what we're saying. Again, as I said earlier, as I said earlier in earlier podcasts, whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you always end up with John McCain. Yeah, exactly. So I'm not a fan of John McCain, so I don't vote for either one of them if they mimic John McCain. That's what I'm saying. I don't support either one of them. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: You get John McCain. Right. I got you. I'm not disagreeing with you on that as well. That's fine. That's, that's fine. Charles. The only point I've been mating, I think you just conceded that is if you get two people pouring on one side of the political spectrum, one. All right. But you keep hammering the person that votes for the lesser of two evil vote on their one side of the party because they should be making the stand to make the third party vote. And I'm saying all they're assuring is their side of the political spectrum is probably going to lose.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Dude, I've said that all along. I've said that all along, man. But this is what we're saying. Their side of political spectrum is not going to lose because they're both the same. That's what I'm saying, They're both the same because you keep getting the same thing. You get wars, get higher taxes, you get more regulation, you get all of the other stuff that the people keep... Then why do you keep supporting them?

Moore To Consider: I got you. Okay. If you want to say Bush and Gore exactly, I got you. I got you. There's a lot of Democrats out there. There's a lot of lefties. I got you. I got you. I got you. I got you. you. I got you. haven't just, okay. All right. All right. All right. And I don't disagree with you that if you want to make the third party vote to make the state, is Nader going to be a third party vote call for you though? Would you ever vote for Nader?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Say again? in 2000. did actually I voted for Bush in 2000.

Moore To Consider: Why didn't you vote for Nader?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Philosophically, I did not agree with Nader, that's why.

Moore To Consider: Gotcha. But he could have been that, I'm not going to punch the gourd bush tick.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, no, I just say it philosophically. So all that other stuff didn't really matter to me.

Moore To Consider: Okay. So you didn't have a philosophical choice to fill that slot.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Pretty much exactly. that's that's so cool. So it's about philosophy for me. That's what it's about.

Moore To Consider: I got you. Yeah. See, we're not in a disagreement. I think where we've had this whole fight is I've heard from you and I think that you're maybe, I don't think you're changing the points you're making, but I keep hearing from you this kind of refrain of stop falling into this thing. And all I've been saying, know, stop falling into the trap of thinking anything's going to change unless you go third party or vote your conscience. I get it. But I'm saying the only point I've been making all along is if you think something is a particular evil. To me, I can understand the rationale of voting for the lesser of the evil and not going to third party in a case where you know one of the others is to be president. One of the other is going to be the winner. And I think sometimes the candidate may seem so grave if they won, you can't afford to play with the third party selection to satisfy your need to make a statement because the ramifications might be awful.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I wish, I really wished that I could see, or there was evidence that I would get something different or if I voted a different way, there would have been a different result. Especially when it comes to the major parties. I wish I could say that if I voted for this Republican this time, that I wouldn't have gotten higher taxes and more regulation or more wars and so on and so forth. They just keep doing the same thing though. Okay, so...

Moore To Consider: I'm with you and the, you're, you're illustrating again, my time when I'm saying the differences between the two major parties are indistinguishable, but sometimes I think there is a party member who might be so dangerous to vote for or have voted in that you might go, you know, I want to make that

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's only difference in degree. It's only difference in degree.

Moore To Consider: I want to go third party and feel good and sleep well at night, but I damn sure can't let that person be president if possible. So I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils of the established two party system because I, what's not a statement.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's not a statement, It's not a statement. It's not a statement. that's again, that is the same. Hold on, man. Hold on a second. Hold on. Hold on, Calling it a statement is the same thing as conspiracy theorists. It's the same thing. You put the label. It's OK. OK, so if I'm voting my conscience, from voting my conscience and these other two people, I know good and well or against my conscience.

Moore To Consider: All right. Bad language. I won't say statement. You're going to vote your, I said vote your conscience. You're voting your conscience. I said, I back off of it and I'll say you're voting your conscience. Yes. Yes. I got one being far more evil than the other. Let me just cut to the chase. Let me cut to the chase. Were you particularly supportive of Biden opening up the border? However many people came in, I got to give you an example. I have to give you an example. Let me just ask you that question. Were you particularly, whatever we see reported in the news, were you particularly supportive of what Biden did as it relates to the border of the United States, southern border?

Charles Hundley Jnr: then I should not vote for them, right? No, no, it's only degree, this is the thing, hold on a second, let me ask you this question. Let me ask you this question, man. let me, again, let me ask you this question, Let me. As a libertarian, what do libertarians believe or philosophically, what do we, why?

Moore To Consider: You're for open borders. Well, libertarians are really all over the map on that. are now because they don't want a welfare state either. We're talking about an open border and a well, all right. All right. Okay. All right. Let me pick another subject then go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, actually they're not. Thank you. Thank you. So, okay, so one guy opens up the border. So one guy opens up the border, but the other guy is just gonna make the state even bigger. So I lose either way.

Moore To Consider: All right. I can't get you on that. I got you. Good enough. You must be good at fencing. I'm trying to find a subject. All right. How about this? How about this? Let me see if I can find another subject. How about were you for the president of the United States saying our patience has run thin. We're going to work for a mandate of an experimental drug jabbed in your arm. okay with that? You okay with that?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I lose either way, man. So what is the point? Really? gonna go down this? Fine. Okay, fine. Let's do it. Fine. Let's go down. Let's go down there.

Moore To Consider: No, I'm going to ask a question. You okay with that? Cause I did hear a particular president say it. All right. If you had two presidential candidates, one says I'll jab you against your will. And the other says no, or you'll lose everything you have. And the other one said, I would never mandate that. Would that be one of those particular issues that you would vote against the jab mandate guy to make sure that the jab main mandate guy didn't get in? You would vote for the candidate of a particular party thinking you had a better chance of keeping that guy out. Or would you vote your conscience?

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm gonna need about 30 seconds for this one.

Moore To Consider: Go for it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: person who kept the guy who was in charge of that whole program around obviously didn't learn as to what happened in the 80s.

Moore To Consider: Alright, I got you. I know where this is going. I know where this is

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, so again, so you one, one, one, you keep that guy around and then you, you tout, as a matter of fact, you run around saying, I warp speed was my idea and all this other good stuff. So you are no better. Call it what you want, man. They're both, they're both bad. They're both bad. You don't?

Moore To Consider: Alright. I understand. understand. That's not the question I asked, but I got it. I understand. I think that Trump should wear the stain of warp speed the rest of his life, but he never mandated the shot. He never mandated the shot. And I don't think he ever would have mandated the shot. So I gave that example you pivoted to, he should have fired Fauci. I get it. You're going to have a pivot to anything I say. I get it. All I'm saying is I think that there could be presidents that have histories.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Hold on, not just pivot, not just Fauci, not just Fauci, not just Fauci.

Moore To Consider: that you know, you either need to get them out of office. They've done things to get them out of office, or you know, that particular person is too dangerous to be in office, but go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: So, so if, let's see, the Democrats want to shoot me with this gun.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The Republicans hand them the gun.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: They're both evil. in the answer, it, hold on. Yes, exactly. The Democrats want to shoot me with a gun. Damn near, yes. Yes, damn near, yes. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: You're not saying specific people. You're talking about two parties. Do you think John McCain and Donald Trump were the same person? Okay, gotcha. Okay, I gotcha. Would you say that John McCain and Ronald Reagan were the same person?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Not before.

Moore To Consider: Okay. So you just got a stereotype of a Republican that me and you're going to say the Democrats are pretty much all the same as well.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Look, you're gonna have to give me somebody you're really gonna have to you're gonna really you're gonna have to give me some You're gonna have to exactly that's my point if there's so many similarities with these people I'm staying away from them Period period I'm staying away from them. They don't have to be 100 % in

Moore To Consider: I don't disagree with you, man. I don't disagree with you. There's a lot of similarities. Okay. Okay. I got you. What you're saying is you can't see anyone running for office with the grave enough concern to make that choice that I said I might make to keep that person out. That's what you're saying.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, what it no, that's what I said in the last pocket. When the last podcast I said about this, if that's your one issue and you're going to down across for that one issue. OK, I get it, man. That's what I'm going to say. I get it. That's not that's.

Moore To Consider: No you are saying that. You're saying you're always going to vote your conscience. I'm not talking about one issue. I'm talking about a grave concern of somebody being in the presidency.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's not my one issue. My one issue is the actual philosophy of going and starting a new wars to kill people. That's my number one issue. Okay, yours may be something else. ⁓ And especially if you're going to campaign on saying, I'm not gonna do this. And then you go and do it.

Moore To Consider: Right. I don't disagree with that. If you're being critical of Trump right now, brother, I am right with you. I think he absolutely has gone 180 degrees against what he promised to be. Okay. I don't disagree with that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ it's not just... Okay, so again, man, for what reason, if he's the head of the party, why am I going to support, and it's not just him that's going along with this stuff.

Moore To Consider: It's not what I've said. It's not what I've said. It's what I continue not to say. What I'm saying is, you think there's ever a time that you see somebody that you think is potentially so detrimental to the country that it's worth it not to make the third, this is all I've been saying, not to make the third party choice and go with the established party just to try to get numbers to keep that other person out of office. You seem to be saying, I get the same person anyway, so I don't care. And that's fine if that's what you're saying. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes. No, no, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying, and I'm going to answer your question about this. Generally.

Moore To Consider: All right. Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Everyone's going to answer yes to that question if it goes against their number one priority. Everybody

Moore To Consider: Nah, I'm not even talking about priorities. I'm talking about, I'll give you, I'll give you an example. I have no number one priority issue with Gavin Newsom. I haven't gotten the name out yet. I don't have a, you don't, I see somebody that I think acts in ways that has been very destructive to a state I love. I think California is a wonderful state. I loved the visit there, but I see it going downhill. I've seen it go downhill for decades. Okay. So I look and see who's responsible for the going downhill.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I do. ⁓ will Gavin do some? Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry.

Moore To Consider: And you can see from moving the feet, you know, you, the whole thing about you hauls and everything, everybody's leaving California. Nobody's going out. You have made in and out burger. I love greatest thing where they moved their headquarters to Tennessee to get out of the regulation bullshit. They're dealing with it. They went in and out burger in and out burger is California. It's a family owned, it's California and all these companies are jumping out of California. must be a reason why. Okay. So, and I listened to a lot of Adam Carolla, love Adam Carolla. He lives in California. He discusses this a lot and Gavin Newsom and he sees at ground level, some of the effects of what's happened to California. So if someone said to me like, Hey, Hey, would you like to see Gavin come American, a California? Oh yeah. Give me some of that. It wouldn't be, well, what specifically do you want to be like? No, I don't want to see that guy in that position to potentially bring to the U S what he's brought to one state. Are you with me? Are you with me? Are you with me on that, what I've said so far? Alright, now okay, spin it, spin it, go.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ If how about this? Give me a Hold on. Hold on. on. Give me a sec. This is one of those panel things where you give somebody like five seconds to answer a question. Gavin Newsom is not a dictator within California. What caused California to get to the point that it's at is because of all the representatives that they have within the state and the people themselves. Gavin Newsom is just a part of the cog. He's part of the machine.

Moore To Consider: I got you. I got you. I got you. I got you. I see where this is going to go every time. I got you. I got you. You know, in 20, in 2028, there's a really good chance Gavin Newsom is going to be the D on the, on the ticket. You realize that? All right. So I'm saying is any history he had in California. Well, I tell you what he didn't do is he didn't prevent it. You can say, you can blame it on the legislature. You can blame it on all the people other than Gavin Newsom. Okay. Fine.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, no, dude, but you're asking, dude, I've thought about this, Okay, okay, I hear what you're saying. I hear what you're saying, but oh, oh, oh. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: But he's the governor either vetoing bills or signing bills into law or making certain moves. He's not as the governor. He didn't have that power.

Charles Hundley Jnr: California is a super majority Democrat. doesn't matter if the dude, hold on, listen, dude, it wouldn't have mattered that they're super majority. It wouldn't have mattered.

Moore To Consider: That's what I said. He didn't veto this stuff, did he? Okay, okay, I asked did he veto it? You said it didn't matter. Okay, fine. Okay, fine, that's fine.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The thing is, you gotta give him this, man. This is the thing you gotta give about Gavin Newsom, especially being in California. Gavin Newsom can have the wackiest of wackiest of wackiest views, and it doesn't matter for the fact that his legislature is gonna give him ⁓ a bill that is passed by a super majority every, almost every single time.

Moore To Consider: Okay. Okay. All right. You, you won't, you went, you were not going to play along. You're doing a great job. I got to give you, this is some of the most entertaining podcasting I have ever seen. This is absolutely, this is absolutely some of most entertaining stuff I've ever seen. I'm ask-

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I would say use a different state. I would say use a different state. Again, I would say use a different state and the state that I would use would be Kentucky. Kentucky is a better example for the fact that they have

Moore To Consider: Okay. Then you use the Kentucky go and show me somebody that's going to be president the United States come out of Kentucky. Go.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, that's not my point. I don't think Gavin Newsom is going to become president. That's my whole point, okay? And people, as much as I don't like Gavin Newsom, I do not put as much credit or give him as much credit for destroying California as I do the legislature.

Moore To Consider: Alright. All right. I've lost the discussion, brother, because what I was trying to get into is can I give you an example of somebody potentially running for president? You want out of California, you want to go to Kentucky, but not for the purposes of having a candidate come out of Kentucky. Give me a candidate that you think is dangerous.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, listen to what I'm saying, I'm gonna give you a candidate. That's why I'm using Kentucky as an example. Kentucky, listen to what I'm saying, Using the example of Gavin, fine, whatever. Kentucky is a state that voted Ron Paul in a statewide election as a senator. Vote Mitch McConnell.

Moore To Consider: Someone from Kentucky running for president. Please, I go. Mm-hmm. Yep. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: as a statewide, as a Senator in a statewide election, but has Andy Beshear as their governor. That is way more dangerous in my personal opinion than what it is to have Gavin Newsom for the fact that if you run somebody like Andy Beshear in the United States, he's actually more tolerable, as I say, palatable to more people than Gavin Newsom is. So if I were to put the two of them on a ballot,

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: together, I just about guarantee that Andy Breshear would win and he would screw up, then I, nationally, then I would if Gavin Newsom got into it, into the same, on the same ballot, because Gavin Newsom is so far out there and he can be that far out there and, I'm sorry.

Moore To Consider: nationally. You're saying that Bashir is more electable. You're saying Bashir is more, you're saying he's more electable, Bashir? Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: He's way, way more electable than Gavin Newsom is. Way more electable. But dangerous, Gavin Newsom is not electable throughout the United States. He's not. That's the issue. So that's my point.

Moore To Consider: but dangerous, but dangerous all the while. That argument's been made, that argument's but you're making a political analysis and we've gotten totally away from my model. Great, great podcasting, great story. I get it. Cause you're shitting on whether I bring up Gavin Newsom. I was just saying there are people certainly ⁓ in media and in discussions like this that think he stands a chance of being in the Democrat nominee. They're still talking Kamala Harris as a possibility. I haven't heard this year as being a potential. You're saying he's more electable. Maybe he's not aware of it yet. Maybe the party's not aware of it, but who are the front runners for the Democrat nomination in 2028? Who are the front runners?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Oh, hold on. on. Hold on. on. No, no. This I want to make this clear. I'm not saying that Andy Beshear is going to run. What I'm saying is who is more dangerous to the country is someone who's in the middle. That's what I'm saying. Gavin Newsom, the possibility of Gavin Newsom winning is not it is way less possible.

Moore To Consider: Okay. All right. We're having two different discussions.

Charles Hundley Jnr: than a person, and I'm not saying Andy Beshear as personal, I'm saying a person like him is way more dangerous than Gavin Newsom is. No, no we're not, no, no, because he.

Moore To Consider: All right. All right. Okay. We're having two different discussions. Let me say, what do you think are the chances? I'm just going to Google this like real quick. What do you think I'm going to get for leading candidates for the Democrat party for the nomination for the Democrat party for 2028? What do think I'm going to get?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Probably, I don't know, Gavin Newsome, Buttplug, Kamala Harris, and some other people. That's fine, yeah.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Okay, any of them you want to play this game with me ⁓ As being like super dangerous

Charles Hundley Jnr: I would say probably the vast majority of them are. It's just to the degree.

Moore To Consider: Give me the worst.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Uh, well, say again, who would be the most dangerous if, if, uh, they had the house in the Senate.

Moore To Consider: Here's what I just found. Pete Buttigieg, Ro Khanna, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Josh Shapiro. Those are the ones listed as the real possibilities. And I think Shapiro might be the most electable on that group, don't you think? Nationally? Okay, all right. Yeah, so maybe like you're right, when it comes to national, Newsom won't be able to pull off. I was just making the point that, and.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, yeah.

Moore To Consider: You know, it's, it's not going, it's not going anywhere, but I just think that there might be a time that you look at somebody and say, man, they got a track record like a Newsom does within a particular state where everybody's trying to get out and not much as trying to stay in. You wouldn't want him to nationalize that approach. I don't know that he's not electable, but whatever. Okay. So in saying that I'm saying, would you ever vote for JD Vance or Rubio or whatever on the Republican side, even though you would rather have somebody that aligns more.

Charles Hundley Jnr: I'm agreeing with your point, by the way. No, no, how about this? I'll say this.

Moore To Consider: with your political philosophy, your values, you might vote for that Republican candidate to make sure that person you think is too extreme left from getting in.

Charles Hundley Jnr: The user analogy, okay, yes, I'm gonna say yes, I would. But I would vote for a Republican or whoever it was, ⁓ major candidate from Major Park. Would it be to keep Newsome out?

Moore To Consider: Where you would what? I want it as clear. Right? Would it be to keep Newsome out? Yes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It really depended on who he's running against.

Moore To Consider: All right, let's try it. Let's try it. JD Vance against Newsome. And you've got your most attractive third party saying everything you've ever wanted to hear. Same election.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay. Jade events. Yes, but I have to say why there's I have to say why because when it comes to my my you know top of the pyramid subject Jade events was one of the people that was saying no let's not do this but he was over.

Moore To Consider: Let's hear why. Let's hear why. Yeah? So you're saying that Vance might reflect actually what your values are.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: So you might be getting a two for one, you might be, but what you're not doing is casting this vote simply to keep Newsome out. Right.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I don't vote against people. I vote for people.

Moore To Consider: Okay. You've made that clear. All right. I think we've gone two and a half hours. Maybe some of the best fighting we've ever done probably. And we still don't know who shot Kennedy and we still don't know who to vote for. All right. But I guess we've learned some things. All right. So what have I missed in all this? So anything else, ⁓ last arguments you want to make here?

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I'm just going to say you always. I I'm a person that truly believes. for things to actually get better, they're gonna have to turn around. Just slowing down is not making things better. It's just making them less worse.

Moore To Consider: I don't disagree with that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: That's okay. So if I want things to turn around, first of all, I'm not going to contribute to the worse by supporting the people that I know is just going to keep doing the same thing. Maybe not to the same degree, but you're still doing it. Still doing it. And for it to turn around, for it to turn around, it has to be the opposite of what they're doing.

Moore To Consider: Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: to go in a different direction. You can't say that if the cliff is a place that you want to avoid, that voting for the person that's just getting you there slower is a plus. You're still going there. You're still going there.

Moore To Consider: I get everything you're saying. I think what you're, okay, I see what you're saying and I can't dispute it. I think we've both conceded a lot in the other person's viewpoint. But to kind of close the loop, all I'm saying is, and I think you've conceded this point, you got two people on one side of the political spectrum, a spectrum taking kind of siphoning votes from each other. could almost guarantee the other side gets in. And an example, that 1912, kind of an example, there is a pissing contest that develops between, Theodore Roosevelt wasn't real happy with Taft. He was his handpicked selector. That was his guy. Then he goes in there he's like, I'm not so happy with him. Now he goes in and disrupts votes on that one side and pretty much assures that Wilson's going to be the president. And that's what happens. For good or for bad, I don't think it was real good, but Wilson becomes the president. If somebody were to look back and say, know, Roosevelt really kind of guaranteed Wilson's election and you come back and say, well, he was more popular than Taft. Taft should have dropped out. It's a point. I get it. But to look at that and think that both of them being in the election didn't split a vote that were combined might've put Wilson out, I think is naive and kind of, that's all I'm saying. You got two guys.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Oh, because that would be denying simple math. Yeah, that would be...

Moore To Consider: That's it. That's it. That's it. it. And that's all I'm saying. So all these times in that example, I could have seen someone saying, son of a bitch, Taft is president. I love some, some, some Teddy. I love Teddy, but Teddy's going to mess everything up and guarantee I'm going to vote for Taft to keep the president in and not enough people did it. I could see people going to Teddy and saying, dude, you're guaranteeing the Wilson guys getting in. I don't care. I'm standing on principle. Taft needs to get out. Well, Taft's not getting out. Guess what? You just made Wilson president. That's all I've been saying all along using that example. And I could see where somebody voted for, for Teddy. I can see where somebody voted for Taft. That was more on that side of the political spectrum. Both sides realizing, damn, we're going to end up getting Wilson as a result because there's not going to be enough push one way or the other to get enough votes and electoral votes to get Wilson out. That being said, I think we're in agreement on the math. That's all I've been saying is the math. Now.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Backing off the math, the only other gradation of this I've been saying is I tend to not vote. just tend to go, Hey, John McCain or Barack Obama or Gore book. Who cares? You're getting the same guy. When there have been times when I thought things were uniquely evil, potentially with that presidential candidate, then I might go son of a gun. I got to go in there and vote against that. You're saying you're not a vote against guy. get it. But because I don't see. the people who ascend to these political positions ever really changing. I'm always on a watch for what I think is evil enough to make a vote against. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I don't vote for, I voted for Paul and I would have voted for Paul and I would have voted for Ron Paul and I would have voted for Alan Keyes because I love both of them. But other than that, not really. Go ahead.

Charles Hundley Jnr: It's, think that. Part of the political party's strategy is to try their best to make the opponent look as evil as possible.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: so they can scare you into voting for their candidate. Even though their candidate is just a little less evil.

Moore To Consider: Art, if you're talking about strategies, okay, so. I've conceded the fact that one might be evil and one a little bit less. And sometimes the evil, I've said this 117 times. I think I keep saying the same thing. I'm going to sit out when I don't think it matters. But sometimes the gravity of the situation may be so great as to vote against what I think can't be in the White House. And it doesn't really get me anywhere. I'm conceding that too, because I think generally the people who ascend to political power that getting these positions to run from major parties are not really good people. Okay?

Charles Hundley Jnr: So if you notice there's one thing that I haven't said, and I haven't said that people should vote against their number one priority. Whether I agree with whatever their number one priority is, I've never said that. And the reason being is, mine may be different than yours. If that's what your conscience is telling you to do, because that is your number one priority, that's what you're most passionate about, who am I to say?

Moore To Consider: What have you not said?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Don't do that. If your environment's your number one priority, then you vote for an environmentalist. Okay, I get it. Dude, trust me, I get it. what, I don't know, ⁓ medical malpractice is your number one priority, you vote for the candidate who's toughest against ⁓ medical malpractice. That's all I'm saying. If war and killing people is my number one priority, ⁓

Moore To Consider: I don't think in... ⁓ Yeah.

Charles Hundley Jnr: being against it obviously is my number one priority. I'm voting for the people who are not going to do that. But if you keep doing that, then you don't deserve my vote because you keep going against my number one priority. That's all I'm saying.

Moore To Consider: Yeah, but you can see the fact that voting for Trump in the last election, didn't, if you did, I'm not saying you did or didn't, but if you did, then you certainly didn't get what you bargained for.

Charles Hundley Jnr: If he had said that this is what I'm going to do, I'm going to go and attack Iran, ⁓ hell no.

Moore To Consider: But what I said was, if what you voted for was no further crazy unnecessary war, you didn't get what you voted for. Yeah. Right. Exactly. I get it. I get it.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, I'm agreeing with you. Yeah, I didn't get it. I look at it the reason I say this is because in my personal opinion, that is the one thing that has stripped us of so many rights, so much money, so many lives. That's why it's my number one priority. The other stuff, look, I get that it's important, but at the top of my pyramid, it's that one.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm.

Charles Hundley Jnr: for my reasons, and I can't support anybody who goes against it. And like I said, man, the people who are environmentalists, I get what they're saying. It's the only planet we have, and that's who I'm gonna vote for. Okay.

Moore To Consider: Well, in making that point too, it really dawned on me. It really hit me as you were saying that I don't vote for anything. I only vote against things. I really do. Okay. And that, yeah, and I get it. Yeah, I totally get it. Yes. So I could agree with that. Yes. But what I'm saying is I'm not looking for any level of government to do anything for me. I'm not asking them to provide anything for me.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Well, I vote against war.

Moore To Consider: I want to vote for the candidates who are going to do the least amount of damage. Really do the least amount of anything. If you go to the local level and you say, you need certain services provider or whatever, I'd always be pivoting towards the free market. I'd rather the free market decide because people will do things for profit, will do things more efficiently. In the end, it probably costs less. Matter of fact, there's another thing about Gavin Newsom I saw the other day. He's got a diaper program. This was on Adam Carolla and I won't get the number exactly right, but I think it was 25 cents. He goes in and does this like multimillion dollar deal to provide diapers to the diaper lists or whatever. Then it's found out that his wife somehow benefited from it. But the, interesting thing that was found is like some local station in California went to Costco or, or, ⁓ Target or wherever. And they found that you could buy in bulk the diapers at 16 cents per diaper, where what they're doing is costing 25 cents per diaper. Now, again, I watched this on Adam Carolla, the interesting point was some of the people that benefited, but he was out there saying, there are children that need diapers and da da da. And people like, ⁓ my God, he cares so much. Well, there's a, as a cost inefficiency right there, like some multi-billionaire could have gone in and bought all the diapers they wanted to and give them out to people. Or they could have taken state funds and gone over to.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Wow. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Costco, guess, or who else am I plugging? have Sam's Club. They could have gone somewhere and bought them off the shelf and cost the taxpayer less. But somehow they're getting 20. Yeah. That's the government, but there are going to be people that say, but there are going to be people that see that and go, that son of a gun cares about diaper and the babies. mean, gosh, I mean, what, what greater man could you get than that? And that's going to be enough for them. Or they might say to you at the polls.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, that's the government. Bye cheap, sell what's

Moore To Consider: I'm voting for the, I got a baby over there and his diapers full of shit. And this guy right here is going to give us diapers. What's your guy going to do? And I might say, please show me the constitution, California, U S constitution or anywhere in between. Show me where diapers should be provided by the government. Or there, you know, that that's a jurisdictional issue that diapers be provided, you know, and you might look at, the people look at you sideways. Of course diapers should be provided by government. Government provides all they feed, they close, they educate, they do everything. I don't see it that way. So again,

Charles Hundley Jnr: I agree with you.

Moore To Consider: If I get motivated at all to vote, it's always to try to stem an evil that I think may be occurring with that administration. But I don't vote for people. I don't see people and go, ⁓ wow, I see that person's being the answer. I just see people as being less evil. And if the evil I think I'm voting against is great enough, then I'll go vote. That's it. That's, that's, that's, that's all I'm saying. But I do think we agree on that the math does sometimes.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Thank you.

Moore To Consider: Skew the results in favor of one or the other. All right, how do we finish this? This one hour we were gonna do.

Charles Hundley Jnr: yeah, no, right. That's funny. I'm going to say that, from one of my favorite characters in TV history, ⁓ I want to believe. Yeah. I want to believe. Unfortunately, they're not giving me enough evidence to believe it. Yeah.

Moore To Consider: Well, kind of what I was saying earlier, I don't look to anyone in political life to inspire me or am I thinking, do I think there's any real chance they're going to get it right? Like when you think about how flipped it is with the market, right? You can open up a market and you can say my meat is fresh and great cuts or whatever. And I can go there. I'm like, Hey, given other grocery stores I've been in. This Charles and his cuts he puts out there are pretty good. And then you're going to live and die on the results that you create or whatever you're putting out there. Your produce section, your meats, you know, how you set up your store. You're going to live and die with whether or not it's attractive, cost effective, et cetera. The quality of what you do. You don't have to tell me, you don't have to do a speech. Now you're going to advertise. But you can do all the advertisers and speeches you want, but what's going to eventually decide whether or not people come in your store. Cost and quality, right? I can open up a burger stand, same thing. So constantly the market decides, the market kicks people out that aren't propped up. But in politics, and this gets often said, it's cliche, but people get kicked upstairs all the time. They do a really shitty job at a particular position. They become a party favorite. go to it. get elected up to another position. And then the worst they do, the more they seem to ascend along a political ladder. And you're kind of like, how the hell is that happening?

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah. Yeah. Well, have you ever gotten food poisoning from a restaurant?

Moore To Consider: Nah, that's one of the most over the, I'm not saying that didn't happen to you, but I just hear people, especially people miss work, you know, or they're late for school when I was teaching. What happened? I got food poisoning, which is basically, which is basically, ⁓ I was late and you know, I'm sure people have, I just, I just think most of the time I hear it, it's, it's basically an excuse for being late for something, but.

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓ No, I've actually had it. I got food poisoning from... No, I understand. I get what you're But I did get food poisoning about 20 some years ago from a place that, touts.

Moore To Consider: Did it mean you just ate something you got violently ill?

Charles Hundley Jnr: well, I got, actually it wasn't ill, I'm lactose intolerant. So, you know, but this was actually, I got food poisoning. I was throwing up and stuff like that. It was, it was pretty bad. And I, and that was the only thing I had to eat. So I know where it came from. So with that said, take a while, guess what I didn't do after that. Nope, not that part. I didn't go there any longer.

Moore To Consider: Okay, gotcha. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. All right, right, right. I got you. Yeah. Okay. Right. You didn't sue the place. ⁓ yeah, yeah, okay, I got you. I thought lawsuit right off the top, okay.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yeah, didn't go there no longer. So I gave you my money, I gave you my support, and you poisoned me. You don't get my support no longer.

Moore To Consider: Mm-hmm. Right. But that's a, right. That's a market decision. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Well, and you know, it's sad that when you have that kind of experience, you'll tell 15 people or something like that. And if you have a good experience, you'll tell three. I don't know if the numbers are true on that or not, but I have definitely, I went that, that, that time I talk about, and I'll tell you right now and I'll tell everybody out here and I hope they still exist. And I hope this does well.

Charles Hundley Jnr: There you go. Yeah. Yeah, you don't get my support. Yeah, I... No, I get your point.

Moore To Consider: When I talked about, when I did my thesis and I was talking about this with Posner the day interviewing G Robert Blakey at Notre Dame, I packed a suit. I packed a suit. was that time in life. I was going to wear a suit and tie to interview G Robert Blakey as a part of my, ⁓ it's a part of my thesis and the study of my thesis. And guess what happens when I get to South Bend, Indiana University, Notre Dame. I'm going in there to interview this professor of the law school Blakey. former chief counsel of the House Select Committee. Guess what I find when I unzip this cover I have for the suit.

Charles Hundley Jnr: pistol.

Moore To Consider: It's completely wrinkled beyond belief. It's just like unbelievable. And I got about an hour, two hours, two hours before. So I'm in this hotel and I jump up and I go to this family cleaners, family cleaners, and I hit the door and I'm like, can I get this suit pressed? And I mean like immediately the guy goes, Hey, hey, hey, nice to meet you. We're a family owned business. But long and short of it is he does it in one hour. And I said, okay, what do I owe you? He goes,

Charles Hundley Jnr: ⁓

Moore To Consider: Hey son, I can tell you really means a lot to you. You don't know me anything. And I'm like, no, no. And he says, no. And I said, well, look, take this or something. I told a hundred people about that. This is a, this is a mom and pop cleaners in South bend, Indiana. They don't know me from Adam. He does my suit turnaround time in one hour so I can get the suit pressed, put it on and go do the interview. You follow what I'm saying? I told a hundred people about that. Right. But not only that.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Yes, they're good people man.

Moore To Consider: that act of kindness. He could have said, I'm sorry, we'll have it done by four o'clock or whatever. That's our policy. Him being ⁓ a family owner, it wasn't go out to somewhere and come back. Yeah, we got everything right behind. Hey, dude, I'll have it done in an hour. Perfect press, everything. And I'm telling you that story today because I told everybody I could tell. I don't know when I'm to see these cleaners in South Bend, Indiana again, but they were some fine people and they took care. You know what I mean? Now, if that's how they treated people, I bet they did really well. Right. And that's an experience that I'm talking about 30 plus years later, and I still remember it. And there are places I go restaurants as places I go in general, because I like the people and they treated me nice. You don't get that with government as much, but what's at stake for the business. What's at stake for the business. You have a choice, but also if right, if they make bad choices in the service to you, what do you do? You go somewhere else. You don't go back there. That's what I'm saying. It's such a.

Charles Hundley Jnr: You have a choice. You have a choice and you can go somewhere else. Yeah. Right.

Moore To Consider: difficult part about the whole political aspect. We really don't have choices. We really don't. We can have congressional elections and the whole slate that we have to go in there as a member of the House or people that we know are either going to feed the machine or they're just not good candidates.

Charles Hundley Jnr: What was that? Was it divide and conquer? That's what they've done.

Moore To Consider: I'm all for you running for president in 2028. You're of age now, so let's get it done.

Charles Hundley Jnr: Okay, all right, I will. As a matter of fact, I'm going to announce my candidacy right now and my platform is going to be... It's all going away. There you go. That's my platform. That's my slogan. No, he's going to be my running mate. But Ashford is going be my running mate.

Moore To Consider: Please run. Please run. Okay. Yes. I thought you're going to put the asteroid. thought the asteroid would be somewhere in there. That's that you're running me. He's going to be running me. All right. Anything else you want to end on here? All right. This has been more to consider. This is Jack and Charles.

Charles Hundley Jnr: No, we're good. It's been a long time. This has been more to consider times three.

Moore To Consider: times three, three shows we're going to, yeah, we'll probably break these shows up anyway. But anyway, love you audience. Please like and subscribe. Love you brother. And please like, subscribe and comment. Please tell us what you think of our little argument here. Charles, brother, take care. All right, man.

Charles Hundley Jnr: All right,