Oh, that was so good. Best one yet.

All right. Before I check to see if Representative Matt Gaetz has joined us as a guest, I have to do a little technical thing to add him on. Before that, I wanted to give you a little background about why I want to talk to him in particular. I have long pointed out that the two best communicators, the most persuasive people on both sides of the political aisle who are not President Trump, who sort of stands alone as probably the greatest communicator we've ever had as president, not probably, definitely the best communicator. But of the younger generation, I would say that AOC is the best communicator on the left, and Matt Gaetz is by far the best communicator in the GOP. And that's what interests us here when we talk about persuasion and communication, especially in politics.

Let me give you two examples. Example number one: you all know about the controversy of Katie Hill and her private photographs that were published, and she had some interesting personal life. We don't need to get into it. I'm only aware of one Republican politician, maybe there were more, but I'm only aware of one who decided to tweet a supportive tweet about Katie Hill, basically saying maybe this isn't really the issue that we should be jumping on. And if you think about it, he took a position against revenge porn, and it was so easy. Shouldn't everybody have taken that position? But why didn't everybody do it? Just Matt Gaetz, because he's the one who saw some free money sitting on the ground. It's not only the high road, it's exactly the opinion I agree with, but it was just there and he got it, and everybody else just walked right past it.

But there's even a better one. Today, and I'll add Matt Gaetz in a minute. Is he ready yet? Yeah, he's ready to come on. I'm gonna add you right now, Matt Gaetz. And in one moment we should be able to hear you. Representative Gaetz, let me know when you've got audio on your side. Can you hear me yet? Our technology is cooking away. You know, it's the only thing you can't rely on. This morning I got up and I didn't have Wi-Fi because probably the power was out somewhere in the state.

All right, it looks like that connection is still cooking. And while that's doing that, let me complete... Representative Gaetz, you good? You're on. I was just gonna give you one more compliment on your excellent Alyssa Milano tweet. Those who didn't see it: so yesterday Alyssa Milano sort of gently mocked you by saying, aren't you that fringe right Republican who supports weed and LGBTQ rights? And now you're telling me you've acted in two TV shows, referring to an earlier tweet of yours. You're one of those out-of-touch Hollywood elite snowflakes. So she makes this gentle kind of mocking tweet, and your response to it was one of the best things I've seen. You said, we'll always have marijuana reform and LGBTQ rights, Alyssa. So what I love about this is Alyssa Milano has 3.7 million followers, probably almost all on the left, who you just reached. You just agreed with them on two of their biggest issues, and they never would have heard of you or known that you supported that if you had not responded cleverly to her tweet. This is why you, this has many other reasons, why you're the best communicator in the GOP.

Now, of course you're also famous lately for leading the protest against the secret SCIF situation. I have to ask you this question. Privately, when you talk to Democrats about impeachment, because you must have friends or Democrats that you just chat with casually, do they ever laugh at how ridiculous the impeachment process is?

Yes, I think there are a lot of Democrats who could no longer defend it. Remember, Scott, it was two weeks ago Nancy Pelosi said that the concept of having a vote was just a Republican talking point. Then last week we ripened these issues of due process. And now this week Nancy Pelosi is holding a vote on an impeachment inquiry. So I think she's doing that because of the feedback from her members that they could no longer defend a process that had no rules, no boundaries, no guardrails.

Now, it's almost like there are two impeachment processes going on. There's one for the people like you who understand all the ins and outs and the details, but then there's the public who really is completely lost in the details. And it looks to me like the Dems are playing this long con game in which they're trying to generate a lot of smoke, this artificial smoke, which will make the public think, well, I don't understand the issue, but with all that smoke and all these votes and all these meetings and SCIFs, there must be some substance there. Does it look like just a long con to you?

It does. It looks like a long con sort of constructed by means of nanotechnology, because you've got Democrats trying to take a policy disagreement about how to deal with Ukraine and Russia, then reshape and reorient the molecules into some sort of impeachable offense. But what you really have happening here is a lot of folks in the diplomatic corps who grew up in this post-Cold War era where everything had to be about standing up against Russia, that Russia was this great malign actor, and that the only way to deal with them was through deterrence, through strengthening Ukraine. And there are a lot of people still in our government like Ambassador Taylor, like others, who believe that this is the only acceptable principle.

Now Donald Trump ran on a different ideology, that we could actually work with Russia where we had aligned interests, and that could reduce the need for the United States to have military presence everywhere in the world. And frankly you see that starting to work out in Syria and in Turkey, where Russia is assisting in efforts to try to reduce some of the violence. But nonetheless, whether you agree with the president or not, a policy disagreement about Russia and Ukraine is not the basis for impeachment. And so you've got a lot of these diplomatic corps, career swamp-adjacent people who are trying to fashion their disagreement into a reason to undermine democracy. And I think that is the fundamental point we've got to make to the American people.

Now there's a persuasion trick that the Democrats are using, and so far I have not seen anybody on the GOP respond to it in a way I think is right. The thing that they continued to do, and the pundits on their side do as well, is they refer to the Ukraine phone call as, quote, digging for dirt on an opponent. And then you saw that Colonel Vindman testified that he didn't think the phone call was appropriate, and he said it had nothing to do with national security. And I'm watching this whole thing and I'm saying to myself, if you've got a presidential candidate, Biden, who's leading in the polls to be the next president of the United States, and there is some legitimate information in the public that there might be some conflict of interest, something to look into, and the president of the United States looks into it, isn't that exactly his job? The president's job to make sure there's no potential for blackmail or foreign interference. And isn't he doing something that's also his top priority, which is protecting the election? Because if Biden got in and if he had some ties, that would be a big problem, not only with Ukraine but probably Russia would know what's going on. Why is it that the GOP is not framing it as actually doing his job and a top priority?

I think it's been hard for Republicans to centralize a message on this Ukraine sequel to the Russia hoax because we don't have the benefit of open hearings that create the platform for us to all observe the facts and then get on the same page. In a way, you have to tip your hat to the Democrats. Their strategy of holding secret hearings, leaking prepared opening statements, and then requiring us, you know, four or five, six hours later when we have a good point in cross-examination to try to explain that to people within the confines of the rules, it really gives them a natural advantage.

And I think the way you described it would be more effective if, one, there was a court in Ukraine that ruled that there was Ukrainian election interference in the United States when it came to the disclosure of Manafort information, well timed in a way to best help Hillary Clinton. Second point is that not only is that generally the president's job to make sure that we're not doling out cash or military assistance to people who aren't using it correctly or who may be engaged in corruption. Corruption as to Ukraine, there is a specific element of the National Defense Authorization Act that requires the president to certify that before any aid is given to Ukraine that it will not be subject to any corruption and that it will actually be used for its intended purpose. And so time and again you have the reinforcement that this is the president's job. And I think that the more that we point out that the president was legitimate in his thinking that maybe the son of the vice president shouldn't be out shaking people down for money and it is for access, you know, that's a dog that will probably hunt with working people.

And so this leads me perfectly to your protest. Some people are calling it a stunt because that's what the other side says when you do something that works. It's a stunt. And you turned this concept, this vague concept that there was an unfair process that the public wasn't quite understanding, what's unfair about it, why is it different? But when you did the protest, you turned that into a visual and you owned the headlines. And I'm wondering, did you get any pushback from the Republicans when I assume you first suggested this? Did anybody say, no, no, don't do this? Or were they completely on board?

Well Scott, I don't think it'll surprise you or your viewers to know that I am not the most popular person in the Republican conference. I'm not going to win many Mr. Congeniality contests in my own conference because I push my conference. I often think we don't take the bat off our shoulder enough when dealing with the radical left. More broadly, I think that on the right we have accepted this notion that we can win the battle of ideas but lose the fight for the soul of the country with the left because they fight a lot harder than we do. And so I challenged my colleagues to be a part of this visual. Always in Washington people are complaining about process. The right does it, the left does it, and it all becomes white noise. I thought we needed to show the American people that this was something happening down a staircase in a basement behind locked double doors with red signs on them. And that when members of Congress went in, we were either gonna get in or the American people were gonna see 50, 60 members of Congress representing millions of Americans pounding on a door to try to find out what was going on. And in either of those cases I thought it would elevate these due process arguments beyond the normal tit-for-tat in Washington. And it's hard to argue with its effectiveness. It was unorthodox, admittedly, but you know just last week Nancy Pelosi was continuing to have a process where they made the rules up as they went along. Now they're at least trying to create some sense of order with how they're organizing the remainder of their impeachment strategy. But it's noteworthy, Scott, that they've got Adam Schiff doing this instead of the Judiciary Committee, because Jim Jordan and myself and a few others on the Judiciary Committee worked him silly when they had the Mueller hearings, when they had the Lewandowski hearings. Remember that crazy day where they brought in John Dean like the ghost of Christmas past to talk about what life was like in the 70s with Richard Nixon? I mean, think about that.

So Matt, we're having a little bit of audio problem on your side. I'm not sure if you can still hear me. You're kind of cutting in and out. Let me ask a new question and see if our audio clears up. And in the meantime, so first of all I want to point out the reason that I call out Representative Matt Gaetz as one of the best communicators. As you saw, he described this SCIF in such visual language that he took a concept, turned it into a room, and gave you the details in the room. That is pure Trump-level persuasion, to take a concept like border security and turn it into the wall. I mean, when you see anybody doing that, you know you're dealing with somebody who knows how to communicate on a completely different level.

Let me ask you about climate change and nuclear. Where are you on climate change? Is it real? Is it a hoax? What's your basic idea? And then I want to ask you about nuclear energy.

Sure. I believe that the earth is warming. I believe that humans contribute to it. Accepting those two premises would necessitate an adherence to the left.

Yeah, we have a little bit of audio problems here. By the way, we always wonder if the social... All right, we're having a breakdown of audio here. I can tell you that my... Yeah, I can hear you. You're cutting out a little bit, but we always suspect that the platform is intentionally muting some voices that are important. So it could be a coincidence. Could be. But so you are pro-nuclear because the nuclear solution is the only practical smart thing to do. But would you agree we should also be pushing solar and other green energies at the same time?

Oops, I lost you. Let's see if I can add you back. No, possibly not. Try it one more time. There you are. Well, I had you back. See if that works. Are you back?

Yes. So I think we lost you when you were saying you did think the earth is warming but that the solutions were maybe not optimal and maybe they should include nuclear. Did I summarize that right?

You did, Scott. I don't believe that the answer to climate change is to unilaterally disarm the American economy and ship overseas every pollution-causing job. I think that the better answer is to have a more inclusive technology doctrine in our country that would include way more nuclear, way more hydropower, way more solar. And the best way to achieve that is not by turning the government into a venture capitalist but instead limiting some of the regulations that impair nuclear access and hydro access, and then having the right trade policies and intellectual property policies so that American solar dominates like we used to and we don't get ripped off by China.

Now, do you know offhand, I'm not sure if you would know this, but do you know if President Trump has ever had a private conversation with Bill Gates to get up to speed on just how good the opportunity is for Generation IV nuclear that doesn't melt down and also eats other nuclear waste for its fuel? Does the president understand that we're right on the cusp of nuclear going from something that was designed by literally slide rules in this country to supercomputers, and it's really not the same technology fundamentally? Does he understand that, do you think?

I'm sorry, Scott, can you rephrase that? I lost you a second there.

Oh, do you think the president understands what Bill Gates would tell him if he talked to him in person, that the new generation of nuclear is not only designed to be safe from meltdown by design, it can't melt down, but also some designs can eat nuclear waste that exists, therefore decreasing the amount of nuclear waste in the world? Do you think the president's up to speed on just how good the opportunity is?

Oh, I lost him again. This is just... Those of you who have watched me before know that we've never had this much trouble on a call. And to imagine that this is a coincidence is a stretch.

All right, it looks like we're not going to be able to get him back. But Representative Gaetz, thank you very much. I know actually that you needed to go just about now anyway, so thank you for spending time with us. Much appreciated.

The final thing I wanted to say when we got cut off is just to make sure that President Trump is up to speed on the new developments with nuclear energy, Generation IV in particular, because I think he could be a great advocate for it. And also the issue of climate change. He doesn't need to decide if it's real or a hoax because nuclear energy would be the right solution under every scenario. And I hope that message gets to him.