CNN Town Hall with Vivek Ramaswamy 12/13/23 Transcript

Good evening and welcome to Iowa home of the first contest of the 2024 presidential race, now just 33 days away. We are live here at Grandview University in Des Moines, Iowa for CNN's Town Hall with Ohio businessman, Vivek Ramaswamy. I'm Abby Phillip. Mr. Ramaswamy has made a name for himself in this field with his bold and sometimes controversial positions. Now, he is prepared to face his first test before voters right here in Iowa, where he is competing with his rivals, including the current front-runner, former President Donald Trump. Now, tonight's event is about the voters. Mr. Ramaswamy will have the opportunity to answer questions directly from Iowans on the issues that will help determine who wins the Republican nomination, and I will of course have some questions of my own. (01:05) In the audience, here are voters who say that they plan to participate in the Iowa Republican caucuses, both registered Republicans and also voters who plan to register as Republicans. To find tonight's questioners, we reached out to Republican affiliated groups, as well as business groups, farm associations, parent groups, young professional organizations, religious groups, and conservative advocacy organizations. Guests of the Ramaswamy campaign and of Grandview University are here in the audience tonight, but they won't be asking questions. We have asked everyone here to be respectful to each other and to Mr. Ramaswamy so that the voters in this room and at home have a chance to hear from the candidate. Now, please welcome Vivek Ramaswamy.

Good to see you. Hey guys, good to see you guys.

I want to get right to the audience and bring in Samona Yentes from Clive, Iowa. She is self-employed and serves on the board of a Christian school in Des Moines. She's a Republican, but she says that she's still undecided. Samona?

Thank you. First of all, welcome to Iowa and Merry Christmas from Iowa. Thank you. And thank you for really adding some important conversations to the campaign. So, some local commentators refer to you as maybe the younger Trump, not a politician, which would place you running in the same lane as President Trump for getting votes. So other than being younger, how would you differentiate yourself from President Trump?

So look, I appreciate that question, and I get it frequently these days on the campaign trail. It's not just being younger. I think we are reaching a new generation of voters in this country. We've been to most of the college campuses across this state, and I don't think that's something the Republican party has done a great job of. There's a reason why these revolutions, these revivals are often led by the next generation. Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. I'm an old man by comparison actually to Thomas Jefferson, and I will say this, it's going to take a president who yes, comes from the outside, is a businessman. I believe it's going to take an outsider with sharp elbows at times to come take on the federal bureaucracy, to shut down agencies that need to be shut down, to implement that 75% headcount reduction I want to see in the federal bureaucracy, but it's also going to take a president who has a deep first personal understanding of the law and the Constitution. (03:44) And those two things don't usually go together. I've actually hired many people in my career over the many companies that I've started, and those two skills you might have the academic law professor types over here, you might have the business types that are going to get something done. That's what gives me my sense of purpose in this race. And I think I'm the only person in this race who brings both of those attributes and understanding and a commitment to the Constitution. But combine that with being an outsider who can actually get things done. And I think that's going to be take the combination that it actually takes to revive this economy and revive our constitutional republic.

And if I may, Mr. Ramaswamy, Samona's question was about how you would be different from Donald Trump. So how specifically would you differentiate yourself from Trump?

Well look, I think some are some policy areas. I mean, take the Iowa carbon capture pipeline, the use of eminent domain right here. It doesn't affect many in the national audience, but it affects people in this room. I'm seeing many heads nodding. You're familiar with this issue. They're using eminent domain to seize farmland, to build a carbon capture pipeline using federal subsidies. I'm the only candidate in this field who has taken a clear stand in being against those kinds of policies, the unconstitutional use of eminent domain. So we can go into other specific examples, but it comes down to a commitment to the Constitution, a deep understanding of the Constitution, swearing an oath to the Constitution and keeping it and combining that with being an outsider. And yes, reaching and inspiring the next generation of Americans. I think I'm the best person in this race to do those things and that's why I'm in it.

Let's bring in now, Jacqueline Riekena, she's a healthcare IT manager from west Des Moines. She's a Republican who says that she's undecided. Jacqueline?

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you.

I'm going to switch it up. With the number of illegals, illegal aliens crossing the border daily, and being bused to cities across the United States, how do you plan to secure our border and remove illegals from the US?

And that second part is the harder part, I'm glad you asked it. Let me start with the first part of how we'll just secure the border. These are basic things we can do. The country that put a man on the moon can get this done. It's just a question of political will. So one thing I've said is we will use our own military to secure our own border. Right now we can use it to secure somebody else's border, let's use it to secure our own southern border and our northern border, too. Don't forget about that. Our northern border has seen more illegal crossings this past year than the last 12 years combined. That's where this front is going. And I've visited both in the last several months. If we're able to do that, use our military, complete the border wall, stop federal aid to any central American country until they have secured their own borders for every country between Venezuela and Mexico. (06:29) Then I want to implement, I would say the best border policies of all, which is ending the illegal incentives to be here, end birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal migrants to whom the 14th Amendment does not apply, end federal funding to sanctuary cities using our own taxpayer money to pay effectively for breaking the rule of law. And then there's the hard question. I don't want to leave you hanging on that one because many people skip this one, but this one's the hard one. I do believe that anybody who's in this country illegally needs to be returned to their country of origin, not because they're all bad people. In fact, many of them are good people, many of them, if we're being honest, if we were in their shoes and there's a president of the United States who's been giving them a wink and a nod to come on over, if we were in a tough spot, maybe we would've done the same thing. So this is not a value judgment about those people. It's a value judgment about this country. We're founded on the rule of law. (07:26) And as a father of two sons in the White House, I can't look them in the eye and tell them they have to follow the rules when our own government isn't following its own rules. So then there's the question of how, and this is the part many Republicans skip. There's only 6,000 or so ICE agents on the front line. How could they possibly tackle millions of illegal migrants who are in this country illegally? Here's the answer. There's a provision in the law. We don't need new laws. The existing law, it's called 287(G). It allows you to actually serve an ICE agent to allow local law enforcement across this country to serve their warrants. That's a million law enforcement officers. We can then get that done. But again, all it takes is a president with a spine. And if I swear an oath to the Constitution, I intend to keep it. That's how I'm going to lead this country. And I think that's how we're going to solve not only the border crisis, but the crisis of the abandonment of the rule of law in this country. That's how I expect to lead.

You just said that you would end birthright citizenship.

For the kids of illegals.

For the kids of illegal-

Yes.

Immigrants. There are currently millions of such people, children some of them, some of them adults. Would you retroactively strip them?

Great question, Abby. So I'm glad you asked that. Prospectively. So January 20, 2025 forward. There is a concept in the law known as a reliance interest. If you've relied on the government, we're not going to be able to retroactively date that. But from January 20, 2025, going forward, if I'm the president, if you're born in this country as the kid of an illegal immigrant, you will not enjoy birthright citizenship. And that's what the 14th Amendment says. It says it only applies subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's in the opening section of the 14th Amendment when it talks about birthright citizenship. So in the same way, and I want people to understand this because some people call this a controversial view. I don't think it needs to be. The kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here legally and he's born in the United States, that person doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship. Nobody contests that. (09:21) Well, if the kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here legally does not enjoy birthright citizenship, neither does or should the kid of a Mexican or Venezuelan migrant who's here illegally. And there's been case law on this at the appellate court level, the one case that's been ruled agrees with me on this. I believe the current Supreme Court agrees with me six to three on this. All we need is a president with the spine who I go back to that first question, Abby, understands the Constitution. If I'm going to swear and oath to the Constitution, I better darn well have read it.That's what I'm going to do.

You suggested though, the courts would have to weigh in on this. Would you agree with that?

I expect that this will go to the Supreme Court and I expect the current Supreme Court will agree six to three with me on this based on my study of the court.

All right, let's turn now to Mike McCoy. He's an insurance company, CEO from west Des Moines and a Trustee here at Grand View. He's a Republican who says that he's deciding between you and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Mike?

Thank you. So what makes you think that Putin would be responsive to your Ukraine solution?

And before you jump in Mr. Ramaswamy, I just want to ask you to remind the audience here what the solution is that he's referring to.

That's fair enough. So I've proposed, and thank you for coming prepared. I appreciate that. I've proposed a reasonable end to the Ukraine war. I don't think this war is advancing our interests. I think we're spending $200 billion of our taxpayer money that would be better used to defend our own border. But even worse, I believe it's increasing the risk of World War III because it's driving Russia further into China's hands. So what I've proposed, is a reasonable deal that would allow Ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact. Yes, with some territorial concessions of the Russian speaking regions in eastern Ukraine. And a hard commitment that NATO will not admit Ukraine to NATO, but only if Putin exits his military alliance with China. That Russia-China Alliance is the top threat that we face today. So do I trust Vladimir Putin? Of course not. Is Putin a great craven dictator? (11:16) Absolutely he is. But we will trust him to follow his self-interest, just as he will trust us to follow ours. Because you asked a good question, I'm going to go into this detail. Nixon did this in 1972 when he pulled Mao Zedong out of the USSR. That was a China-Russia alliance back then. Did we trust Mao? Of course we didn't. But there were kinks in that armor back then. There were kinks in that armor today, in the Russia China relationship. Look, when Putin and Xi Jinping met, Putin sends then weapons to India and Vietnam, that's sending a signal to China. China doesn't appreciate that. China wants to complete a railroad in northeast China to the ocean. Russia's not letting them. So if we look closely, there are kinks in that armor. But it's going to take a visionary leader who's going to say, we're going to use the Ukraine War as an opportunity to say to Russia, you know what? (12:04) We'll reopen some economic relations with Russia as Nixon did with Mao. But we're going to require no more joint military exercises. No more military sales between Russia and China. Weaken that alliance. That's the single most important thing the next president can do to reduce the risk of World War III. And I want you to understand, I'm the only presidential candidate really talking about that Russia-China Alliance. Yet, that is the single greatest threat we face to the United States of America today. And I do think it's going to take a leader coming from the outside of the existing foreign policy establishment. I'll remind you, the one that got us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where thousands of our sons and daughters went to go die, adding $7 trillion to our national debt 20 years later with the Taliban still in charge in Afghanistan and Iraq's still a broken country. If that isn't a sign that we need fresh blood in our foreign policy establishment, I don't know what is. And so I think it's going to take new leadership and that's the deal that I would do. Thank you.

Staying

On this Ukraine topic, I want to follow up. You want to suspend support for Ukraine in this war and get the United States out of that conflict.

As part of this deal that I've laid out.

If Putin doesn't take you up on that deal, would you allow Putin to use force to take all of Ukraine if he wanted to?

So I think the deal we're going to do now is actually going to allow Ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact, which is not even the path that Ukraine is on.

But if Putin does not take you up on your deal, which he may not-

So, look, I'm convinced on my ability to negotiate this deal.

Would you, if he decided to use force to march into Kiev, take all of Ukraine, would you, as President of the United States, allow that to happen?

So, Abby, that I think is a fictitious scenario for a lot of reasons. Part of the reason Putin's been able to seize Eastern Ukraine is they have not had the same level of resistance as the rest of Ukraine.

How is it a fictitious scenario when Putin amassed-

Because he literally has tried to do it and has failed to do it.

But he-

And so what I would say is this-

... had tried to do it, I think is the point I'm trying to make here.

And he failed to do it because I think that this, it's a fair question.

He failed to do it because the United States backed Ukraine in the war.

No, he failed to do it for a deeper reason, and now this gets into some details in the Ukraine war, but if you want to go there, I think we should go there, which is that the eastern regions of Ukraine, these are Russian-speaking regions where most of the people who live there don't even view themselves really as part of Ukraine. They have not been represented in the Ukrainian parliament for the better part of the last decade, almost the entire last decade. So there was no counterinsurgency or resistance. That's why Putin was successful in Eastern Ukraine but not the rest. So again, I come back to principles. Are there a lot of-

But would you-

... scenarios we can't map out in advance, but the basic principles are this: Russia's in a military alliance with China. I'm going to play hardball and require that Russia weaken or exit its military alliance with China. (14:44) But we also have to stand by a few things that ... commitments we've made, that NATO should not actually admit Ukraine to NATO. We made that commitment. Gorbachev made it. It was made to Gorbachev by James Baker in 1990. We haven't kept that commitment. We should keep that commitment too. And I think that that level of diplomacy avoids us using ... I mean, let's look at the alternative now, Abby. We're talking about sending another $61 billion to Ukraine. It is unclear to me or anybody else what the next hundred billion is going to do that the first hundred billion didn't accomplish. (15:13) And so I don't think throwing bad money after bad is going to be the solution here. I do think diplomacy is the solution, but it's going to take somebody who is committed to advancing U.S. interests to get this done.

I want to-

So my foreign policy is avoid World War III, declare independence from China, and then focus on securing our own homeland, which we're not talking about enough, Abby.

I want to get back now to our audience member.

Yeah. Absolutely.

We have a question now from Nicole Rybak. She's from Des Moines, and is a college admissions counselor. She says that she's currently registered as a Democrat but now intends to switch parties and is planning to participate in the Republican caucuses and register as a Republican. She is undecided on which candidate to support. Nicole?

Thank you, and welcome. I'm going to throw it back to the United States and talk a little bit about how you feel about the growing differential between the top 1% and the middle class in the U.S. and how you plan on addressing it in your presidency?

Great question, and to tell you the truth, I don't feel great about it. A lot of this is the product of the Federal Reserve, actually. It seems like a technical subject a lot of people don't like to talk about. I think this is fundamental. (16:24) So the Federal Reserve has since the late 90s taken on the role of playing, effectively, God for the financial system, for a lot of that period, raining money from on high like manna from Heaven. We've been skiing on artificial snow and it's really flowed down through the top 1%. And a friend of mine actually has a funny expression, but I'll share it with you. He says, "If you're a nurse, you'll go home with some extra latex gloves. If you're a teacher, you might go home with some extra pencils. If you're a banker, you go home with a few extra dollars," and that's the way it's worked through the Federal Reserve system. Trickle-down economics I believe does work when it's driven by gains in the real economy, but it doesn't work when it's created by artificial paper wealth generated by Fed Reserve policies. (17:04) So I'd put the Fed back in its place. The reason real wage growth has not gone up for the bottom 99%, adjusted for inflation, it's been flat. The reason why is the Federal Reserve has treated wage growth as though it's a leading indicator of inflation and try to tamp it down like a game of whack-a-mole for the last 25 years, so you get what you pay for. My view is I'll put the Fed back in its place. (17:24) A single mandate for the U.S. Fed. What is that? Dollar stability. Peg the dollar to commodities. That ties the hands of our government. That's a good thing. We had our greatest GDP growth in this country before we left the gold standard. I think that's telling. So when the dollar is stable, that's how you actually help the bottom 99% in this country. That's how you see a real wage growth. (17:47) And I want people to understand, you hear a lot of tales and mythology I would say about the current economy. Let's make it simple. What's going on? Prices are going up, interest rates, including mortgage rates to buy your home, are going up, but wages have remained flat. (18:03) And so I'm not going to be the person who comes in here and tells you, and some people will say, am I too pessimistic at times? I'm a realist. I'm not going to tell you the American dream is alive and well right now. It is not. It's alive and hanging on for life support, but I believe it can be. And I do think it's going to take now more than ever a CEO in the White House, somebody with fresh legs, somebody I believe from the next generation, to look at this differently, apply some basic economic common sense, and that starts with reform of the Federal Reserve. So thank you for that question, and welcome to the Republican side of [inaudible 00:18:39]. Thank you.

Let me ask you, Mr. Ramaswamy, two years ago you floated the idea to dramatically increase the inheritance tax up to 59%. You said then, "We shouldn't allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents." Would you push for that as president?

That's not part of my policy platform as president, and one of the things people should know about about me is that I'm not a standard candidate. I've written three books in the last two years. They're not candidate books. I said that I brought up Thomas Jefferson earlier. I admire him because he was one of the few truly intellectual presidents we've had. And so I like to explore ideas. (19:10) One of the things an 11th grade English teacher, Mrs. Smith, taught me is that you don't really understand what you think unless you can offer the best statement of an alternative view, and so that's what I did in my books. I wrote my book, first book was Woke, Inc. And I often joke, I agree with about 95% of what's in there. (19:26) And so my view is this: What we really need is a 12% flat tax across the board. Ordinary income, capital gain, corporate, flatten it all out. And then here's how we get the money back for the system: End the cronyist deductions, the deductions and the loopholes and the rebates that a lot of corporations, a lot of special interests have lobbied in. It's about $700 billion a year, just the tax compliance costs, just the out-of-pocket costs, not even counting the time you spend, preparing your taxes. Give that back to the people. That's how we actually restore, again, a big part of our economy, grow our economy. That's the way I would do it.

It's probably no surprise to folks here. You're very wealthy. You've made a lot of money in your life.

Self-made.

Do you want your wealth, do you believe it should pass down to your children?

So it's an important question actually, and I want to speak on behalf of both my wife and I. My wife, Apoorva, she wanted to be here today. She's not here because she was treating cancer survivors at Ohio State's Hospital. That's where she's kept her full-time job while we're going through this, and in many cases, our healthcare system, or I should call it our sick care system, is so broken that she doesn't even get paid for many of the procedures she does to improve patients' lives. That works for us because we are in the position that we're in. (20:43) But I'll tell you this, we're spending immense amounts of our family's fortune on this campaign. We didn't inherit our wealth, but that's the inheritance we actually care about giving our kids. It's not a bunch of green pieces of paper. It is the country that allowed us to live the American dream that each of us did. (20:59) My parents came to this country 40 years ago with no money, and yes, in a single generation I have gone on to found multiple multi-billion dollar companies. Did it while marrying Apoorva, who lived her American dream, raising our two sons, following our faith in God. That is the American dream. That's the inheritance we care to give our kids. (21:21) And even if you're just speaking really honestly, and some people hit me for this, but I stand by it, actually. I've gone to college with ... When I went to Harvard, I mean, my dad was working at GE. He faced down layoffs under Jack Welch's tenure. We had a solidly middle class upbringing with some ups and downs along the way. I went to school with kids who were the kids of billionaires. That was new to me. I had never encountered that in my life until I got to Harvard College. (21:44) And I'll tell you something, Abby, it's interesting. Many of them weren't happier for it. To the contrary, I was actually able to follow my hunger and my passion and my ambition maybe even more freely than many of my other fellow peers. I'm grateful to other peers who may not have had access to basic education, but there are also those who don't have basic access to having their own ability to live the American dream because they're encumbered by that inheritance as well. So I'm not one of these guys who fetishizes lavishing children with a bunch of wealth. I want to give them the country that allows them to live the American dream through meritocracy that allowed Apoorva and I to succeed as well.

I want to go back to the audience. We have here Rylee Miller. He's a law student at Drake University and a clerk in the Marion County Attorney's Office. He's a Republican who is currently undecided. Rylee?

Thank you. On the debate stage, you have somewhat abandoned the tact and diplomacy that I would look for in a president. I'm all for keeping it real and dogging the establishment, but there's a gravitas that I look for in those who represent our country. How do you see the balance between keeping it being authentic and maintaining that presidential demeanor?

I appreciate the question. I think it's very candid. This is what I love about Iowa. I get tougher questions from you guys than I do from the media, and that's good. It's why we're here, so I appreciate that. (23:16) Look, here's the standard I use for holding myself to or holding any president to. I want us to be able to look our kids in the eye and tell them that, "I want you to grow up and be like him." It's been a long time since we've held our presidents to that standard. That's the standard I want you to hold me to. That's a high standard. (23:35) Now I think about that in judging the way that I comport myself in different areas. Am I going to tell my kids to go to school and be a bully? No, I'm not. But I'm going to tell them, if somebody bullies you or hits you, you're going to hit them back 10 times harder. And that's the way I'm going to lead this country. You have to be, as we say in our family, you have to be strong enough to protect your kindness. (23:56) So if you watch those debates carefully, I don't engage in four-letter words. I mean, there are other candidates who have called me dumb, scum, and worse that I'm not going to repeat here. I didn't go after them, but if they're going to come after me, I'm not going to be a president, whether it's Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin or anybody else, who's going to roll over. When I'm leading the United States, the same rule applies. If you hit us, we hit you back 10 times harder. But it's not for the sake of being a bully. It's for protecting our inner kindness too. And I think it's important that we have a president that has both of those attributes. (24:26) I've done more podcasts probably than most presidential candidates in history combined, mostly because podcasts are new. I'll admit that. But I will tell you, that's a different setting. And so I believe, I think it's the Book of Ecclesiastes that teaches, and my faith teaches me the same thing, there's a time and place for everything. There's a time and place for fortitude. There's a time and place for justice. There's a time and place for mercy. And I think it's going to take all of those attributes, every last ounce of each of those attributes, to stand for this country, to reunite this country and revive who we are. You don't want a wilting flower in the White House, but you also want somebody who understands what we are fighting for. (25:06) That's the standard I want you to hold us to, we will aspire to hold ourselves to. And I think that sometimes being a parent is what gives me my moral clarity, and I hope through the rest of this campaign, we're just getting warmed up, I hope to be able to earn your trust that, yes, I do have what it takes to tell you the truth. I'm not going to hide the truth from you. If you want someone who's going to speak truth to power, vote for somebody who's going to speak the truth to you, to the Republican Party, do it unvarnished without sugar-coating, and I don't do much sugar-coating, but also somebody who, as you, I believe, want, can stand for the ideals that would make our Founding Fathers proud and would make our children proud as well. Thank you.

Speaking of those debates, let me ask you about something that you said at the debate last week. You used the phrase, "Inside job," to describe what happened on January 6th. The next day, Capitol Rioter Alan Hostetter highlighted your comments at his

... sentencing, he is going to prison for 11 years. Hostetter threatened members of Congress, he brought a hatchet, knives, pepper spray, stun batons, tactical gear to the US Capitol. Are you concerned that a convicted felon like that is now promoting your comments in court?

So here's my concern, Abby, and I want to tell you guys where I'm at. If you had told me, it's close to three years ago that January 6th, 2021 happened, if you had told me three years ago, back when I was a biotech CEO, not steeped in this world, I was just consuming passive media but was focused on my world of developing medicines, if you had told me that January 6th was in any way an inside job, the subject of government entrapment, I would've told you that was crazy talk, fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. (26:48) I could tell you now, having gone somewhat deep in this, it's not. I mean, the reality is this, we do have a government, first of all, we have to acknowledge that has lied to us systematically over the last several years about the origin of COVID-19, about the Hunter Biden laptop that we were told was false by 51 CIA experts and otherwise, before we now know that it was true. You can go straight down the list, the Trump Russia disinformation, collusion hoax, all of it. (27:14) Now we come to January 6th, the reality is we know that there were federal law enforcement agents in that field. We don't know how many. I think it's shameful-

Mr. Ramaswamy-

If I may finish this answer, this is really important, Abby.

Well, let me just ... I'm going to go ahead and interrupt you here because you're saying that there were-

Because I know the establishment doesn't approve of this message. I know this. But we should be able to talk about this.

You're saying that there were federal agents ... you're saying that there were federal agents in the crowd-

This is important to talk about.

You are saying there were federal agents in the crowd on January 6th.

Yes, yeah.

There is no evidence that there were federal agents in the crowd on January 6th.

So why before congressman pressed on what the number was, they didn't say there were none, they just couldn't say how many there were.

So you're saying that you have not seen any evidence that there were, and so you assume that there were?

We've seen multiple informants suggesting that there were. We know people were FBI informants. So we're asking-

Is there any evidence-

May I just finish this and then you can come back and question me.

Let me clarify-

Because I know this is very uncomfortable for you.

I'm going to clarify my question because-

I know this is an uncomfortable issue for many people, but we have to do the truth here.

I'm going to clarify my question because I want to make sure that you understand what I'm asking.

Oh, I understand this deeply. And I told you, I was with you three years ago, I'm not there now.

Where's the evidence ... where's the evidence that the government had applied-

So let's do this.

... an inside job, conspired to foment violence on January 6th-

No, no. I'm not going to tell you what an inside job is because I'm not going to ... with due respect-

Where is the evidence?

I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth. I'm going to put my words in my mouth. And I'm going to tell you what I mean by that.

Where is the evidence that the government was involved in planning or executing January 6th? Where is that evidence?

Entrapment. Entrapment. I'm going to give you hard facts. And if I may, Abby, I know this is going to be a little uncomfortable, but we're going to go through this and you can push back on it after.

Just waiting for the evidence.

And you can push back on that. And let's do this fairly. Why did they suppress footage of now what's been released, 200 hours of footage of shooting rubber bullets into that crowd, shooting tear gas into that crowd. You didn't see that before. You saw what the response was to that. Now you see footage coming out of actually rolling out the red carpet for Capitol Police allowing people in right through the front door.

Mr. Ramaswamy, again, the vast majority of that footage shows-

I mean, that new evidence should have have been released before, Abby.

Mr. Ramaswamy, the vast majority of the footage shows police officers being overrun by violent rioters.

That evidence should have been released before. And my deeper question is this. And I want to talk about one more case, this is really important. I'm going to give you some hard facts.

That what's the vast majority of it shows.

So here's what entrapment is.

You can't cherry pick.

I'm not cherry picking. Let me finish, Abby.

You cannot cherry pick examples.

Let me finish, Abby, I'm not cherry picking. To the contrary, to the contrary.

You cannot cherry pick examples and say that that is what happened on January 6th.

You know who cherry picked? You know who cherry picked? The government did. The government cherry picked 12 hours of footage when there was 200 hours of footage. Cherry picking was the government, not me. Release the whole thing. And let just finish one thing too, because this is super important as a topic. (29:36) I think there's a civil libertarian issue of our time. Gretchen Whitmer's kidnapping. I want to be really clear on this. Because it's the same issue and the same FBI, same even part of the FBI. Three people who were in an alleged plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer were acquitted at the end of trial because it was entrapment. That is government agents put them up to do something they otherwise wouldn't have done. They gave them credit cards with spending limits of up to $5,000, encouraged them to buy munitions, plan something they weren't otherwise willing to plan. (30:06) So much so, and I want people at home to know this, especially CNN viewers to know this, is that one of the jurors went to those defendants and apologized afterwards, gave him a hug, apologized seeing what the government had put a poor guy up to, who had to go to some Mexican restaurant across the street to get hot water. These people were exploited with credit cards up to $5,000. FBI agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true but was entrapment. (30:32) Same thing with the Capitol Police, people letting them in freely. Many of those people then being charged.

Mr. Ramaswamy. Mr. Ramaswamy. Look-

The government cannot put you up to do something and then charge you for it. That's wrong.

Mr. Ramaswamy, look, I don't want to have to interrupt you. I really don't. But I don't want you to mislead the audience here or at home. 14-

I'm not, Abby, I think they've been misled on mainstream media.

14 people.

The mainstream media has misled them. Release the video footage.

14 people were charged in that plot. A majority of them were convicted.

I said three of them were acquitted on grounds of entrapment. That's a fact. Dispute me, was I wrong about that?

What folks need to understand-

Was I wrong about what I said? I was not.

What folks need to understand is that-

Three people were acquitted on grounds of entrapment.

Nine were convicted.

A juror apologized. But the three who were put up should never have got to that stage of a trial.

But going back to the January 6th-

That's unacceptable in the United States.

Look, I just want people to understand, three people were acquitted, nine people were convicted in that plot. But let me get back to our audience here. Let's bring in Joe Frommelt, he's from Des Moines.

Thank you.

He's a student at Drake and he's a Republican who says that he supports whoever wins the nomination. Joe?

Man, thank you, I love seeing him get fired up.

Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you, man. I see you're a basketball player. I've been playing tennis with some Drake tennis players, they got some good players over there.

Oh yeah, some of my boys play there, so that's awesome. Yeah. The biggest question about your legitimacy as a candidate has been your age. As a 22-year-old college kid, I love the idea of having younger candidates in office, but how has this been a challenge for you?

Yeah, look, it's been a big challenge. I mean, frankly, most caucus goers are three, four times your age. Let's be real about that. And I want people like you to come out to the caucus. And we're going to college campuses for that reason. One of the things I want people to understand, what I see when I go to college campuses, I think actually many Republican candidates are scared of facing off with your generation actually. Some of them hit me for being on TikTok because it reaches you all. (32:23) I think we should be reaching out to young voters. What I see isn't a base of young voters who's against our shared values. I see a lot of peers in your generation and our generation that are lost, hungry for direction, right? The left will prey on that vacuum with race, gender, sexuality, climate. I'm not going to blame them, I'm going to blame the Republican Party. We've gotten lazy just criticizing that vision without offering our own vision. Individual, family, nation, God, yes, I said the G word. That beats race, gender, sexuality, and climate if we have the courage to actually stand for something. (33:05) And so I believe that your generation, I believe that we're at a tipping point. And there's a reason ... I've talked about Thomas Jefferson, he was 33 when he wrote the Declaration. He also invented the swivel chair while he was at it. Think about that founding spirit. We're the pioneers, we're the explorers in this country, the unafraid, the people who nobody and no government dares to stop. That's who we are as Americans. Our pursuit of excellence, that's what makes us American. (33:31) And I think it's going to take somebody in your generation, somebody whose best days in life are still yet ahead, to see a country whose best days are still ahead of itself. And I hope that's the case for me. I don't take every day for granted. Every day we wake up is a new blessing. And I'll leave it at that. I don't take tomorrow for granted. But I hope my best days are still ahead of me. (33:58) And I think as a leader, I reject this narrative that we have to be that nation in decline, that we have to be Ancient Rome. What's your name again, sir?

Joe.

Joe, I think our nation, like you, is actually a little young. Going through our own version of adolescence, figuring out who we're going to be when we grow up. And when you view it that way, it all makes sense again, to me it does. You go through that identity crisis, you lose your way a little bit. I don't know about you, but I did some stupid things, right? But we're stronger for it when we get to our adulthood on the other side. (34:43) So no, I don't think we have to be that nation in decline. And tell the people in your class the same thing. We can still be a nation in our ascent. If the people of the last 25 years got us to where we are, maybe we try something a little different. Somebody with fresh legs. Somebody maybe the age that our founding fathers were when they signed that Declaration. And I think we live in a 1776 moment. Let's give that a try and see what happens. Thank you.

All right, we've got much more ahead. We'll be right back with more from presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. (35:13) Welcome back to Iowa and CNN's Town Hall with Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Let's turn to Ginny Mitchell. She is an entomologist at Iowa State University from Boone, Iowa. She is a Republican who is currently undecided. Jenny?

Thank you. Thanks for being here and thanks for coming to Iowa so much, we appreciate your visits. So freedom of religion is a part of our constitution and obviously a huge part of our country. What do you say to those who say that you cannot be our president because your religion is not what our founding fathers based our country on?

I would say that I respectfully disagree. And I want people to understand this about me. I would rather speak the truth and lose an election than to win by playing some political snakes and ladders. I mean, if I wanted to map out my political career and really solve for that, I could fake convert. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to tell you about my faith. I'm Hindu. (36:22) Now I went to Christian schools. I went to St. Xavier in Cincinnati. And I actually have been on the board of St. X, except for a hiatus to run for president. And I can tell you with confidence that we share the same value set in common. I'll tell you about my faith. My faith teaches me that God puts each of us here for a purpose. That we have a moral duty to realize that purpose. That God works through us in different ways. But we're still equal because God resides in each of us. (36:56) Now, I had what you would call not a traditional upbringing, but probably a very traditional upbringing, right? My parents taught me family's the foundation, marriage is sacred, divorce isn't some option you just prefer off a menu when things don't go your way. Abstinence before marriage is the way to go, adultery is wrong. That the good things in life involve a sacrifice. Now are those foreign values in this country? I know it could look that way at times. You turn on the television, go to the movie theater, your local DEI training at a company or what they're teaching your kids in schools, that could seem a little unfamiliar. I don't think it's unfamiliar to most of us. I think those are the same Judeo-Christian values that I learned at St X. When we get to the 10 Commandments, what do they say? There's one true God, don't take his name in vain, observe the Sabbath, respect your parents, don't kill, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't commit adulterate, don't covet. That's when it hit me. We share the same value set in common. (37:59) There's another core teaching in my faith, which is that we don't get to choose who God works through. God chooses who God works through. So we get to the Old Testament, a little bit further along, we get to the Book of Isaiah. I don't know if many of you're familiar with that one. God chose Cyrus, a Gentile all the way in Persia, to lead the Jewish people back to the promised land. (38:26) And so yes, I believe God put us here for a purpose. My faith is what leads me on this journey to run for president. My gratitude to this country is what leads me. And even when we think about the founding fathers, I'm a fan of history. Okay. I talked about Thomas Jefferson earlier, we'll stick to Thomas Jefferson. He was a deist actually. Let's be honest about it, because the left wants to rewrite our history and tell you he was a slave owner, an evil man. No, I reject that. But we're not going to have anybody rewriting our history. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He made the Jefferson Bible. You know how he did it? He didn't believe in all the parts of the New Testament, but he took a blade,

... razor blade by hand, glued it together. And that made the Jefferson Bible, which we have today. John Adams wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson, actually became something of a Hindu scholar after he left. And so I think it's important to see our founding fathers three-dimensionally, not the way that they've been rewritten post-1990 either. (39:17) And so yes, would I be the best president to spread Christianity through this country? I would not. I'd be not the best choice for that. But I also don't think that that's the job of the US president. But will I stand for the Judeo-Christian values that this nation was founded on, that I was raised in even in the Hindu faith? Yes, I will. You're darn right I will. And as a young person, picking up on that strand from earlier, I think it's my responsibility to make faith and patriotism and family and hard work cool again in this country. I think they're pretty cool, and I think that's my job as your next president. And back to the First Amendment, we will stand for religious liberty in a way that neither Republicans nor Democrats actually have. That's what the First Amendment says, you get to practice your faith, every pastor in this country gets to do his job without the government getting in their way. That's what I'm going to keep [inaudible 00:40:11]. Thank you.

Let me ask you about a little bit of news. The Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case this term that could potentially restrict access nationwide to a widely used abortion drug called Mifepristone. You oppose abortion, but do you believe that the court should limit the distribution of this drug nationwide?

So I think this is a question, it's the job of the Supreme Court, who would've ever thought, to judge the law. This is a case about administrative law, actually. This is less about the abortion question and it's more about, did the FDA exceed the scope of its statutory authority when it approved Mifepristone on an emergency basis? And these emergency approvals are generally reserved for lifesaving therapies that need to be brought to market quickly. (40:59) So this is a symptom, Abby, of what's going on in the administrative state. The people who we elect to run the government, they're not even the ones who actually run the government right now. It's the bureaucrats in those three-letter agencies that are pulling the strings today. So the most important Supreme Court case of our lifetime, and I want people to understand this, came out last term, it's West Virginia versus EPA. That said, if Congress did not expressly give an agency the right to write a regulation, then that's unconstitutional. (41:28) And so it is my opinion, it's the Supreme Court's that'll matter, but I'm pretty sure they're going to come down where I am on this, that the FDA exceeded its statutory authority in using an emergency approval to approve something that doesn't fit Congress's criteria for what actually counts as an emergency approval. So yes, I hope they follow the law. I hope that's where they come down. And if the people of this country disagree with that, we have a mechanism for that. It's called the Democratic process, do it through the front door of Congress. And there's one thing I'm going to do as the next president, it's to shut down that fourth branch of government, rescind those unconstitutional federal regulations that Congress never actually passed, and yes, lay off seventy-five percent of the federal employee headcount, that's the answer.

I want to get to our question, but just before we do that, just so that everyone is clear, you do believe that the Supreme Court should ban Mifepristone?

I believe that the Supreme Court should put the FDA back in its place, that's-

But as it relates to this particular-

... the question that's before the court.

But as it relates to this-

I believe they should rule on the law.

As it relates to this particular drug do you believe-

And as it relates to this particular drug.

... that that will ultimately result in Mifepristone being banned nationwide, that that's the correct [inaudible 00:42:33]?

I believe it will result in Mifepristone being taken off the market until they go through the process that's ordained for every other drug that doesn't go through emergency approval. The FDA should follow the law if the rest of us do too. It's a simple thing to ask.

I do want to go to our audience again. We've got Claire Muselman here waiting to ask a question. She's a professor at Drake University who teaches in the College of Business and Education. She's a Republican from West Des Moines, who is undecided. Claire.

Thank you, Abby. Thank you also for spending time with our students at Drake. As a professor, I think it's super important that we get that opportunity, so thank you for spending time with them. As president, what specific strategies would you implement to promote diversity and inclusion in leadership roles within both public and private sectors? How do you plan to support the advancement of underrepresented groups, including women in these areas?

So I'll be very honest with you, I'm going to share with you a Thomas Sowell quote that stuck with me, "If you care about somebody, you tell them the truth, or at least what you believe. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." And I have a feeling I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear on this one. (43:36) So I think the diversity, equity, inclusion agenda has been abused. In the name of diversity we have, at many of our universities, totally sacrificed diversity of thought. In the name of equity we've perpetuated a lot of inequity and inequality of opportunity through affirmative action and otherwise. In the name of inclusion, we've created a new culture of exclusion where certain points of view aren't welcome. (43:58) So especially in a university setting, what do I care about? Diversity of viewpoint. This is important, actually. I think diversity of viewpoint is part of what this country was built on. Well, the best way to foster diversity of viewpoint is to screen candidates for the diversity of their views, actually. [inaudible 00:44:16] look at the board members of many universities, you're going to go through their partisan affiliation. It's not 80/20, it's going to be 90/10 in the other direction. That's completely at odds with the representation of this country. (44:25) So do I value diversity of viewpoint? Absolutely. Do I think we're doing a good job of that? No, we're not. And it's not an accident. In the name of diversity, we've actually created a new culture of conformity. And so I think it's entirely possible to have a group of 10 people who look similar to one another who have different views. I think it's entirely possible to have a group of 10 people who look different from one another or who look the same as one another, but have different views or look different from one another and have the same views. And so I think the best way to screen candidates for the diversity of their experiences is to actually ask them about the diversity of their experiences. (44:58) And I think the use of these racial and gender quota systems, I think have actually created a new form of racism in the United States that otherwise would not have existed. It's sad to me. I mean, I've hired, not because I was thinking about it consciously, plenty of Black women in different positions of authority in this campaign or other companies or whatever. And I can tell you it saddens me when people look at somebody who I hired on the basis of merit and say that they only got that job because of their race or gender, that doesn't do anybody a favor. And so I think if we restore true meritocracy in this country and embrace true diversity of thought, chances are we're actually going to have a bunch of different shades of melanin and a range of genders in different positions. But let it be not the goal, let it just be a byproduct of actually selecting for people who are the best person for the job, and especially in a university setting, diversity viewpoints as well. That's what I'll say.

And that's a good place for us to pause. We'll be right back with more from presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Welcome back to CNN's Town Hall with presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Let's go straight to the audience. We've got Rhonda McCoy here. She's a retired French professor from West Des Moines. Rhonda is a Republican who is undecided in this primary. Rhonda.

Good evening. Thank you for being here.

[foreign language 00:46:24].

What is the most important or interesting thing you've learned about Iowans during your travel through the state?

I've learned a lot. I think one thing I share in common with Iowans is a level of candor, actually. Everybody told me about Iowa nice. That's what I was told before I came here. What I've actually found is Iowa candor, and I appreciate that because that's the true form of nice. (46:51) This is the 10th event we're doing today, actually. So we've done 10 events like this across the state. And I found that people appreciate that, we're visiting... They call it the full Grassley, it's all 99 counties. We're doing that times too, actually, in this year period. And it doesn't feel like work to me, actually. It feels like we're having open conversations. I find that they don't appreciate pre-canned speeches, so I've mostly dispensed with that. Or if I'm going to do it, I'll keep it to two to five minutes. I find that they actually appreciate and relish open conversation and candor. I think that's one of the things that surprised me most. (47:26) The other thing that I think that surprised me was, somebody told me this, we ran the Des Moines Turkey trot, we were here on Thanksgiving. And as I was running somebody wished me good luck. And then she said, "But you know how to spell luck, right?" And this is an expression I had learned from my parents a long time ago. She says, "You spell it W-O-R-K." And I said, "You know what? That sounds like something that my parents taught me when I was little." But I think that that's also something that I found amongst Iowans is they value people who work hard because many of you do do work hard. A culture of farmers, a culture of people who are business builders across the state. And I think that's something that we would do well to make a national value in this country again, embrace hard work, give us back our sense of purpose. That's how we revive this country. Thank you.

All right. Well, a big thank you to our audience and thank you to Mr. Ramaswamy. Thank you to our hosts here at Grand View University. Kaitlan Collins is up next.

Thank you guys, I appreciate it.

Good evening. I'm Kaitlan Collins here in New York. You have been watching a live CNN Town Hall...